Recent events in Chile have brought attorney-client privilege into sharp focus, particularly regarding the boundaries between professional secrecy and the public's right to information about potential activities that are contrary to public interest.
A notable controversy emerged in 2024 when the Chilean Bar Association formally challenged investigative newspaper CIPER for publishing internal communications from mining company Quiborax. These emails, obtained through a 2022 leak by the hacker group Guacamaya, included correspondence from the company's in-house legal counsel and allegedly revealed plans to circumvent environmental protections at the Salar de Surire, a protected natural monument.
The Chilean Bar Association argued that all communications between lawyers and their clients or employers fall under privilege, regardless of whether the lawyer works independently or as an employee. It asserted that this privilege "stands as a limit to the legal possibilities of informing the public in the exercise of press freedom." In response, CIPER defended its publication, maintaining that when attorney-client communications reveal potential violations of the law affecting the public interest, journalistic duty to inform society must prevail.
This debate has gained particular significance as it coincides with another high-profile case involving Attorney Luis Hermosilla, whose WhatsApp messages are currently in prosecutors' hands. A recorded meeting was leaked in 2023 in which Hermosilla and other lawyers discussed illegal activities performed by their clients and themselves. This led to a criminal investigation of Hermosilla that has unveiled a wide range of potentially illicit activities of Hermosilla himself and his clients. Through 2024 to early 2025, Hermosilla's WhatsApp messages have shown several potentially illegal activities that have affected public servants, former clients and even Supreme Court judges. Regarding this case, CIPER affirmed that the leak that made Hermosilla's activities public knowledge would not have been possible under the Chilean Bar Association's position.
The broader discussion centers on whether communications that may reveal illegal activities should remain protected by attorney-client privilege, with some arguing that accepting absolute privilege would severely limit press freedom and enable impunity for wrongdoing planned or discussed in attorney-client conversations. These cases highlight an ongoing tension in Chile between protecting the confidentiality essential to effective legal representation and ensuring transparency when privileged communications may evidence violations of public trust, environmental regulations or even illicit activities.