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
WithSecure – Sale of open source data collection product and business
We advised WithSecure Oyj in the sale of its open source data collection product and business to Patria Oyj. The divested business combining software and services falls outside WithSecure’s current strategy. Through the sale, WithSecure sharpens its focus on the Elements portfolio. WithSecure is a global cyber security company (listed on NASDAQ OMX Helsinki) with more than 35 years of industry experience. WithSecure offers partners flexible commercial models, ensuring mutual success across the dynamic cyber security landscape. Patria is an international company in the defence and security industry offering defence, security and aviation life cycle support services and technology solutions. As a result of the transaction, Patria will open a new office in Oulu and 10 WithSecure experts currently working in the business area will join Patria.
Case published 30.9.2024
A. Ahlström – ESG advisory and corporate sustainability due diligence process planning
We advised A. Ahlström in establishing a corporate sustainability due diligence process plan which incorporates best practices and tailored solutions based on our expertise within relevant business sectors. Our comprehensive ESG offering also included tailored training for members of the investment team and management team and the board of directors of several portfolio companies. ‘The ESG team at Castrén & Snellman provided us with legal and practical advice around the ESG regulatory tsunami that we need to incorporate in our ESG work,’ comments Camilla Sågbom, Director, Sustainability and Communications, at A. Ahlström Oy. A. Ahlström is a family-owned industrial company, developing leading global specialist positions in Forest & Fiber and Environmental technology sectors.
Case published 5.9.2024
Vapaus Bikes Finland – Series A funding round
We represented Vapaus Bikes Finland Oy, a company offering employee benefit bikes, in its international EUR 10 million Series A funding round. The investors behind the funding are private equity investors Shift4Good and Superhero Capital Ltd as well as Tesi together with the European Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank. The equity-based funding will support the company’s international expansion, software development, platform automation, and the growth of its concept for the second-hand market of bikes. Vapaus Bikes Finland is at the forefront of sustainable mobility services and has been a pioneer in the Employee Benefit Bikes sector since late 2020. It has been ranked among Finland’s fastest growing companies. Shift4Good is an impact venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Tesi (officially Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies.
Case published 21.8.2024
City of Rovaniemi – Former employees ordered to pay damages in an investment decision matter
We successfully acted for the City of Rovaniemi in a matter concerning offence in public office and damages claims in relation to a significant investment decision made by the city. The defendants were the city’s former municipal corporate officer, who was in an employment relationship, and a city treasurer, who was in a public-service employment relationship and acted as the supervisor of the municipal corporate officer. The criminal matter related to the City Board’s decision to invest EUR 2 million of the city’s funds in bonds offered by a newly established investment company in accordance with a decision prepared by the defendants. A significant part of the company’s operations involved quick loan business. The main legal question in the matter was whether the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and whether regulation on offences in public office therefore becomes applicable even to a person in an employment relationship. The municipal corporate officer in an employment relationship was charged with aggravated abuse of public office based on her negligence in the preparation and presentation of the investment decision as well as based on a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had invested her own money in a company that received funding from the investment target presented to the City Board. The charges of an offence in public office against the city treasurer concerned his position as the supervisor and reporter of the city’s investment activities. He was also involved in the preparation and presentation of the City Board’s decision. The processing of the matter started in the District Court of Lapland in June 2022. In its judgment given in August 2022, the District Court stated, based among other things on our argumentation, that the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that regulation on offences in public office can therefore be applied to the municipal corporate officer. The District Court deemed that the conduct of the former municipal corporate officer fulfils the characteristics of abuse of public office and that the conduct of the former city treasurer fulfils the characteristics of violation of official duty with respect to the preparation of the investment decision, but the right to bring charges had become time-barred. Punishments could therefore not be imposed on the defendants, but the defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the city approximately EUR 114,000 in damages plus interest for late payment. The city treasurer’s share of the amount was 10%. The prosecutor accepted the judgment but the other parties appealed it to the Court of Appeal. Acting for the city, we pursued claims for both punishment and damages in the Court of Appeal. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal processed the matter in November and December 2023. In its judgment given in June 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment with respect to the abuse of public office and violation of official duty. The Court of Appeal deemed that the municipal corporate officer had failed in her duty to declare the conflict of interest. In addition, she had failed in her duty to ensure that the prepared decision was in compliance with the city’s investment guidelines and that it had been properly put out to tender. The Court of Appeal also found that the text of the investment proposal was insufficient and misleading and that the municipal corporate officer’s conduct was intentional. As regards the city treasurer, the Court of Appeal held that he had failed in his duty to ensure that the investment proposal to the City Board complied with the investment guidelines, that the presentation was not misleading and that risks were taken into account as required by the investment guidelines. With the judgement, the Court of Appeal took a clear position that abuse in public offices and when exercising public authority is not acceptable. The judgment is also significant as it declares that investing public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that the liability for acts in office therefore becomes applicable even to persons in employment relationships. In addition, a key question for the Court of Appeal to assess was defining the amount of economic damage in a matter related to investment activities. The Court of Appeal held based on our arguments that the conduct of the municipal corporate officer and the city treasurer had caused damage to the city. The Court of Appeal increased the amount of damages to EUR 210,000 with the city treasurer’s share limited to 10%. The amount was increased because the Court of Appeal deemed that the city had suffered damage not only in terms of the loss of capital but also in terms of the loss of estimated return on investment. The judgement is not final.
Case published 21.8.2024