The duties of in-house counsel: The bold, the bright and the blurred?

Evers, M; Harris, J

The duties of in-house counsel: The bold, the bright and the blurred?

Evers, M

Harris, J

Permalink

Publisher:: Lawbook Co
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Australian Business Law Review, 2009, 37 pp. 267 - 285
Issue Date:: 2009-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2008005821OK.pdf		1.19 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Evers, M https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7736-8979	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Harris, J https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7099-4694	en_US
dc.date.issued	2009-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Australian Business Law Review, 2009, 37 pp. 267 - 285	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0310-1053	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/12353
dc.description.abstract	Recent cases involving in-house and external lawyers have attracted much media attention, from the C7litigation to the AWB Inquiry. Some of the media commentary and judicial remarks were directed at the role of the internal legal advisers in the conduct of the parties, both before and during litigation. The cases acknowledge the challenges faced by in-house counsel where the duty to client is blended with loyalty to the employer. The requirement for independence is a fundamental principle of the legal profession. The increasing use of in-house counsel challenges this principle. The conflict faced by in-house counsel is predominant in claims for privilege. This article examines the scope for privilege to be claimed in respect of communications involving in-house counsel.	en_US
dc.publisher	Lawbook Co	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Australian Business Law Review	en_US
dc.title	The duties of in-house counsel: The bold, the bright and the blurred?	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	37	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
utslib.for	1501 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.volume	37	en_US

Abstract:

Recent cases involving in-house and external lawyers have attracted much media attention, from the C7litigation to the AWB Inquiry. Some of the media commentary and judicial remarks were directed at the role of the internal legal advisers in the conduct of the parties, both before and during litigation. The cases acknowledge the challenges faced by in-house counsel where the duty to client is blended with loyalty to the employer. The requirement for independence is a fundamental principle of the legal profession. The increasing use of in-house counsel challenges this principle. The conflict faced by in-house counsel is predominant in claims for privilege. This article examines the scope for privilege to be claimed in respect of communications involving in-house counsel.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/12353