Short answer. No. Rule 130, Section 24 makes an express exception for the furtherance of crime or fraud: where the lawyer's services or advice were sought to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan what the client knew or should have known was a crime or fraud, the privilege does not apply.
What the law says
Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud
Rule 130, Section 24 — Disqualification by reason of privileged communication[s]. Read the full provision →
Why the exception exists
The lawyer-client privilege exists so that people can describe their situation fully and get accurate advice — including advice they do not want to hear. That purpose is served when a client explains a past act. It is not served when the consultation is itself a step in planning a future wrong. Extending the privilege there would make legal advice a tool for carrying out the very conduct the law forbids, so Section 24 removes the protection for that use.
Past conduct is treated differently from future plans
The clause is framed around services or advice sought to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud. That is forward-looking language. Telling a lawyer about something already done, in order to be defended or advised about the consequences, is the ordinary case the privilege was built for and is not what this exception describes. The distinction is between seeking help with a problem and seeking help to create one.
The test is what the client knew
The exception turns on what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud — not on the lawyer's state of mind. A lawyer who is deceived into assisting does not preserve the privilege for the client who deceived them. Equally, a client who genuinely and reasonably did not understand the conduct to be wrongful is not automatically inside the exception. The standard has an objective edge, so a claim of ignorance has to be a reasonable one.
The other four exceptions in the same clause
Crime or fraud is one of five listed situations where the lawyer-client privilege gives way. The others are communications relevant to an issue between parties claiming through the same deceased client; communications relevant to an alleged breach of duty by the lawyer to the client or by the client to the lawyer; communications relevant to an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; and communications between joint clients when offered in an action between them. The privilege is strong, but it is not without stated edges.