{"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,"ABNR Counsellors At Law","Emir Nurmansyah"]
[]
[]
[]
["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","Indonesia"]
["Attorney-Client/Solicitor-Client Privilege (ACP)"]
["Is the ACP recognized in your jurisdiction?","ACP is recognized in Indonesia's jurisdiction although it is not per se within the context of testimonial privilege. Professional confidentiality is stipulated in the \nAdvocates Law (Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates) and the \nIndonesian Advocates Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics), and it can be overridden by other prevailing laws and regulations if the condition requires.  \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.","Note: Under Indonesian law, any person qualified to render professional legal services in or out of court is termed an Advocate.\nThe \nAdvocates Law and \nCode of Ethics stipulate that an advocate must keep confidential all information obtained from a client, even after termination of the representation of the client (Article 19 (1) of \nAdvocates Law, and Article 4 (h) of \nCode of Ethics). Furthermore, Advocates are entitled to keep their interactions with a client confidential and enjoy the protection of their files and documents from seizure or inspection, and against interference from electronic communication (Article 19 (2) of \nAdvocates Law). However, as briefly mentioned above, testimonial privilege is not recognized per se.\nUnder Article 146 (1) \nIndonesian Civil Procedure Law (\nHerzien Inlandsch Reglement, “\nHIR”), certain subjects or individuals may recuse themselves from testifying before the court (in-laws of the disputing parties, blood relatives of any disputing parties, or persons who have a professional duty of confidentiality, such as clergy, advocates, physicians, etc.). At their request, the judges may release these people from their obligation to testify as witnesses. However, this exception is not absolute, as it is at a judge’s discretion (Article 146 (2) \nHIR).\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?","The \nAdvocates Law and \nCode of Ethics do not differentiate between the rules applicable in civil and criminal proceedings.\nIndonesian criminal procedure law also recognizes an exception to the obligation to testify for persons with a professional duty of confidentiality (Article 170 (1) \nLaw No. 8 of 1981 on \nCriminal Procedure). Judges have full authority to determine whether to release a person from an obligation to testify (Article 170 (2) \nCriminal Procedure Law).\nFurthermore, as briefly stated above,  in corruption cases, the ACP may be breached, as Articles 35 and 36 of \nLaw No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication provide that everyone is under an obligation to testify as a witness or expert before the Court, apart from members of the direct family of the defendant. The obligation to testify even applies to persons with a professional duty of confidentiality, except Catholic clergy.\nWith regard to mandatory disclosure of client affairs, advocates (and other professional advisors, such as accountants, notaries, and financial planners) are obligated to report suspicious transactions that might indicate a client’s involvement in money laundering, to the Financial Transaction Report and Analysis Center (“\nPPATK”).\nThis obligation is codified in \nGovernment Regulation No. 43 of 2015 on the Reporting Party in the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering, as amended by \nGovernment Regulation No. 61 of 2021 (“\nGR 43/2015”).\nIn its elucidation, \nGR 43/2015 stipulates that the reporting obligation on advocates (and other professional advisors) functions to provide an exception to their duty to professional confidentiality (often abused to conceal money laundering activities). However, the reporting obligation does not apply if the information is discovered by an advocate during the representation of a client in litigation, arbitration, or alternative dispute resolution, or during a legal due diligence/legal audit.\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.)","The \nAdvocate Law and \nCode of Ethics do not define the client, and there is no test to determine who might be considered a client within a corporate context/setting.\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?","In-house counsel may serve as an advocate, although may be deemed an employee rather than an independent party (if an employment contract binds in-house counsel and the company).  As it is still unclear whether in-house counsel is regarded as advocates under the \nAdvocates Law, they may face a more stringent burden of proof in establishing attorney-client confidentiality over communication with their company or employer (elaborated on below).\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: May in-house counsel assert privilege or professional confidentiality?","This is still unclear.\nIt is possible that in-house counsel who had been officially appointed as advocates, assert such privilege or professional confidentiality. However, to the best of our knowledge, this has not been tested.