Report comment

Putting the rather glaring typo in the headline to one side, I may need persuading about privilege issues in this case.

In Three Rivers, the House of Lords accepted that "legal advice" is not confined to telling the client the law, but includes advice "as to what should prudently and sensibly be done in the relevant legal context". While legal advice can include provision of business advice in a legal context, Lord Rodger identified the issue as whether the lawyer had "put on legal spectacles when reading, considering and commenting on the drafts".

In the Cohen case, a key issue seems to be around a settlement including a payment (and an NDA) of which the President says he was unaware. Did that really involve communications in confidence to or from the President for which the dominant purpose was the giving or receiving legal advice?

If I were going to fly the flag for protecting legal professional privilege, it probably wouldn't be on this case. I think I'd opt for the (lack of) privilege in relation to in house lawyers on EU competition cases post-Akzo Nobel...