In-House Counsel

Attorney-client privilege posts on this blog

By Rees Morrison

Many posts on this blog have mentioned actions by a law department?s lawyers that risk loss of the attorney-client privilege (See my posts of April 15, 2007: lawyers who are officers and sign contracts; Jan. 21, 2008: use of IT support; Dec. 2, 2007 and Oct. 21, 2005: compliance activities of the law department; Nov. 14, 2005: legal bill-audits; Sept. 14, 2005: data sent to accounts payable; Sept. 21, 2005: risks as a result of knowledge management efforts; Oct. 31, 2005: concerns for corporate attorneys; May 30, 2005: in-house counsel not reporting to the general counsel; and Feb. 7, 2006: erosion of distinction between lawyer and business person.).

Much also has been said about the absence of the privilege in several European countries (See my posts of Oct. 24, 2007: in-house lawyers not members of national bars; Nov. 18, 2007: discusses countries of the EU; Nov. 17, 2006 and three references cited; July 25, 2005 about European views; Nov. 18, 2006: diminished respect when no privilege attaches; April 9, 2006: a multi-country survey; and Oct. 24, 2007 with some reasons why countries deny the privilege.).

I have also cited an excellent paper on the topic (See my post of Oct. 24, 2005.).

Full post as published by Law Department Management on February 16, 2008 (boomark / email).