Legal professional privilege - Akzo Nobel case

The judgment in the Akzo Nobel case was delivered by the Court of Justice on 14 September 2010.

The Law Society has issued a statement warning that this decision will hinder European business.  We have also produced  frequently asked questions on the case and its implications.

Legal professional privilege will continue not to cover the advice of in-house lawyers in EU competition cases. This ruling is in line with the opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 29 April 2010.

The hearing before the Grand Chamber of the EU's Court of Justice took place on 9 February 2010.
Read a summary of the hearing

This appeal against a ruling of the EU's General Court (formerly Court of First Instance) in 2007 concerns the extent to which legal professional privilege covers documents containing legal advice that has been given by a company's in-house lawyer in EU antitrust proceedings.

The Law Society's view

The Law Society had sought leave to intervene in the case in 2008. The appeal is a challenge to existing EU case law, which states that documents containing legal advice from in-house counsel are not covered by legal professional privilege during European Commission antitrust investigations. The EU courts have considered previously that the employed status of such lawyers means they do not have the requisite degree of independence from their client.

The Law Society contends that the communications in question should be afforded privilege when the lawyer is regulated by a bar or law society, in the same circumstance that advice given by a counterpart in private practice would be afforded privilege.

Press releases

14 September 2010 - Court's decision will hinder European business, warns Law Society
10 March 2008 - Law Society protects in-house lawyers
18 February 2008 - Law Society plans European Court intervention to defend the right to client confidentiality
17 September 2007 - Law Society condemns Akzo Nobel judgment