Client - Attorney Confidential Communication

Yes an e-mail from an in-house counsel shall be Privileged Communication. Because even In-house counsels and Legal Advisors are Adovocates.  As the company for whihc they appear is a legal person. (Legal person: Any company, corporation or association or body of persons whther incorporated or not).

Thanks for your views Theja. I have a doubt then:

1. An In-house Counsel is not a member of the Bar Council
2. Cannot appear before any Court of Law for clients, while in employment
3. Is holding an office of the Company and bound by confidentiality.

My view (may be wrong) is that the intent of statute is to protect the information of the clients of an advocate, who are shared the information even without a contractual obligation of confidentiality. This is an additional advantage, a mark of trust conferred by the Law of the land to signify the importance of the dignity of the Legal profession and the professionals. I am not sure whether the protection under the said statute is available for clients of any other professionals (being one of my other questions posted before).

Further there is no qualification (to my knowledge) stipulated for an In-house counsel , other than the requirements under respective Company policy(as it is not an office conferred by statute, like that of a Company Secretary in employment). Therefore, going by your view, information shared with an In-house counsel also qualify under the statute, morefully to mean that a discussion between two people (whether qualified as a legal professional or not), speaking law, constitutes a professional/confidential communication. Am I rite in my understanding?

Please let me know your views.

Okay. My explanation doesnt imply that.

Fine. Now, Inhouse counsels ar nothing but one who take care of the legal issues of the company, They are nothing but advocates of that house of company whose duty it is as such counsel to take care of the legal issues so long as he is in that house. An adovocate appears for an individual client likewise In-house counsel is an inhouse advocate of that company.

So, inhouse counsels come within the meaning of advocate under avocates Act, 1961. they are also like advocates appearing for their client who is a company. As a said earlie a company is also a legal person,. Moreover, the purpose of an Inhouse counsel is the job of avdvocacy and he doesnt have any business interest in the company, if he has any business interest in the compnay then he can not continue to be an inhouse counsel.

N coming to othe professions. Each and every profession has its own rules and ethics. Like a doctor may not disclose the details of his/her patient to other unauthorized third party.

Also, it is under principles of natural justice that one can be a witness in his own cause.

That is my understanding. Okay.

i wish for the reveiws from others as well,

Thank you.

Though I sightly differ from the 5th post by you, I liked the very detailed explanation given by ou, and the time dedicated for the reply.

I await other members to respond...

In India, communications between clients and in-house lawyers are generally not protected. under the Bar Council of India rules, an advocate can't be a full-time employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern; so in-house counsel aren't recognized as advocates. Although most corporate communications are protected under confidentiality agreements, they're not privileged.

Under US law, any communication between the attorney and client is considered privileged in the sense that it can be withheld from the process of discovery in litigation. Confidential communication in matters of business doesn't allow for the same security. In the United States, in-house counsel has the same status as an attorney actively practicing law. However, since in-house counsel isn't considered an advocate in India, any advice the India company receives from its legal department won't be covered under the attorney-client privilege umbrella. That's why it is so critical to explain to the Indian advocates that legal practices and rules regarding this aspect are very different in the United States.

Thanks Ria, for the detailed explanation given. That was a very enlightening explanation given on the subject.

Can you please elaborate what you meant by “withheld from the process of discovery in litigation”? Does it mean that the communication provided by an In-house Attorney cannot be produced in the Courts of Law as evidence under US Laws?

Secondly, when you say that corporate communication in India are protected under confidentiality agreements, still the same has to be produced before the Court, if there is a litigation, rite?

1. Yes,  the communication provided by an In-house Attorney cannot be produced in the Courts of Law as evidence under US Laws.

2. Confidential matters with reference to corporate communication can be produced in courts only if the court orders to do so.