- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Transport, Law Firm and Construction & Engineering industries
In-house counsel employed by corporations are not entitled to attorney-client privilege due to their employment status and lack of professional independence, says the Supreme Court
Background
The General Counsel Association of India intervened in a suo motu writ petition concerning the circumstances under which investigating agencies may summon advocates who provide legal opinions or represent parties during investigations. The Association prayed that attorney-client privilege should also extend to in-house counsel.
Decision
Amongst other findings on the scope of legal privilege, the Court held:
- In-house counsel do not qualify as "Advocates" under §132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (Evidence Act).
- Their role as employees compromises independence, making them subject to corporate strategies and obligations.
- However, privilege will still apply to communications between the in-house counsel and external legal counsel.
Conclusion
The decision clarifies that attorney-client privilege requires independence from the client, which the Supreme Court says is absent in an employment relationship. In-house counsel are economically dependent on their employer and aligned with business interests, excluding them from this privilege, although there is still some narrow protection for employer-to-advisor communications.
Footnote
* 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2320.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
