Professional communications
Legal professional privilege. An advocate may not disclose his client’s communications, the documents he saw, or the advice he gave — without the client’s express consent. The duty survives the engagement and binds his staff — but it does not cover things done to further a crime or fraud.
How to read Section 132
What passes between a client and his advocate stays sealed — unless the client consents — except where it is used to further a crime or fraud.
An advocate may not disclose his client’s communications, the documents he saw, or the advice he gave — unless the client expressly consents.
The duty continues even after the engagement ends, and binds his interpreters, clerks and employees too.
It does not protect a communication made to further an illegal purpose, or a fact the advocate observes showing a crime or fraud since the service began.
The bare Act
The section in its own words — the rule, a proviso, sub-section (2), an Explanation, three illustrations, and sub-section (3).
(1) No advocate, shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his service as such advocate, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional service, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such service:
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure of—
(a) any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose;
(b) any fact observed by any advocate, in the course of his service as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his service.
(2) It is immaterial whether the attention of such advocate referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1), was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client.
Explanation.—The obligation stated in this section continues after the professional service has ceased.
(a) A, a client, says to B, an advocate— “I have committed forgery, and I wish you to defend me”. As the defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is protected from disclosure.
(b) A, a client, says to B, an advocate— “I wish to obtain possession of property by the use of a forged deed on which I request you to sue”. This communication, being made in furtherance of a criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure.
(c) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an advocate, to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entry has been made in A’s account book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his professional service. This being a fact observed by B in the course of his service, showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure.
(3) The provisions of this section shall apply to interpreters, and the clerks or employees of advocates.
In short: this is legal professional privilege — the confidence at the heart of the lawyer–client relationship. Without the client’s express consent, an advocate may not disclose three things that arise in the course and for the purpose of his service: the communications his client made to him, the contents or condition of documents he saw, and the advice he gave. Two features widen it: the obligation continues after the engagement has ceased (the Explanation), and it binds not just the advocate but his interpreters, clerks and employees (sub-section (3)). But the privilege is not a cloak for wrongdoing. The proviso lifts it for a communication made in furtherance of an illegal purpose, and for a fact the advocate observes showing that a crime or fraud has been committed since his service began — and, by sub-section (2), it makes no difference whether the client drew the advocate’s attention to that fact. The illustrations mark the line: confessing past guilt to obtain a defence is protected (a); enlisting the lawyer to further a fraud is not (b); and a fabricated account entry the advocate notices during the case is not (c).
→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 126 — the privilege for professional communications with a legal adviser.
Glossary
The legal practitioner engaged by the client — the privilege also binds his interpreters, clerks and employees (sub-s (3)).
The client’s clear, positive permission — the only key that unlocks the privilege.
The communication, document or advice must arise from the professional engagement.
The three things protected: what the client told him, documents he saw, and the advice he gave.
A communication meant to advance a crime or fraud — never protected.
A wrong the advocate observes being committed during the engagement — not protected.
The picture
The client’s confidences are sealed — three heads of protection, one key, and a crime-fraud limit.
The section, part by part
Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.
the sealThree things sealed — unlocked only by the client’s express consent
the limitNo cloak for wrongdoing — the crime-fraud exception
Connected provisions
Information as to commission of offences
The previous privilege — the source of information about offences.
Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence
Testifying, or even calling the advocate, does not waive § 132 — only questioning him on the protected matters does.
Interpreters, clerks & staff
The same seal binds an advocate’s interpreters and the clerks or employees who assist him.
IEA 1872, § 126
Carried forward — the privilege for professional communications with a legal adviser.