Working in-house
An in-house lawyer is a trainee or qualified solicitor employed
in central or local government, industry or commerce, such as media
or energy companies, procurator fiscal service, court
administration, and other public or industry bodies. In-house
lawyers currently make up between a quarter and a third of Scottish
solicitors. Follow the link to download a full list of roles.
Working in-house differs from private practice and brings its
own unique and exciting pressures, challenges and rewards. You will
get the opportunity to be directly involved with the business of
your employer and to develop specific skills and expertise that you
won't find in private practice.
As an in-house lawyers you don't have a traditional client
base because you act for your employer. You may find you have a
more hands-on approach to the law, more strategic input to its
application and a greater variety of work and responsibility than
colleagues in private practice. You are the legal expert
responsible for running cases and implementing new legislation so
it's vital you keep your knowledge of changes to the law current
and accurate.
The in-house sector is currently busier than ever despite
the downturn, driven in no small part by business needs. The
loss of staff and knowledge through redundancies, restructuring,
looking to global markets, managing risk, regulatory compliance in
an increasingly complex environment all contribute to make expert
and independent advice from those who understand the business from
the inside, essential.
As an in-house lawyer you are a respected player across the
business world, something which was demonstrated by the fantastic
support offered to the in-house sector in the wake of the Akzo
Nobel case (see more on this below). Business organisations, such
as the CBI and Chambers of Commerce, joined the UK law societies
and politicians to protest the decision and ensure recognition for
the specialist role of in-house lawyers, and the advice they give,
as essential in supporting economic growth for business now and in
the future.
In-house lawyers are subject to the same basic rules that all
solicitors operate under but there are exemptions from some rules
plus additional restrictions.
A fuller guide to the professional practice issues involved in
working in-house has been published by the In-House
Lawyers Group. Follow the link to download Guide for
New In-House Solicitors. This covers everything from
liability and insurance to payment of the SLCC levy, the issue
around privilege to conflict issues.
If you require any professional guidance which is not covered in
the Guide, or would like to discuss any issue highlighted in the
Guide in greater detail, please contact the Society's Professional
Practice Department for assistance:
Professional practice & general issues
Bruce
Ritchie - 0131 476 8124
Fiona
Robb - 0131 226 8883
Stella
McCraw - 0131 476 8176
John
Scott - 0131 226 8894
Akzo Nobel
One key case relating to working in house that you may have
heard of is the 'Akzo Nobel' case.
The Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited and Akcros Chemicals Limited v
Commission of the European Communities (C-550/07), concerns the extent
to which legal professional privilege (LPP) can be claimed in EU
antitrust investigations for legal advice given by in-house
lawyers. Follow the link to download guidance for
members working in-house in Scotland.
The Law Society of Scotland is of the view that this ruling
fails to recognise that all solicitors in the UK and some other
regimes are subject to the same stringent regulatory requirements
as private practitioners. See the report, Akzo
Nobel: The Society's Approach, for more details of the
action we are taking.
Akzo Nobel Update - March 2012
The Society and the ILG are pleased to note that a recent
decision of the Scottish Information Commissioner supports the view
that this case of Akzo Nobel v European Commission should be
limited to EU competition law, and should have no effect on UK
domestic law.
In decision 032-2012, Mr W. Hunter Watson and the
Scottish Ministers, the applicant sought to have
legal advice regarding the compatibility of the Mental Health (Care
and Treatment) Scotland Act 2003 with the European Convention on
Human Rights disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act. On
reason given by the Scottish Ministers for refusing to supply the
information was that legal professional privilege
applied.
Mr Watson contended that Akzo Nobel was relevant as he believed
the advice provided to the Scottish Government which he wanted to
see, was likely to have been obtained from a legal adviser within
the Scottish Government.
The Commissioner noted that the decision in Akzo Nobel related
specifically to EU competition law, and he did not consider it
relevant to, or created any precedent on legal privilege in
relation to the Freedom of Information Act in this application.
Janet Hood, Chair of the In-house Lawyers' Group said "I am
pleased to see that the Information Commissioner has interpreted
Akzo Nobel in its correct and extremely limited interpretation as
relating to EU competition law only".
You can see the full decision on the Scottish Information
commissioner website here
Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzedu Komunikacji Electronicznej
Update - January 2012.
How you can help
The Society is continuing to press the Lord Chancellor to
intervene in this case. We are liaising with our colleagues in the
Joint Societies Brussels office, and with our colleagues in England
and Wales. The Lord Chancellor has asked for examples of in-house
lawyers who have represented their employers at the European courts
level. We are looking for examples of Scottish in-house solicitors
who have acted at this level.
- If you have ever pleaded a case in the General Court of the
European Union please let us know.
- We would also be interested in knowing of in-house lawyers
making pleadings in preliminary reference procedures.
If you can help, or know any in house lawyers who have done this
work, please contact Neil Stevenson (neilstevenson@lawscot.org.uk),
as soon as possible with your details and if you can,
details of the case in which you acted.
December 2011 - Update
A briefing note setting out the Society's position can be found
here.
October 2011
A recent case has caused further concern around the EU position
on in-house lawyers. This unwelcome new issue arises from the
Order of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-226/10
Prezes Urzedu Komunikacji Electronicznej.
The General Court rejected as inadmissible an application from
an electronic communications company solely on the basis that they
were using in-house lawyers to present their case. The decision
proceeds on the basis that employed (in-house) lawyers have no
standing in bringing forward a case to the European Courts.
Further information on the case, its implications and the response
of the Society can be found in a briefing note
on the case.