Programme Detail
LPD SHOWCASE: In-house counsel: legal professional privilege
Committee(s)
Bar Issues Commission
Corporate Counsel Forum.
Legal Practice Division (LPD)
(Lead)
Session / Workshop Chair(s)
| Session Chair |
Jacques Buhart
|
| Officer Title |
Honorary Life Member of Council and Association
|
| Law Firm |
McDermott Will & Emery AARPI
|
| Location |
Paris, France
|
Description
In Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemical Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, the court held that a lawyer is not independent, for the purpose of the test for legal professional privilege, if bound to his or her client by a relationship of employment. The court concluded that due 'to the in-house lawyer's economic dependence and the close ties with his employer, he does not enjoy a level of professional independence comparable to that of an external lawyer'.
The IBA submitted to the European Court of Justice that advice given by lawyers who are members of a Bar or law society must be subject to legal professional privilege. In its submission, the IBA argued (inter alia) that members of a Bar or law society have the intellectual and professional independence necessary to give free and autonomous advice principally because they are subject to, and regulated by, professional rules of ethics and discipline. Additionally, the IBA argued that the difference in treatment of in-house and external counsel infringed the principles of discrimination and equality.
The practical implications of this ruling are significant both for in-house counsel and their employers alike around the world. While common law jurisdictions recognise legal professional privilege for communication with in-house counsel as well as outside counsel, most civil law jurisdictions, similarly to the EU Commission, deny its application to in-house counsel. Several countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America deny its application as well. The same legal professional privilege, when it applies, is endangered if advice is sought from in-house counsel based in a jurisdiction that recognises legal privilege and then circulated, inter alia, to in-house counsel in a jurisdiction that does not recognise it.
This session provides an overview and a survey of legal professional privilege for in-house and outside counsel globally, and looks at the recent developments in this critical area. It debates and identifies, in a thought-provoking fashion, possible strategies to enhance and strengthen the application of legal professional privilege around the world.
Speakers
| Speaker |
Mona Ashour Madi
|
| Law Firm |
Unilever North Africa & Middle East
|
| Location |
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
|
| Speaker |
Horacio Bernardes Neto
|
| Officer Title |
Vice-Chair
Bar Issues Commission
|
| Location |
São Paulo, Brazil
|
| Speaker |
Felix R Ehrat
|
| Law Firm |
Baer & Karrer AG
|
| Location |
Zurich, Switzerland
|
| Speaker |
Naoki Iguchi
|
| Law Firm |
Anderson M?ri & Tomotsune
|
| Location |
Tokyo, Japan
|
| Speaker |
Adrian Jossa
|
| Law Firm |
Goldman Sachs International
|
| Location |
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
|
| Speaker |
Peter J Rees QC
|
| Law Firm |
Royal Dutch Shell plc
|
| Location |
The Hague, Netherlands
|
| Speaker |
Vijaya Sampath
|
| Law Firm |
Bharti Airtel Limited
|
| Location |
New Delhi, India
|
| Speaker |
Edward C A Sparrow
|
| Law Firm |
Ashurst
|
| Location |
London, England
|
Location
Dubai C, First Floor
Date
Tuesday 01 November (09:30) - (12:30)