header-logo header-logo

Legal advice privilege: a search for clarity?

01 December 2017 / Mark Hall , Jan-Jaap Baer
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
nlj_7772_baer

Jan-Jaap Baer & Mark Hall review recent developments in the law of privilege

  • The current restrictive approach to privilege poses real challenges to lawyers when seeking to investigate issues raised by corporate clients without creating documents that will be subsequently disclosable to regulators or litigants.
  • Increasing difficulties in claiming privilege may make it harder to persuade employees to fully co-operate in investigations.

Since 2004 the leading authority on legal advice privilege has been the much criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers (No 5) [2003] EWCA Civ 474, [2003] QB 1556, which gave a restrictive interpretation as to who is the ‘client’ in the corporate context. Several recent court decisions have confirmed this narrow approach and may suggest a trend towards yet further erosion in the ability to claim both legal advice and litigation privilege.

Who is the client?

Legal advice privilege applies to confidential communications passing between a client and the client’s lawyer which have come into existence for the purpose of giving or receiving legal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll