Expanding Akzo Nobel

Following on from its judgment in Akzo Nobel , 1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 6 September 2012 delivered its judgment in Prezes . 2 Prezes expanded the decision in Akzo Nobel , which held that communications between a client and its in-house legal counsel were not protected by legal privilege because the latter are not considered sufficiently independent from the former. Taking this holding one step further, the CJEU in Prezes held not only that corporations are unable to benefit from legal privilege regarding communications with their in-house counsel, but also that any lawyer in an employment relationship with its client is disqualified from representing their client before the CJEU. This article criticizes this holding and argues that the CJEU's interpretation of independence does two things: (1) unreasonably expands the scope of Akzo Nobel to include the representation of in-house counsel in all cases; and (2) does so in a way which is inconsistent in light of similar concerns of the independence of government lawyers, who seemingly maintain their right of privilege under the judgment

Business · European union · Government (linguistics · Independence (probability theory · Interpretation (philosophy · Political science · Politics · Privilege (computing · Representation (politics · Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction · Dispute Resolution and Class Actions · European and International Law Studies · Law