header-logo header-logo

Legal advice privilege: a search for clarity?

01 December 2017 / Mark Hall , Jan-Jaap Baer
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
nlj_7772_baer

Jan-Jaap Baer & Mark Hall review recent developments in the law of privilege

  • The current restrictive approach to privilege poses real challenges to lawyers when seeking to investigate issues raised by corporate clients without creating documents that will be subsequently disclosable to regulators or litigants.
  • Increasing difficulties in claiming privilege may make it harder to persuade employees to fully co-operate in investigations.

Since 2004 the leading authority on legal advice privilege has been the much criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers (No 5) [2003] EWCA Civ 474, [2003] QB 1556, which gave a restrictive interpretation as to who is the ‘client’ in the corporate context. Several recent court decisions have confirmed this narrow approach and may suggest a trend towards yet further erosion in the ability to claim both legal advice and litigation privilege.

Who is the client?

Legal advice privilege applies to confidential communications passing between a client and the client’s lawyer which have come into existence for the purpose of giving or receiving legal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll