Law Society urges government to reconsider refusal to intervene in case on in-house lawyer privilege

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

7 December 2011


Wotton: profound disappointment at the government's decision

The Law Society has urged the government to reconsider a decision not to intervene in a European case that Chancery Lane claims opens up a new front in the battle over for whether companies can claim legal professional privilege for dealings with their in-house lawyers.

It warns that the case could be used to curtail the rights of UK companies to use in-house lawyers in respect of European law matters.

In a letter to justice secretary Ken Clarke, society president John Wotton expressed his “profound disappointment” at the decision and said the government was wrong to suggest the case has no domestic implications.

In August, in the case of Prezes Urzedu Komunikacji Electronicznej, the General Court of the European Union rejected as inadmissible a party’s application purely on the ground that it was using in-house lawyers to present the case.

It based this decision on what the society argues is “a narrow reading of article 19 of the court’s statute”

Tags: ,



Legal Futures Blog

Joint (ad)ventures in the legal sector

Nigel Wallis lo res

We all know that nothing in life is certain. As the actor, director and philosopher Clint Eastwood once said: “If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.” He also said he’d tried being reasonable and didn’t like it. They should teach this kind of philosophy in law school. One thing in life is reasonably certain though. If you’re a law firm worth your salt, at some point you will be approached by another entity (most probably a work introducer) with a whizzy idea to ‘partner’ with you to ‘help you accelerate your growth’. In commercial speak this means, ‘we’d like to keep feeding you work but we’d also like to share in your profits’. The arrangement may be pitched to you as a joint venture – a win-win no less.

March 27th, 2017