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

Three reasons why you should be more vigilant about the emails you send in 2018

Ben Mitchell DocsCorp

In December 2017, the Information Commissioner’s Office (reported that data security incidents between April and June 2017 had increased by 15% compared to the previous year. This is nothing new – data breaches have been on the rise for years. Yet law firms are often more concerned about protecting sensitive information from external threats than from a far more likely cause: human error. Human error was behind the forwarding of confidential plans from The Bank of England to The Guardian. The sender included the wrong recipient in the email and, ever since, autocomplete has been disabled and staff at the UK’s main financial regulator must now enter every single address manually.

January 17th, 2018