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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
In NLJ this week, Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre marks Pro Bono Week by urging lawyers to recognise the emotional toll of pro bono work
Can a lease legally last only days—or even hours? Professor Mark Pawlowski of the University of Greenwich explores the question in this week's NLJ
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
back-to-top-scroll