UK: In-House Counsel: A Privileged Position?

Last Updated: 10 August 2011
Article by Eve McBrinn and Katie Papworth

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice ('ECJ') has today (14th September 2010) handed down its judgment in the appeal of the joined cases of Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission (T-125/03 and T-253/03).

The European Commission ('EC') rejected the claim of legal professional privilege ('LPP') for correspondence with Akzo's in-house lawyer. The ECJ has upheld the decision of the European General Court (previously known as the Court of First Instance) and has ruled that, under European Union ('EU') law, correspondence between an in-house lawyer and its client in relation to competition law is not protected by LPP because an in-house lawyer does not enjoy the same level of independence from his employer as a lawyer working in an external law firm. We have considered further the impact of this potentially momentous decision below:

Legal professional privilege ('LPP') is an established legal principle of English law and is a fundamental right pursuant to which the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and his client is preserved; if a document attracts LPP, there will be no obligation to disclose it to the court or third party. In the case of AM & SEurope v Commission of the European Communities (18 May 1982, Case 155/79) the ECJ acknowledged LPP as a principle of EU law in the following circumstances:

  1. Legal advice must be requested and given for the purposes of the client's rights of defence; and,
  2. The communication exchange must emanate from independent lawyers.

In a well developed legal system the right to raise a defence to a claim is taken for granted but, often overlooked, the essential corollary to this right is that a client be entitled to consult fully and frankly with a lawyer on the understanding that anything said will not compromise the defence.

In today's decision of the Akzo Nobel & Akcros Chemicals appeal, it appears that this fundamental EU law principle has been eroded, at least in as much that advice given by an in-house lawyer will not be considered confidential should the company be investigated under the EU competition regime.


In February 2003, the EC, together with the Office of Fair Trading, carried out dawn raids at the premises of Akzo & Akcros in Manchester alleging possible anti-competitive practices in breach of EU competition law. During the course of its investigation, the EC sought to remove documents from the premises which, Akzo submitted, should properly be protected from disclosure by LPP.

The disputed documents were two emails exchanged between the managing director and Akzo Nobel's coordinator for competition law (an Advocaat of the Netherlands Bar and member of Akzo Nobel's legal department). Despite the fact that the documents had been produced for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, in May 2003, the EC rejected the claims made by Akzo Nobel and Akcros that they were protected by LPP.

Akzo Nobel and Akcros challenged the EC's decision. On 17 September 2007, the challenge was rejected by the European General Court on the basis that in order to attract LPP, the main purpose of the document had to be the seeking of external legal advice. Accordingly, communications with an in-house lawyer could never attract LPP as the independence between the solicitor and client was a pre-requisite to a finding of privilege.

The ECJ's Decision

Today the ECJ, the highest court in the European Union, has upheld the decision of the European General Court which, in practice, significantly narrows the scope of LPP under EU law and the documents which may attract it.

Rationale of the decision

  • The decision, based on the principles established in AM SEurope v Commission, is based on the requirement of independence which, the ECJ found, means the 'absence of any employment relationship' because an in-house lawyer 'is less able to deal effectively with any conflicts between his professional obligations and the aims of his client.'
  • Further, and on the basis that there is a lack of independence, the ECJ (following the advice of the Advocate General) opined that an in-house lawyer completing the task of competition law coordinator is less able to sever the close ties between lawyer and employee, which does not allow him to ignore the commercial strategies of his client, and will potentially place him in a position of conflict. An independent legal advisor, on the other hand, will be better placed to withdraw their services should a conflict of interest arise. The ECJ further reasoned that in-house lawyers are generally dependant, in an economic sense, on their employer. Taken together, these arguments underpin the decision that communications produced by in-house lawyers should not attract LPP in EU competition investigations.


Whether this decision represents the first step to a full scale departure from the EU principle of LPP remains to be seen. Notably, the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands all supported Akzo Nobel and Akcros' appeal and therefore, so far as the UK is concerned, documents produced by in-house counsel will continue to attract LPP in domestic investigations. It must be remembered, however, that this decision will affect all Member State companies including those based in the UK in the context of EU competition investigations.

