UK: Limiting the Scope of Privilege for In-House Lawyers

Last Updated: 21 September 2010
Article by Paul Stone, Lynne Gregory and Elora Mukherjee


The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has just published its much awaited judgment in Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited and Akcros Chemicals Limited v European Commission. This judgment has confirmed the existing limitation on the ability of European in-house counsel to claim legal professional privilege in competition investigations by the European Commission. This decision is likely to cause consternation and controversy amongst in-house lawyers across Europe as it was hoped that the ECJ might take the opportunity to change the law in this area. This note considers the scope of the ruling as well as reviewing, by way of background, the basic principles of privilege under English law.

Basic Principles

The rationale for legal professional privilege is to enable lawyers to advise their clients in confidence. If a document is privileged, it does not need to be disclosed to the court or the opposing party in any litigation. Under English law, legal professional privilege can be divided into two categories:

1. Legal Advice Privilege

This covers confidential communications made between a lawyer and his client for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice. Litigation need not have been threatened or contemplated at the time when the advice was sought or given.

2. Litigation Privilege

This privilege covers a wider category of communications, but only in circumstances where litigation is contemplated. If it is, the privilege covers not only communications between the litigant and his lawyer, but also communications between the lawyer and a third party, or between the litigant and a third party, provided that the dominant purpose of such communications is to give or obtain advice with regard to the litigation or to obtain or collect evidence or information for use in it.

Litigation privilege extends to any proceedings in which parties may be required to give disclosure including high court, county court, and employment tribunal cases, as well as arbitrations.

English case law has confirmed that privilege extends to employed solicitors and barristers, not just those in private practice. However, this is subject to an important exception in relation to European Commission investigations.

European Commission Investigations

There is one important area where in-house lawyers are in a significantly worse position than lawyers in private practice. This relates to the European Commission's power to require production of documents in the course of competition investigations. In AM&S Europe Ltd -v- Commission of the European Communities (1983) the ECJ held that AM&S could not withhold from the Commission privileged communications made with its in-house lawyers since such a privilege was not recognised under Community law.

In AM&S, the ECJ established a two-tier test for the purposes of determining whether written communications between lawyers and clients are subject to legal professional privilege during the course of competition investigations by the Commission:

  • the first tier required that the communication must be requested and given for the purposes of the client's rights of defence;
  • the second tier stated that the lawyer involved must be independent, that is, not bound to the client through an employment relationship.

The second tier of the test established in AM&S was heavily criticised at the time. The issue resurfaced two decades later in the case of Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd -v- European Commission. The matter related to a Commission investigation regarding possible anti-competitive practices by Akzo Nobel and Akros Chemicals in relation to heat stabilisers. The Commission, assisted by the UK OFT, carried out a dawn raid at the companies' premises in the UK. During the raid, the Commission seized and made copies of numerous documents. Akzo claimed legal privilege in relation to email exchanges between an Akzo executive and an in-house lawyer (a full member of the Dutch Bar). The email exchange consisted of a request for comments on a draft letter and response with changes to the wording of the letter.

The Commission refused to recognise privilege for the documents and Akzo appealed the decision to the European Court of First instance (CFI, now the General Court). Many commentators hoped that, as AM&S had been decided at a time when in-house legal departments were less common and less tightly regulated in many EU countries, the European courts might take the opportunity to reformulate the law.

However, the CFI rejected the arguments put forward by the companies that communications with in-house lawyers should attract privilege. The CFI upheld the ECJ decision in AM&S and stated that privilege could not extend to in-house lawyers because such lawyers were not "fully independent" of the client. The court stated that there is a wide variation across Europe in the way in which in-house counsel are regulated and that many are excluded from the protection of privilege.

Akzo Nobel and Akros appealed the CFI decision to the ECJ, and their appeal was supported by a number of European governments including the UK; the International Bar Association and other bodies representing lawyers.

The ECJ's Judgment

The ECJ issued its judgement on 14th September. The ECJ ruled that in-house lawyers, despite the fact they may be enrolled with a Bar or Law Society and the fact that they are subject to professional ethics codes, do not enjoy the same degree of independence from their employers as lawyers working in external law firms. The ECJ considered that, since inhouse lawyers occupy the position of employee, that position, by its very nature, does not allow them to ignore the commercial strategies pursued by their employers, and affects their ability to exercise professional independence. Moreover, the ECJ considered that in-house lawyers have complete economic dependence on their employers, in contrast to external lawyers who can withdraw their services and are not dependent on one source of income. Further, the ECJ noted that in-house lawyers may be required to carry out tasks such as competition law co-ordination, which may have an effect on the commercial policies of their employers, and that such functions cannot but reinforce the close ties between in-house lawyers and their employers.

The ECJ also rejected the notion that the role of in-house lawyers has evolved in recent years whereby more EU countries have accepted that they can claim privilege and have made them subject to the same ethics codes as external lawyers. The Court considered that no predominant trend towards extending privilege to in-house lawyers could be discerned in the legal systems of the various European Member States.

Furthermore, the ECJ rejected the argument that a refusal to apply the principle of legal privilege to correspondence exchanged with an in-house lawyer violates the principle of equal treatment on the basis that the professional independence of external lawyers and the economic dependence of in-house counsel meant they were not in a comparable situation.

The Court also rejected arguments that denying privilege to in-house lawyers breached the principle of legal certainty or companies' rights of defence. The Court held that the legal position of in-house counsel was clear where the Commission was conducting an investigation and that those instructing lawyers must accept the restrictions and conditions applicable to that profession.

Implications of the Judgment

The position therefore remains that in European Commission investigations, communications with in-house lawyers are not protected by privilege – regardless of the legal ethics they are subject to or the professional organisations to which they belong. Many companies rely on their in-house legal departments to ensure compliance with competition laws. The decision means the Commission can continue to raid these departmental files. To avoid the material being disclosed, in-house lawyers must either record as little as possible in writing or seek external legal advice whenever an EU competition law issue arises.

It should be stressed that this case related to the application of privilege solely in the context of competition investigations by the European Commission and should not be seen as creating any wider precedent to be applied in national courts. It is worth noting that in competition investigations which are conducted at national level by the OFT, the English law on legal professional privilege continues to apply, such that it continues to extend to communications made between clients and their in-house lawyers.


In-house lawyers in England can generally benefit from privilege in much the same way as external lawyers provided they are advising on legal rather than administrative matters. However, the decision in the Akzo Nobel case means companies would be advised to consider using external law firms for competition compliance issues that may be subject to investigation by the European Commission, or to discuss matters verbally.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions