Legal professional privilege safeguards secrecy and confidentiality in exchanges between attorneys and their clients. It is an essential aspect of the right of defence. Exactly what falls within the scope of legal professional privilege is not always clear, however, and companies should be mindful about this. This is an important issue in competition infringement proceedings, because competition authorities have wide investigation powers and can require companies to disclose a vast amount of documents. Trials are also a borderline case: if the trial documents contain correspondence between a party and their attorney, does this correspondence enter the public domain?
19.9.2019
New Case Law Reinforces Legal Professional Privilege
Johanna Lähde
In a recent ruling, Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) considered legal professional privilege in a situation where the client had disclosed their attorney’s advice to third parties. Earlier this year, the SAC weighed legal professional privilege against the principle of openness in government activities.
SAC Found Competition Authority Had Violated Legal Professional Privilege
In its ruling KHO:2019:98, the SAC found that the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) had violated legal professional privilege when investigating a bus cartel that was active in Finland from 2010 to 2015. An appendix of the FCCA’s penalty payment proposal included an email thread from a company that had participated in the cartel. One of the messages in the thread referred to a recommendation by the company’s attorney. It also included a statement by a company representative regarding the recommendation. The message was forwarded within the company as well as outside the company to another cartel participant.
The SAC stated, firstly, that the recommendation issued by the attorney was linked to the competition infringement investigated by the FCCA and was, therefore, relevant to the company’s right of defence. Whether or not the company had actually followed the recommendation or whether the law firm had issued it before or after the investigation had begun did not matter.
The SAC then assessed whether legal professional privilege applies to a message that has been forwarded to others. Under European case law, legal professional privilege protects a company’s internal correspondence, which merely repeats a legal recommendation issued by an attorney (see, e.g. Case T30/89 Hilti). According to the SAC, whether this protection also extends to a recommendation that has been disclosed to external parties was open to interpretation.
The SAC deemed that, where there is room for interpretation, precedence must be given to the right of defence of the cartel participants. In the court’s view, the company had not waived its legal professional privilege even though it had disclosed its attorney’s advice to an external cartel participant. In other words, unlike the Market Court, which was the court of first instance, the SAC found that the company was not obligated to hand over to the FCCA the part of the message that included its attorney’s advice. The SAC disregarded this part of the message when evaluating the cartel. However, the court did remark that the violation of legal professional privilege had not materially restricted the company’s ability to defend itself.
The SAC’s position on the protection of right of defence has bearing in competition infringement proceedings. Nonetheless, despite the broad interpretation of the right of defence and legal professional privilege in this case, companies should act cautiously and avoid disclosing their attorneys’ legal advice to third parties.
Legal Professional Privilege May Justify Secrecy of Official Documents
The SAC has issued two rulings that clarify the relation between legal professional privilege and the principle of openness in government activities. Official documents are generally public and can only be declared secret based on the grounds provided by law.
In an appeal against a public procurement decision (KHO:2019:10), the appellant had requested access to an attorney’s opinion attached to the decision awarding the contract. The opinion included legal advice regarding the tender procedure planned by the contracting entity.
The SAC found that the opinion was a trial document, which in principle means that the appellant had the right to access it. However, the SAC refused the appellant’s access request, invoking the confidentiality of the relationship between attorney and client. The SAC found that the attorney’s obligation of secrecy is one of the preconditions for a fair trial.
In another ruling (KHO:2019:83), the SAC assessed an access request to the National Audit Office of Finland that concerned the publicity and secrecy of a memorandum related to the investigation of the derivatives positions of a government-owned company. The memorandum included information about the positions expressed by and reviews carried out by the company’s attorneys at various stages of the proceedings.
The SAC deemed that the information was protected by the attorney’s obligation of secrecy unless the client wished to waive the obligation. The company had not done so, and wished to keep the information secret. The SAC stressed, again, that the confidentiality of the exchanges between attorney and client plays a part in ensuring a fair trial. For this reason, the court found that the legal reviews and positions expressed in the opinion were business secrets of the company, and the company was under no obligation to disclose them to third parties.
