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 287

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.


In-house lawyers do not have standing before the European courts
  • Nabarro LLP
  • Poland, European Union
  • October 3 2011

In a recent ruling, the General Court declared inadmissible an appeal in a competition case on the basis that the appeal was brought by an in-house lawyer rather than external counsel.


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.


Beware of legal privilege?!
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
  • European Union
  • March 31 2011

The director of the NMa's legal department recently stated1 that the NMa will not align its legal professional privilege (LPP) practice with the European Court of Justice's Akzo ruling.


Akzo Nobel decision confirms ambiguity of privilege in European competition proceedings
  • Blank Rome LLP
  • European Union
  • March 9 2011

As has been widely reported, on September 14, 2010, in the case of Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd. et al. v. European Commission, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) confirmed prior European Union case law that a company’s internal communications with in-house counsel are not entitled to the protections of the attorney-client privilege (or, as it is often called in Europe, the “legal professional privilege”) in E.U. competition proceedings.


Supreme Court overturns ruling on ‘in house’ exemption
  • Nabarro LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 4 2011

On 9 February, the Supreme Court overturned an earlier Court of Appeal ruling on the application of the "in house" exception for the procurement of a contract for insurance services.


The Supreme Court rules that the public procurement regulations do not prevent public authorities from acquiring shared services from an entity which they jointly control
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 25 2011

In Brent LBC and others v Risk Management Partners Ltd, the Supreme Court ruled that local authorities in London did not infringe public procurement law when they purchased insurance services directly from a company which they jointly owned and controlled.


In-house procurement not covered by EU rules
  • CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 11 2011

The case centred on whether the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (the 2006 Regulations) applied to a local government shared service vehicle.


Privilege in IP litigation
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom, European Union
  • January 20 2011

A recent spate of cases before the UK and European Courts re-considering the scope of privilege are of interest to businesses with valuable IP rights.


European Court of Justice rules that no privilege attaches to communications with in-house counsel in European Commission’s competition investigations
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada, European Union
  • January 12 2011

On September 14, 2010, the European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, ruled that communications between a company and its in-house lawyers are not covered by legal professional privilege (i.e., solicitor-client privilege in Canada) when the company comes under investigation by the European Union competition authorities.