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 148

Always check your privilege
  • Ashfords LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 16 2017

It seems lawyers, and litigators especially, are always banging on about privilege to their in-house colleagues. In the recent High Court decision in


Privilege invoked if company reasonably believes in-house counsel is a lawyer
  • Moses & Singer LLP
  • USA
  • February 7 2011

In a remarkable reversal, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a corporation did not lose the attorney-client privilege for communications with its in-house lawyer who it later discovered did not hold an active state bar license to practice law.


The “joint client” exception
  • Reed Smith LLP
  • USA
  • September 9 2008

Courts are increasingly faced with claims that the “joint client” exception bars application of the attorney-client privilege.


In-house counsel: protect your documents
  • Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP
  • European Union
  • April 3 2008

The widely criticised judgment of the CFI in Akzo Nobel v Commission limited the scope of privilege for in-house legal counsel and company documents.


Keeping in-house attorney-client communications privileged after In re Vioxx
  • Hogan Lovells
  • USA
  • November 8 2007

The legal landscape for claims of attorney-client privilege for communications involving in-house lawyers may have changed after the recent decision by the Eastern District of Louisiana in the pending Vioxx litigation.


Preserving privilege for in-house counsel: the lessons of the Vioxx MDL
  • Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
  • USA
  • October 1 2007

Lawyers, particularly in-house lawyers, may confront a dramatic change in the legal standards for what communications will be considered privileged as a result of a recent decision and order issued last month in the Vioxx litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana.