Solicitor-client privilege generally does not apply to communications between an employee of a company and in-house counsel. Despite differing views on the effective application of solicitor-client privilege under the Lawyers Act, current practice shows that in-house counsel are considered employees of the company and therefore go beyond the scope of Article 19 of the Lawyers Act and the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers. In principle, it can be said that documents enjoy protection regardless of when they are created because of the nature of the obligation of confidentiality described above. In general, there is no specific rule regarding the type of documents or content protected. A lawyer`s privileged information may include all facts, information and data obtained by the lawyer in the performance of his or her professional duties. A foreign lawyer is defined as a lawyer who is a foreign national practicing in Indonesia. Article 24 of the Law on Lawyers expressly stipulates that foreign lawyers are subject to the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers and the applicable legislation. However, solicitor-client privilege does not apply to correspondence between clients and foreign lawyers. Nevertheless, no correspondence with the note “Without Prejudice” can be shown to the judge. In addition, settlement negotiations between foreign lawyers cannot be used for evidentiary purposes. In addition, an in-house lawyer is particularly cautious if, in addition to acting as legal counsel, he also holds other functions within the company (for example, a management or operational role).
If the lawyer is consulted on commercial matters in his or her capacity as a management consultant, solicitor-client privilege does not apply. Consequently, the French authorities may have recourse to in-house legal advice provided by registered in-house lawyers, which are not protected by solicitor-client privilege. For example, the French Court of Cassation has ruled that communications between in-house lawyers are not protected by solicitor-client privilege (Court of Cassation, November 3, 2016, No. 15-20.495). In the law of evidence, a privilege is a rule of evidence that allows the holder to refuse to disclose information or evidence on a particular subject or to prevent the disclosure or use of such evidence in legal or other proceedings. A well-known privilege is solicitor-client privilege, known as solicitor-client privilege in the United States and solicitor-client privilege in Australia. This protects confidential communication between a client and their legal counsel for the predominant purpose of legal counsel. [1] The rationale is that clients should be able to communicate freely with their lawyers in order to facilitate the proper functioning of the judicial system. An exception to solicitor-client privilege applies in money laundering cases. If there is a suspicion that a particular client is linked to money-laundering activities, his lawyer is obliged to report these activities to the Federal Criminal Police Office. This rule does not apply to facts established during the preparation of judicial proceedings.
The privilege can only be waived if the client gives the lawyer his or her express or implied consent to disclose the document or information in question. This consent must always be interpreted restrictively, so that it is limited to information that the customer has waived. Solicitor-client privilege cannot be waived in a comprehensive or non-specific manner. As far as we know, there has only been an audit in the form of a dawn raid on merger control procedures, but companies must protect their internal strategic documents if they contain professional secrecy. Since communications from lawyers and legal advisers to the Bar Association benefit from the protection of professional secrecy, the inclusion of information obtained from other professionals (e.g. business advisers) in these communications is one possible way of extending solicitor-client privilege to other professionals. However, care must be taken to ensure that no direct communication takes place between the company and other professionals without the involvement of a lawyer or legal advisor of the Bar Association in the flow of communication. All data (oral, written, electronic, etc.) collected in the course of legal practice and correspondence between lawyer and client are considered privileged by law – unless these data are in the public file – even after the end of the lawyer-client relationship and cannot even be used for judicial purposes. The basis of this rule is not difficult to discover.
This is not (as has sometimes been said) because of any particular importance that the law attaches to the activity of law professors, or because of a special provision to grant them protection. But this is done out of consideration for the interests of justice, which cannot be maintained, and for the administration of justice, which cannot continue without the help of men who are in jurisprudence, in the practice of the courts and in questions concerning rights and duties, which are the subject of all judicial proceedings. If privilege did not exist at all, everyone would depend on his own legal means, without professional help, a man would not dare to consult a skilled person, or dare to tell his counselor only half of his case. [2] It is common for merging parties to have pre-notice discussions with the CMA, during which the CMA provides detailed questions about the transaction. Other questions from the CMA may arise after the formal notice of merger is filed, such as: to respond to transaction information that the CMA received from third parties, such as clients of the merging parties. These applications supplement the information required by the parties under the merger notice. Once the filing is obtained, the CMA has broad statutory powers to require parties to provide information and documents for the purposes of the investigation (Section 109 of the Companies Act 2002). However, the parties are not required to disclose documents subject to solicitor-client privilege.
In the field of merger control (as in other areas of English law), privilege refers to the legal advice privilege discussed above and to procedural privilege. With regard to the possibility for a client to waive solicitor-client privilege, the French French Anti-Corruption Authority (AFA) and the National Financial Prosecutor (PRF) recall that solicitor-client privilege is not imposed on the client, who is free to hand over the documents covered by this secrecy (PRF and AFA, guidelines on the implementation of the CJIP, 26 June 2019). However, these guidelines are only recommendations of these authorities and are not legally binding. Georgian legislation does not regulate solicitor-client privilege in various areas of law. Rather, there is a general regime of solicitor-client privilege that applies to any legal context (whether civil, criminal or competitive). The prohibition of seizure does not apply if the lawyer is suspected of having participated in the offence.