The SAC’s rulings help to clarify the relationship between the legal professional privilege and the publicity of official documents.
Johanna Lähde and Hanna Perikangas
Latest news
Latest references
Ålandsbanken – Consent solicitation process regarding T2 instruments and issue of SEK 350 million AT1 notes
We advised Ålandsbanken Abp in the consent solicitation process regarding its SEK 150,000,000 Tier 2 notes due December 2041 and SEK 200,000,000 Tier 2 notes due March 2043. The terms and conditions of the aforementioned instruments were amended by removing the write-down mechanisms in the consent solicitation process. In addition, we advised Ålandsbanken Abp on the issue of SEK 350 million Additional Tier 1 notes. The notes bear floating interest at the rate of STIBOR three months plus a margin of 3.35 per cent per annum. The AT1 notes were issued on 20 November 2025, and admitted to trading on the official list of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd. The instrument has no maturity date and qualifies as Additional Tier 1 capital in accordance with the EU Capital Requirements Regulation. The issue strengthens Ålandsbanken’s capital structure by taking advantage of favourable market conditions.
Case published 10.12.2025
SuperOffice – Acquisition of Lyyti
We acted as Finnish counsel to SuperOffice AS, backed by Axcel, in its acquisition of Lyyti Oy from Finnish private equity firm Vaaka Partners and other sellers. Lyyti is a leading event management software company for physical, digital and hybrid events with a strong customer base in Finland, Sweden and France. SuperOffice is a leading provider of customer relationship management (CRM) software for small and medium-sized businesses across Northern Europe. Axcel is a Nordic private equity firm with a focus on technology, business services and industrials, healthcare, and consumer sectors.
Case published 9.12.2025
Life Finland – Administration of bankruptcy estate
Life Finland Oy, a retailer of natural products, other health-related products and cosmetics, filed for bankruptcy on its own initiative in June 2025, and our attorney, counsel Elina Pesonen was appointed administrator of the bankruptcy estate. Life Finland Oy was part of the international Life Group, and its parent company Life Europe AB was declared bankrupt in Sweden in June 2025. When declared bankrupt, Life Finland Oy had over 30 operational stores and almost 170 employees across Finland. In addition to the premises of the operational stores, the company had several other leased premises, such as retail premises it was vacating as well as office and warehouse spaces. The bankruptcy estate organised clearance sales in all of the company’s stores. The shutdown of the stores and the clearance sales were efficiently carried out in approximately two weeks in cooperation with the company’s country manager, regional managers and sales staff. The clearance sales yielded a significant liquidation result, and consumers bought nearly the entire inventory. The administration of the bankruptcy estate has required expertise in many areas. The proceedings have dealt with specialised issues such as cash pooling arrangements, intellectual property, franchising agreements, employment relationships and consumer creditors. In addition, the proceedings are notably international, as the estate administrator has organised the shutdown of operations and the liquidation of assets in close cooperation with the estate administrators of the Swedish Group companies. The cooperation has included, among other things, exploring opportunities for selling the business, the sale of intangible rights and the coordination of intra-group agreements.
Case published 9.12.2025
General Catalyst – ICEYE’s USD 150 Million Series E Funding Round
We advised General Catalyst as lead investor on ICEYE’s EUR 150 million series E funding round, valuing the company at EUR 2.4 billion. ICEYE is the world leader in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite systems and operates the largest SAR constellation globally. Its technology delivers objective, near real-time Earth observation in any weather or light conditions, enabling governments and institutions to manage risks and respond faster. General Catalyst is a global investment and transformation company, partnering with leading entrepreneurs to build toward global resiliency and applied AI. Its portfolio includes companies such as Airbnb, Snap, Stripe, Mistral AI, Hubspot, Anduril, Helsing and Legora. We advised General Catalyst on this transaction in collaboration with the US law firm Goodwin.
Case published 8.12.2025