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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll