Europe's top court rejects case for in-house privilege
The battle to extend privilege for in-house lawyers in Europe has suffered a major blow after a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) today (14 September) stated that company legal teams are not protected in competition cases. The ECJ rejected arguments made by Dutch chemicals group Akzo Nobel that a lower court was wrong to find that communications involving in-house legal counsel are not covered by lawyer-client confidentiality.
September 14, 2010 at 08:50 AM
3 minute read
The battle to extend privilege for in-house lawyers in Europe has suffered a major blow after a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) today (14 September) stated that company legal teams are not protected in competition cases.
The ECJ rejected arguments made by Dutch chemicals group Akzo Nobel that a lower court was wrong to find that communications involving in-house legal counsel are not covered by lawyer-client confidentiality.
The long-running legal battle, which was supported by the Law Society of England and Wales and a number of European legal groups, has sparked controversy in the legal sector. The decision will be strongly opposed by in-house lawyers, which have long resented the lack of full professional privilege they face in some European countries.
The judgment follows a 2007 ruling handed down by EU's General Court and a preliminary opinion earlier this year by ECJ Advocate General Juliane Kokott, which both rejected the case for extending privilege.
Stephenson Harwood competition partner Julianne O'Leary (pictured) commented: "Unfortunately, the decision reinforces the view that the EU and its institutions are out-of-touch with the reality of day-to-day commercial life and a genuine desire of in-house counsel and business to be legally compliant.
"By handicapping in-house lawyers from having full freedom to have open and frank exchanges with their internal clients the current EU position is counterproductive."
The conflict arose during a 2003 European Commission onsite investigation seeking evidence of anti-competitive practices at Akzo Nobel's UK offices in Manchester. The Commission's search led to disagreements about whether it could copy five documents that Akzo Nobel claimed were covered by lawyer-client privilege.
Association of Corporate Counsel general counsel Susan Hackett said:"We are dismayed that the ECJ did not seize the opportunity to recognise the independent judgment and value of the in-house profession.
"The idea that professional independence stems from the type of office a lawyer works in, rather than from their moral and professional compass, evidences a deep misunderstanding of legal professionalism and lawyers."
Pannone head of dispute resolution Paul Jonson said: "Today's ruling is the end of the road for Akzo Nobel's endeavour to secure for in-house lawyers the same rights to privilege as external lawyers.
"There may be also renewed concerns that where regulation develops in other areas, such as bribery and money laundering, if EU law applies to any investigatory powers in question the extent to which privilege can be relied upon could also be restricted."
Law Society chief executive Des Hudson said: "In-house lawyers are the front-line guarantor of compliance. It is sad that while the EU strives to legislate for higher standards of corporate governance and risk management, the decision of the Court in effect rejects this key tool in achieving this aim."
Related Legal Week Law briefing: ECJ confirms privilege does not apply to in-house lawyers under EU competition law
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWalmart Ordered to End ‘Abusive Practices’ By Mexican Antitrust Authority
O'Melveny Secures Global Clearances as Korean Air-Asiana Merger is Finally Completed
Big Law Firms Help Vodafone-Three Merger Clear Major Competition Hurdle
Canada’s Antitrust Watchdog Sues Google For Billions Over Ad Practices
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250