Authors

Andrew Howell

Partner

Read More

Georgina Jones

Senior Associate

Read More
Authors

Andrew Howell

Partner

Read More

Georgina Jones

Senior Associate

Read More

23 November 2020

Disputes Quick Read – 57 of 88 Insights

Disputes Quick Read: Privilege lost in the EU post-Brexit (with exceptions)

  • Quick read

With the Brexit transition period ending on 31 December 2020, you'll need to understand the impact the UK's departure from the European Union will have on your ability to assert privilege over your communications with your lawyers.

If you operate in Europe

If your organisation operates in Europe, it's important to note that – as there's no agreement currently in place regarding legal professional privilege – from 1 January 2021, solicitors qualified in the UK and not within a European jurisdiction will likely be treated as third-party lawyers.

As such, they won't attract privilege in matters before the European Commission such as competition investigations and related proceedings.

Moreover, communications between an organisation and its internal legal teams do not generally attract privilege in such matters, as in-house lawyers aren't considered to be sufficiently independent.

What about the English courts?

Back at home, the English court has provided helpful guidance in PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors, as to how the English courts will determine whether privilege applies to communications between an organisation and its internal legal teams, which may be internationally qualified.

In that case, the court held that legal advice privilege applied to communications between a client and its Russian in-house legal team, despite the fact that those communications would not attract privilege under Russian law.

If your business is currently in (or becomes involved in) court proceedings in England and Wales, the laws and procedural rules of England and Wales will govern issues of privilege – not the laws of the location in which the lawyers are practising.

Legal advice privilege

Under English law, legal advice privilege (LAP) entitles a person to withhold from disclosing confidential communications which pass between an individual and their lawyer, which have been created for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.

LAP also applies to communications between the client and solicitors acting in private practice, as well as those that are employed by organisations as lawyers (ie in-house lawyers). Save for a few limited exceptions, in-house solicitors will, however, still need to maintain their regulatory status.

Under English law, LAP will also extend to communications between a client and its foreign lawyers.

In this case, the applicant sought to rely on the fact in Russia in-house lawyers – ie those employed by organisations – don't meet the regulatory requirements imposed on in-house lawyers under English law.

This is because there is a distinction in Russia between "Advocates" who are considered to be independent professional lawyers (who are members of the Russian bar and regulated by Russian Federal Law) and other lawyers (such as those working within the claimant's legal department) who are not Advocates. 

Additionally, under Russian law, the concept of Advocate's secrecy (the closest equivalent to LAP) only applies to Advocates. On that basis, the applicant sought to argue that LAP should only extend to communications between a client and its Advocate, and not to those with the legal advisers working within its own legal department.

The court's decision

In finding that the communications in question were covered by LAP under English court, the court held as follows:

  • LAP will apply to foreign lawyers in the same way that it applies to lawyers qualified in England and Wales provided that those lawyers are carrying out "the role of lawyer".
  • It's the function of the lawyer that's relevant, not whether they have the same regulatory qualifications and requirements as solicitors and barristers qualified in this jurisdiction.
  • There's no additional requirement that foreign lawyers be "appropriately qualified" or regulated as "professional lawyers".
  • As a result, the English court won't investigate the regulatory requirements of the jurisdiction in which foreign lawyers are qualified or practising as a lawyer in determining whether privilege applies.

Whether the same documents would be disclosable in any proceedings in Russia would be determined by the procedural rules in Russia.

Here to help

This case serves as an important reminder that where legal advice is being sought from either internal legal teams or external firms of solicitors outside of the UK, the application and any limitations of privilege should be considered at the outset.

Please get in touch with a member of our Disputes & Investigations team if you'd like to discuss how we can assist you with this.

In this series

Disputes & investigations

Internal investigations - raising the bar

1 May 2024

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud

21 March 2024

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

What are the litigation trends for 2024?

1 February 2024

by Katie Chandler, Emma Allen

Disputes & investigations

ClientEarth v FCA: Challenging Regulator Decisions

12 February 2024

by Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev

Disputes & investigations

First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts

14 December 2023

Disputes & investigations

The use of AI in Trial Witness Statements post-PD 57AC

23 October 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?

14 August 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty

4 August 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell

1 June 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

CJC costs review – what will change?

1 June 2023

by James Bryden, Helen Robinson

Disputes & investigations

Embargoed judgments – dos and don'ts

16 May 2023

by Stephanie High

Cryptoassets, blockchain and distributed ledger technology

Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime

9 August 2022

by Nick Maday

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 July 2022

by Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

23 September 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

27 April 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift

21 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

13 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Privilege waiver warning

2 July 2020

by Tim Strong, Georgina Jones

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 April 2022

by Multiple authors

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Disputes & investigations

Internal investigations - raising the bar

1 May 2024
Quick read

by Andrew Howell

Click here to find out more
Disputes & investigations

The use of AI in Trial Witness Statements post-PD 57AC

23 October 2023
Quick read

by multiple authors

Click here to find out more
Disputes & investigations

Law Commission's report on digital assets: what's next?

2 October 2023
Quick read

by Georgina Jones and Claudia Blofeld

Click here to find out more