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

How to make a case to the unconverted

Jonathan Whittle

The prospect of change is a daunting one, whether you’re a global firm or a small one. You might think that your firm’s working practices are fine, or that there’s no value in altering the way you do things because of the disruption it would cause. You might even see the benefits of using a different methodology, but still refuse to put the effort in to implement it – and you wouldn’t be alone. From our research in the 2016 report, The Riddle of Perception, we know that 73% of lawyers believe that adapting to change is not where their strength lies. However, it’s no longer optional.

November 16th, 2017