header-logo header-logo

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

Professional privilege limitations

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll