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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll