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). It is not entirely clear. In the context of the travaux préparatoires of the Code of Judicial Procedure, it is alleged that the abovementioned prohibition on lawyers and authorised lawyers testifying on information obtained in the course of tasks other than judicial proceedings must be interpreted in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-550/07 P, which specified that only independent and non-salaried lawyers are protected. However, it is not clear whether this also applies to information obtained by in-house lawyers registered in legal proceedings in their capacity as lawyers or legal advisers to the employer. “Solicitor-client privilege” is a general term that covers two principles of English law: (1) legal advice privilege and (2) litigation privilege. The former relates only to communication between lawyer and client, while the latter may protect third-party reports prepared at the request of a client or lawyer for the purposes of litigation. In the first case, privilege protects all communications, whether or not they relate to litigation, in the second case, it protects only documents or other written communications created for the purpose of litigation. In order to obtain the privilege of legal advice, a document must effectively transfer information between a lawyer and his client or be intended for that purpose. A document that is not ready to be submitted to a lawyer for legal advice or that is not addressed to a lawyer and given to a lawyer specifically for advice does not constitute notification.
A statement created by an employee at the request of a manager to record his or her recollection of events is unlikely to benefit from the privilege of legal advice – even if the employee believes that the document will be provided to lawyers for advice – since it is not a communication with a lawyer. However, the transmission of this statement by a client to his lawyer for advice would benefit from the privilege of legal advice. In addition to foreign lawyers admitted in accordance with the preceding paragraph, lawyers who are nationals of other countries may benefit from the protection of professional secrecy in accordance with the provisions of an international treaty between the Republic of Bulgaria and the country of which the lawyer concerned is a national or on the basis of reciprocity between the two countries. The contours of solicitor-client privilege and the work product doctrine in the United States are defined by the facts and circumstances of the disclosure, the parties to the disclosure, and the purpose of the disclosure. In determining whether solicitor-client privilege or the work product doctrine applies to the exclusion of disclosure, or whether disclosure is enforced, careful consideration of applicable law must be undertaken. Different conclusions may be drawn based on variations in actual trends or the application of applicable laws, and perhaps on conflict-of-law issues between different jurisdictions in the federal system. It is desirable that parties attempting to resolve their dispute in Bahrain qualify any form of communication with statements indicating that an offer or communication does not constitute an admission of responsibility. Parties should also undertake that the information contained in such communications will not be used as evidence in subsequent proceedings. In certain circumstances, it is also possible to share privileged documents confidentially with external parties who have a common interest, such as other group companies or insurers, and sometimes even with third parties without such a common interest, provided that the disclosure has a clear and limited purpose. In the latter case, the division would be made on the basis of a limited waiver of privilege. Great care is required before sharing on both foundations. Under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the lawyer-client relationship is a partial exception to the requirement to report suspicious transactions.
In particular, lawyers are not required to provide information or documents gathered from a client to assess his legal position or represent the client in legal proceedings. However, if the lawyer submits data, information and documents to the competent authority, this does not constitute a breach of legal secrecy and the lawyer is not liable for damages caused to the party. In general, solicitor-client privilege does not apply to communications for the purpose of obtaining or discussing advice on non-legal matters. In determining whether a communication is privileged, a court usually focuses on its primary purpose. Communication with legal counsel for the purpose of obtaining business advice, not legal advice, is not protected by solicitor-client privilege. Nor does solicitor-client privilege preclude disclosure of the existence of the relationship with the client itself or the duration of the relationship. In fact, the general nature of the services provided by the lawyer, including the conditions of the right of retention, is generally traceable and is not protected by solicitor-client privilege. There is an important exception: in the context of European Commission competition investigations and possibly certain other types of EU proceedings, only communications involving external and non-in-house lawyers authorised to practise in an EU or EEA Member State may be privileged. 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). 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. It should be noted that solicitor-client privilege only applies to a lawyer`s legal communication with his or her client and does not extend to any additional role that counsel may play.