{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Šelih & Partnerji Law Firm"]
[]
[]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien","index":1,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","Slovenia"]
["Attorney-Client/Solicitor-Client Privilege (ACP)"]
["Is the ACP recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes\n"]
["If the ACP is not recognized in your jurisdiction, are there rules of professional confidentiality or other rules that would enable a lawyer or a client to withhold attorney-client communications or work product prepared by counsel from disclosure in a civil proceeding?\n\nNote: This question is directed primarily to civil law jurisdictions that do not recognize common law jurisdictions’ privilege doctrines.","N/A\n"]
["Is a distinction made in applying the ACP or professional confidentiality rules in civil and criminal proceedings? May government authorities require disclosure of attorney-client communications and legal work product?","Yes, there is a distinction. In civil proceedings, the witness may refuse to testify about what the client has entrusted to him/her as his/her counsel. On the other hand, in criminal proceedings, the defendant's counsel must not be heard as a witness about what the defendant entrusted to him/her as his/her advocate, unless the defendant requests it. \n\n\nGovernment authorities may require disclosure of attorney-client communications and legal work product very exceptionally. Such a request is subjected to a proportionality test and is admissible only when it is necessary for the initiation or course of criminal proceedings or for the security of the State. However, such exceptions are never admissible in cases of an advocate of the person against whom the pre-trial or criminal proceedings are being conducted, regarding information relating to the confidential relationship between the lawyer as advocate and the accused person (with the exception when the advocate himself is suspected or charged with complicity in the crime being investigated).\n\n\n \n"]
["In the corporate context, what test is applied to determine who within a corporation is considered the client for the purposes of the ACP?  (e.g., in the U.S.: the Upjohn approach, control group test, etc.)","There is no specific test. Confidentiality applies to all individuals within the corporation who communicate with the attorney in the name of the corporation.\n"]
["Is in-house counsel expected to meet a higher burden than outside counsel in order to establish that privilege applies to in-house counsel’s communications?","No, but additional confidentiality provisions may be prescribed to an in-house counsel with internal rules.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: May in-house counsel assert privilege or professional confidentiality?","Yes, if considered as an authorized representative under applicable legislation.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: Is in-house counsel allowed to be active members of your jurisdiction’s bar?","No\n"]
["Is the common interest doctrine recognized in your jurisdiction?","No\n"]
["How is the doctrine articulated in your jurisdiction?","N/A\n"]
["Must a common interest agreement be in writing?","N/A\n"]
["Is litigation funding permitted in your jurisdiction?  Are there any professional rules in this respect?","Yes, litigation funding is permitted. The only professional rules in this respect are the ones governing collective actions set forth in the Slovenian Collective Actions Act.\n"]
["Have the courts in your jurisdiction addressed whether communications with litigation funders may be protected by the ACP or the work-product protection","No\n"]
["Is the crime-fraud exception recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes (see the answer to \n\"Is a distinction made in applying the ACP or professional confidentiality rules in civil and criminal proceedings? May government authorities require disclosure of attorney-client communications and legal work product?\")\n"]
["What statutes or key court decisions articulate the crime-fraud exception in your jurisdiction?","Article 8 of the Slovenian Attorneys Act provides for a possibility that attorney’s premises (including relevant documents) are investigated. The most key court decision is the decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court, case number U-I-115/14, Up-218/14 dated January 21, 2016.\n"]
["Work Product Doctrine/Litigation Privilege (doctrine that protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial)"]
["Is there a statute or rule that protects information obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure in legal proceedings?  (In the U.S.:  What state rule is your jurisdiction’s analog to FRCP 26(b)(3)?)","No\n"]
["What are the elements of the protection in your jurisdiction?","N/A\n"]
["Other Privileges"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize an accountant-client privilege?","Yes\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a mediation privilege?","Yes\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a settlement negotiation privilege?","Yes\n"]