{"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,"Tilleke & Gibbins","Michael Ramirez"]
[]
[]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 5/1/2025"]
[]
["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","Thailand"]
["Attorney-Client/Solicitor-Client Privilege (ACP)"]
["Is the ACP recognized in your jurisdiction?","As a civil law jurisdiction, Thailand does not recognize the common law concept of privilege (ACP), although there is a recognized general equivalent (see below). \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.","[1] While the specific common law principle of ACP, Thai law contains a general equivalent of legal professional privilege where lawyers are prohibited from disclosing a client’s confidential information. A lawyer can only disclose such information if the client consents or a court orders the disclosure.  \n\n\n\nThe applicable provision is Clause 11 of the Regulation of the Lawyers Council on Conduct of Lawyers B.E. 2529 (1986) (“Lawyers Regulation”), which states: “A lawyer shall not disclose confidential information of the client that comes into his knowledge on the course of performing his duties as a lawyer, except where the client’s consent has been obtained or it is made under the Court’s order.”\n\n\n\nPrivilege attaches to any documents provided by a client to a lawyer that contain the client’s confidential information. Such documents are not specifically defined in the law, but would include legal advice and opinions; documents generated in relation to giving the advice (e.g. attorney work product); and confidential communications between lawyer and client.    \n\n\n\nOther types of documents that privilege attaches to include: documents containing confidential official/government information; documents containing confidential trade/design secrets; and, in the criminal context, confidential documents acquired through a person’s profession or duty. \n\n\n\nFurther, Section 92 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code provides that a person from which testimony or evidence is being sought is entitled to refuse to provide such testimony or evidence which may entail the disclosure of “any confidential document or fact which was entrusted or imparted by a party to him in his capacity as a lawyer.”\n\n\n\nA court has the authority to compel production of all such documents.  \nNotes: \n[1] This question is directed primarily to civil law jurisdictions that do not recognize common law jurisdictions’ privilege doctrines.\n \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?","Thai law provides for different types of privilege in both the civil and criminal contexts. \n\n\nCivil \n\nSection 92 of the Thai Civil Procedure Code governs privilege in civil claims. Privilege under section 92 can be summarized as follows:    \n\n\n\nIf a party is required to give testimony or present any kind of evidence to a court, and the testimony or evidence may disclose: (1) official documents or information relating to state affairs; (2) confidential documents or information given by a party to a lawyer in his or her capacity as a lawyer; or (3) any invention, design, or other work protected from publicity by law, then the party can refuse to give the testimony or evidence, unless permission for the disclosure is granted from “the competent officer or any related person”. \n\n\n\nUnder Section 92, the court has the power to review the reason for the refusal, and, if the reason is unsatisfactory, compel the provision of testimony or evidence. \n\n\nCriminal \n\nSection 231 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code governs privilege in criminal claims. Privilege under section 231 can be summarized as follows:    \n\n\n\nWhen a party is required to give or produce evidence relating to: (1) confidential official information; (2) confidential documents or facts acquired from that party’s profession or duty; or (3) trade secrets, design secrets, etc., that party can refuse to give such evidence unless permission is granted from the government authority or the person involved in the confidential information. \n\n\n\nThe court here also has the power to review and override the refusal, if the court views there are insufficient grounds supporting a request. \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.)","We are unaware of any Supreme Court cases addressing issues of ACP in Thailand, including those related to ACP. As only rulings from the Supreme Court are published and available for public consumption, challenges made at the intermediate appellate level or directly with the lower courts are neither publicly available nor persuasive. \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?","Thai law makes no distinction between in-house and external lawyers, provided they are licensed. We are of the view that, subject to the nature of the information provided by the company to the in-house lawyer, the company would be viewed as a “client” under Clause 11 of the Lawyers Regulation.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: May in-house counsel assert privilege or professional confidentiality?","See above.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: Is in-house counsel allowed to be active members of your jurisdiction’s bar?","Yes. There are no limitations on licensed Thai attorneys acting as in-house counsel.\n"]
["Is the common interest doctrine recognized in your jurisdiction?","We are unaware of this issue ever arising in ACP disputes at the publicly available Supreme Court level.\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?"]
["Have the courts in your jurisdiction addressed whether communications with litigation funders may be protected by the ACP or the work-product protection","No. The Supreme Court has not addressed this issue.\n"]
["Is the crime-fraud exception recognized in your jurisdiction?","There is no crime-fraud exception recognized under Thai law. That said, parties, such as prosecutors and law enforcement, may seek court orders/subpoenas to compel disclosure. Courts have broad discretion in determining whether to compel disclosure in such cases and we would opine that a court would be more likely to compel disclosure in cases where communications are made in furtherance of a future crime or fraud.\n"]
["What statutes or key court decisions articulate the crime-fraud exception in your jurisdiction?","This is not treated in statutory law nor in available Supreme Court judgments. Where this type of exception to privilege is challenged, it would be at the lower court and appellate level, both levels unavailable to the public and non-persuasive to future cases\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?","There are no defined elements for ACP protection in the Thai jurisdiction.\n"]
["Other Privileges"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize an accountant-client privilege?","There is no specific accountant-client privilege recognized in the Thai jurisdiction.\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a mediation privilege?","There is no recognized mediation privilege in theThai jurisdiction.\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a settlement negotiation privilege?","There is no recognized settlement negotiation privilege in the Thai jurisdiction.\n"]