\nFor your reference, the \nAdvocates Law defines the term ‘Advocate’ as a person qualified (having completed a legal professional course, similar to a bar exam) to provide professional legal services in or outside court. The Advocates \nCode of Ethics expands the definition ‘Advocates’ to include advocates, lawyers, legal counsel, practicing lawyers, and legal consultants. Therefore, based strictly on the definition, in-house counsel can also be deemed as ‘Advocates’ and therefore should enjoy the same degree of professional confidentiality and protection conferred by the Advocates Law.\nHowever, according to the \nAdvocates Law and \nCode of Ethics, an element of an advocate-client relationship is the honorarium received by the advocate from the client for the legal services rendered. As in-house counsel normally receives a salary instead of an honorarium, they are not considered advocates, but company employees instead. Accordingly, in-house counsel is not bound by rules on professional confidentiality. This also means that they can be compelled to testify about their employer in civil and criminal proceedings.\nIn practice it is common for in-house lawyers/salaried legal officers to testify about their employer, should a court require them to do so.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: Is in-house counsel allowed to be active members of your jurisdiction’s bar?","Yes. In-house counsel that has completed a legal professional course may become a member of the advocates association (similar to a bar association).\n"]
["Is the common interest doctrine recognized in your jurisdiction?","There is no similar concept in Indonesia. Professional confidentiality only applies to communication between an advocate and client and does not apply to a third party, irrespective of whether that party has common legal interests.\n"]
["How is the doctrine articulated in your jurisdiction?","See above.\n"]
["Must a common interest agreement be in writing?","See above.\n"]
["Is litigation funding permitted in your jurisdiction?  Are there any professional rules in this respect?","There is no concept similar to litigation funding in Indonesia. This kind of financial arrangement is rarely known or practiced in Indonesia.\n"]
["Have the courts in your jurisdiction addressed whether communications with litigation funders may be protected by the ACP or the work-product protection","See above. Noting the above elaboration, given that a litigation funder is not a client, communication with litigation funders may not be protected under ACP.\n"]
["Is the crime-fraud exception recognized in your jurisdiction?","There is no similar concept in Indonesia.\nHowever, as elaborated above, advocates are obligated to report suspicious transactions that may indicate a client’s involvement in money laundering (unless the information is discovered during the advocate’s representation of a client in litigation, arbitration, alternative dispute resolution, or during legal due diligence/legal audit).\nFurthermore, in a corruption case, the privilege may be breached if an advocate is required to testify.\n"]
["What statutes or key court decisions articulate the crime-fraud exception in your jurisdiction?","See above.\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)?)","There is no regulation on this issue. However, Article 19 of the \nAdvocates Law, which stipulates that advocates are entitled to enjoy the protection of “files and documents from seizure and inspection” may be broadly enough interpreted to mean that protection includes files, documents or products prepared in anticipation of litigation or legal proceedings.\n"]
["What are the elements of the protection in your jurisdiction?","See above.\n"]
["Other Privileges"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize an accountant-client privilege?","Public accountants and associated parties (partners of an accounting firm, employees or other parties involved in the provision of services to the client) are bound by limited professional confidentiality. Their obligation to preserve the confidentiality of information obtained from clients does not apply in the event of mandatory disclosure by the Ministry of Finance for supervision purposes (Article 29 of \nLaw No. 5 of 2011 on Public Accountants).\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a mediation privilege?","Court-annexed mediation is confidential unless agreed otherwise by the disputing parties (Article 5 (1) Supreme Court \nRegulation No. 1 of 2016 on Court-Annexed Mediation). However, the rule does not apply when the mediator reports the outcome of mediation to a presiding judge upon the conclusion of mediation.\nMediation outside the judicial system is regulated under \nLaw No.30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Dispute Settlement Alternatives. This law provides that the mediator must maintain confidentiality (Article 6). Furthermore, national mediation bodies/institutions have their own mediation rules and procedures in place that ensure the confidentiality of the mediation they administer (including a prohibition on using documents, statements, or records obtained or produced during mediation as evidence in court. A mediator is also prohibited from acting as a witness, expert, legal consultant, or arbitrator in the same dispute).\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a settlement negotiation privilege?","As elaborated above, settlement negotiation during court-annexed mediation and out-of-court mediation must be kept private and confidential. Moreover, Article 7(b) of the \nCode of Ethics states that communication and correspondence produced by advocates during a failed negotiation process are not permitted to be presented as evidence in court.\n"]