The potential for the Akzo decision to set a dangerous precedent should not be overlooked. The arguments advanced by the ECJ in finding that an apparent lack of independence should negate a claim of LPP could be applied equally to situations other than competition investigations. Nothing in today's judgment suggests otherwise and one may find that the removal of LPP creeps, by degrees, to other areas.

Today's economic climate has led many organisations to look at ways in which costs can be reduced; instead of having a panel of independent legal advisors, many organisations have chosen to bring some of the work in-house – particularly in relation to compliance issues – and one wonders whether the ECJ's decision may see organisations reversing this trend and opting to again consult independent legal advisors on competition and compliance issues. Indeed, Akzo and Akcros argued that the 'modernisation' of the procedural rules on cartels has increased the need for in-house lawyers, the importance of which should not be underestimated in preventing infringements, since in-house lawyers have intimate knowledge of their clients and their activities. Accordingly, the cost benefit to an organisation of retaining in-house counsel needs to be evaluated: does the potential disclosure of legally sensitive documents outweigh the shorter term cost saving and benefit on in-house know-how associated with in-house counsel?

Having considered today's judgment companies should ensure that:

  1. When dealing in the context of competition investigations companies should check the status of LPP with the authorities they are dealing with. There is always the risk, however, that the investigation will escalate to the EU in which case advice, where possible, should be sought from independent and external counsel so as to avoid the risk of disclosure;
  2. Organisations should review current practices to ascertain what issues in-house lawyers advise on. In the event advice on competition law is sought from an in-house legal team, written communications should be kept to a minimum and external advice should be obtained where possible so as to protect the LPP of any advice;
  3. Issues may arise when global organisations discuss competition law across jurisdictions. It is important to note that across the legal systems of all 27 Member States, LPP is not subject to one universal rule. Only a few Member States, including the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands, apply LPP to communications of this kind with in-house lawyers. Accordingly, and in light of the EU's position as set out in today's judgment, organisations are best advised to err on the side of caution and to assume that in-house communications in respect of competition law issues across jurisdictions will not attract LPP in the same way as domestic law provides protection.


Commerce, and in particular international trade, requires certainty. The decision of the ECJ adds nothing by way of certainty. For example, how will secondees, regularly used by large corporates, be treated moving forward? The potential ramifications of the decision are significant and likely to be tested.

We are now faced with differing laws as to the privilege in-house documents attract in different Member States. Before English courts, advice provided by in-house lawyers is always afforded LPP, whilst in Italy, for example, and now in accordance with EU law, in-house communications are not privileged. This lack of uniformity is unwarranted (not least because it is unhelpful) and, absent a trend showing the removal of LPP for in-house lawyers at a domestic level in Member States, the ECJ could have decided to err on the side of caution and add certainty by holding that in-house lawyers are afforded the same rights as private practitioners.

The contents of this brochure are intended as guidelines for clients and other readers. It is not a substitute for considered advice on specific issues. Consequently, we cannot accept any responsibility for this information or for any errors or omissions.

Thomas Eggar LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC326278 whose registered office is at The Corn Exchange, Baffin's Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1GE (VAT number 991259583). The word 'partner' refers to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of the LLP is displayed at the above address, together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel and Investors in People accredited.

Thomas Eggar LLP is not authorised by the Financial Services Authority. However, we are included on the register maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry on insurance mediation activity which is broadly the advising on, selling and administering of insurance contracts. This part of our business, including arrangements for complaints and redress if something goes wrong, is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The register can be accessed via the Financial Services Authority website. We can also provide certain further limited investment services to clients if those services are incidental to the professional services we have been engaged to provide as solicitors.

Thesis Asset Management plc, our associated financial services company, provides a comprehensive range of investment services and advice. Thesis is owned by members of Thomas Eggar LLP but is independent of and separate to it. No lawyer connected with Thomas Eggar LLP provides services through Thesis as a practicing lawyer regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Thesis is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Thesis has its own framework of investor protection and professional indemnity cover but Thesis clients do not enjoy the statutory protection of solicitors' clients.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP
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