Attorney-Client Privilege In Cross-Border M&A: How Privilege Gets Lost During The Deal

Last week we wrote about how attorney-client privilege can be lost in domestic M&A when brokers, consultants, and other non-legal advisors are pulled into legal communications. See Attorney-Client Privilege in M&A: How Brokers and Other Advisors Can Create Serious Risk.

Cross-border deals contain those same hazards, but worse. More people are involved, multiple legal systems may be at play, and legal advice is more likely to move across teams, platforms, and jurisdictions in ways that are hard to control.

In most deals, the attorney-client privilege is not lost in one dramatic moment. It is lost through routine carelessness. Legal advice gets mixed with business discussion. Too many people are copied. Advice gets summarized for convenience, forwarded to the wrong recipients, or uploaded where it should never have gone. We have seen sophisticated teams run careful deals and still weaken their privilege position long before closing, because no one imposed real discipline on how legal communications would be handled. It can be as simple as an in-house lawyer giving legal advice on a disclosure issue, a banker forwarding that email chain to a broader group, and someone later dropping part of that exchange into the data room because it seemed useful at the time.

Cross-border transactions make these problems more common, not less. Here is where they usually start.

More Parties Usually Means More Privilege Problems

In cross-border deals, privilege gets harder to protect as more people get pulled into communication streams. That protection can be weakened or lost when unnecessary third parties are included, when legal advice gets folded into business discussions, or when the law applied to the communication is less protective than the parties assumed.

In a cross-border deal, the group involved in the same issue can expand quickly: U.S. counsel, foreign counsel, investment bankers, brokers, tax advisors, consultants, translators, diligence teams, and executives in multiple countries. They may all be dealing with the same problem at the same time. The more people included in a communication, the harder it can be to argue later that each recipient was necessary to the rendering of legal advice.

Clients often think of the deal team as one working group. Privilege law treats it differently. The practical problem is that deals reward speed, visibility, and keeping everyone in the loop, while privilege rewards restraint. A banker may be central to the transaction and still be the wrong person to include on a legal thread. A consultant may be essential to diligence and still not belong on counsel’s communications. Business relevance is not enough. Necessity is. Those are not the same thing, and courts do not treat them as such.

The domestic version of this problem is already serious when brokers and other advisors are included on legal communications. In a cross-border deal, the same mistake becomes harder to contain because more jurisdictions, more intermediaries, and more counsel may be involved.

In-House Counsel Often Makes the Analysis Harder

In-house counsel is often where privilege problems begin in international deals.  This becomes more problematic where in-house lawyers in complex transactions often play several roles at once: legal advisor, deal quarterback, internal strategist, commercial negotiator. Once those roles begin to overlap, the privilege analysis gets harder.

That problem exists in domestic transactions too, but it becomes more dangerous in cross-border deals because different jurisdictions treat in-house counsel differently. Some foreign legal systems, especially civil law systems, provide little or no protection to in-house counsel communications in certain contexts. Others apply standards that differ sharply from U.S. law. A communication that looks protected in one forum may look very different in another.

What matters is not whether the company lawyer was copied, but whether the communication was genuinely legal in nature and handled that way. If the communication is really about business planning or negotiation, or if the relevant jurisdiction takes a narrower view of in-house privilege, the protection may be much weaker than the team assumes. This can be trickier still for foreign companies with offices in common-law countries.

Foreign Counsel Does Not Fix a Bad Communication

Putting a lawyer on an email does not fix a bad communication. Including foreign counsel on a thread does not undo the damage created by unnecessary third parties already on it. It also does not guarantee that U.S. privilege standards will govern later if a dispute arises. Courts dealing with cross-border communications may apply the law of the jurisdiction most closely connected to the communication or the dispute. That law may be less protective than the parties expected when they sent the message.

