header-logo header-logo

Professional privilege limitations

13 May 2010
Issue: 7417 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Cartel case sees professional privilege denied for in-house counsel

In-house lawyers do not enjoy legal professional privilege over internal communications in European Commission cartel investigations, an advocate general’s opinion has suggested.

In Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission C-550/07, Advocate General Juliane Kokott considered that salaried in-house lawyers do not enjoy the same degree of independence from their client as an external lawyer. Therefore, equal treatment of both types of lawyer is not required by law.

An Advocate General’s opinion is followed in most cases by the European Court of Justice, but is not binding.

The case related to a European Commission investigation into suspected anti-competitive practices at Akzo and Akcros premises in the UK in 2003. The companies claimed legal professional privilege over a number of documents seized in a dawn raid, including two emails between the general manager of Akcros and a member of Akzo’s legal department who was admitted to the Netherlands Bar. The general court dismissed this claim. The companies appealed.

“The freedom to engage in unimpeded and reliable communications with his client which legal professional privilege creates for a lawyer must be exercised by him in such a way as to ensure the proper administration of justice,” Kokott said in her opinion.

“In order to be able to avoid conflicts of interest between his professional obligations and the aims and wishes of his client, a lawyer must not enter into a relationship of dependence with his client. An enrolled in-house lawyer, however, is in just such a relationship of dependence.

“The susceptibility of an enrolled in-house lawyer to conflicts of interest also makes it difficult for him to raise an effective opposition to any abuses of legal professional privilege. Such abuse may, for example, consist in handing over evidence and information to an undertaking’s legal department, under cover of a request for legal advice, for the sole or primary purpose, ultimately, of preventing the competition authorities from gaining access to that evidence and information.”

Desmond Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said he was “disappointed” by the opinion. “A solicitor is a solicitor whether working in practice or as general counsel for a company. Their obligations as an officer of the court and as a member of a fine profession remain unchanged.”
 

Issue: 7417 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll