Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 MARCH 2012

In-House v External Lawyers: A Level Playing Field?

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the "CAT") recently confirmed that an in-house lawyer should only be required to give the same form of undertaking as external counsel and solicitors, despite this being disputed by external lawyers.

United KingdomAntitrust/Competition Law

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the "CAT") recently confirmed that an in-house lawyer should only be required to give the same form of undertaking as external counsel and solicitors, despite this being disputed by external lawyers. This welcome decision goes some way towards bridging the gap in equality between the treatment of in-house and external lawyers. The gap nevertheless remains pronounced by the different treatment of in-house lawyers and external lawyers in the context of legal professional privilege at the EU level.

On 25 January 2012, in the case of Telefonica UK Limited v Office of Communications, the chairman of the CAT, Mr Justice Henderson, gave an order in relation to the ability of an in-house solicitor to give an undertaking in a confidentiality ring to ensure that confidential information exchanged for the purpose of the hearing is kept within a limited number of the parties' legal advisors.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from