We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 189

Akzo Nobel case - privilege does not apply to in house lawyers in EU competition law investigations European Court of Justice decision
  • Matheson
  • European Union, Ireland
  • October 11 2010

A recent decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed that internal communications between in-house lawyers and their fellow company employees are not privileged in relation to European Commission (Commission) competition law cases.


Privilege primer: best practices for internal counsel
  • McMillan LLP
  • Canada
  • August 17 2011

Recent developments in the law of privilege have created issues for internal counsel with respect to three types of legal privilege: solicitor-client privilege, common interest privilege and litigation privilege.


In-house v external lawyers: a level playing field?
  • Reed Smith LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 9 2012

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the "CAT") recently confirmed that an in-house lawyer should only be required to give the same form of undertaking as external counsel and solicitors, despite this being disputed by external lawyers.


Legal professional privilege in-house or external lawyers?
  • AO HALL Advocates
  • United Kingdom, European Union, Guernsey
  • December 9 2010

In this article, we explore the boundaries of legal professional privilege in relation to in-house legal advisers.


Privilege - data protection
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom, European Union
  • December 15 2010

Privilege is an issue which frequently arises in the context of litigation - the question of what can be withheld from disclosure on the basis that it is privileged communications between client and legal adviser - and a recent spate of cases before the UK and European Courts have reconsidered various aspects of the scope of privilege.


Legal professional privilege: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Limited v Commission
  • RPC
  • United Kingdom, European Union
  • October 25 2010

This ruling follows Advocate General Kokott's opinion issued on 29 April 2010 at first instance, that in-house lawyers are not protected by legal professional privilege in the EU competition context.


Still no legal privilege for in-house counsel
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
  • Netherlands, European Union
  • September 14 2010

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed in today's Akzo ruling that communications between a company and its in-house lawyer are not protected by legal professional privilege ("LPP") in EU competition investigations.


Retaining legal professional privilege following the Akzo judgment
  • Gowling WLG
  • United Kingdom, European Union
  • September 15 2010

On 14 September 2010, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its much-awaited judgment in Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission.


Legal professional privilege - issues for lawyers and clients
  • RPC
  • United Kingdom
  • October 1 2010

Legal professional privilege is a perennial issue for lawyers and their clients.


European Court of Justice rejects attorney-client privilege for in-house counsel
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • September 17 2010

In a much anticipated decision, issued on September 14, 2010, the European Court of Justice reconfirmed that communications with in-house counsel are not privileged under European Union law (E.U.) Case C-55007, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd. & Akros Chemicals Ltd. v. European Commission.