One cross-border trap is assuming that communications with in-house counsel will be treated the way they often are in the United States. Some jurisdictions are less tolerant of third-party involvement. Some are less willing to protect communications that blend legal advice with business judgment. Assuming U.S. standards will travel cleanly across borders is a mistake that often surfaces only after the deal is under stress.

Where Privilege Usually Gets Lost

Most privilege damage happens in the ordinary flow of deal communications. International transactions move fast. Once the pace picks up, legal advice starts moving with everything else —through email chains, messaging apps, shared drives, decks, and data rooms. That is usually where the discipline starts to slip, and data rooms deserve particular attention.

A privileged document uploaded to a general folder that the other side’s diligence team or outside auditors can access may create a serious waiver problem. We have seen experienced teams make exactly this mistake. Someone wants everything in one place. Someone else decides it is easier to upload the document than explain why it does not belong there. Nobody stops it. By closing, the other side may have already seen material the company assumed would remain privileged. In most cases, that is a failure of process, not bad luck.

The same problem appears when counsel’s advice is paraphrased in a diligence summary, incorporated into a slide deck, or dropped into a broader commercial discussion. A court will not care much that everyone intended to preserve privilege. It will look closely at what the team actually did.

The safer practice is to keep legal advice in a separate counsel-controlled thread. Business updates can move in the ordinary deal thread, but legal analysis, disclosure calls, and sensitive risk discussions should not. Once those conversations are mixed together, separating them later gets much harder.

Post-Closing Privilege Is Easy to Overlook

Most teams think about privilege during the deal and too little about who controls it afterward.

Depending on the governing law, the structure of the deal, and the wording of the transaction documents, control over pre-closing privileged communications can shift after closing. If the agreement does not address that issue clearly, the buyer or surviving entity may later claim access to emails, draft analyses, and internal legal discussions that the seller assumed would remain off limits in any post-closing fraud, indemnity, or earnout dispute.

That risk matters even more in cross-border M&A because the communications are often broader, more sensitive, and more widely dispersed. If the deal later turns into an earnout dispute, indemnification claim, fraud allegation, or other post-closing conflict, those pre-closing communications may become some of the most important documents in the case. In a real dispute, the communication that does the most damage is often not the one anyone worried about during the deal. It is the one that got forwarded, summarized, or uploaded because it seemed efficient at the time. If the agreement says nothing about control of pre-closing privileged communications, that silence can become a serious problem later.

What Deal Teams Should Do at the Start

Privilege is easier to protect at the start of a deal than after the team has settled into bad habits. These makes it crucial to set a communication protocol early. Decide who belongs on legal communications and who does not, and make those rules explicit. Do not assume that executives, bankers, consultants, or deal managers will draw the right lines on their own.

Keep legal advice in separate threads. Do not mix legal analysis with business updates unless there is a real reason to do so. Do not forward counsel’s advice casually, summarize it for broader audiences, or include it in diligence materials without first thinking through the consequences.

Ask early which jurisdictions may end up judging the communication, and how those jurisdictions treat third parties, in-house counsel, and mixed business-legal communications. The answers may affect how foreign counsel is used, how translators and consultants are brought into the process, and how information should be stored and shared from the start.

Address control of pre-closing privileged communications in the transaction documents. If there is any realistic prospect of a post-closing dispute, the agreement should cover that issue expressly. It should not be left to implication or cleanup at the end.

The Bottom Line

If a company waits until a post-closing dispute to ask who received legal advice, what was uploaded to the data room, how in-house counsel was used, or whether foreign law treated key communications differently, it is already in a weak position. By then, the documents that matter most may already be in the other side’s hands.

The teams that get this right are usually the ones that set rules early, kept distribution tight, separated legal advice from ordinary deal traffic, and dealt with privilege control before a dispute forced the issue.

For a closer look at how brokers, consultants, and other non-legal advisors can undermine privilege even in a domestic deal, see our earlier post on attorney-client privilege in M&A.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does attorney-client privilege apply in cross-border M&A?

Yes. But the answer is often less stable than people expect because jurisdictions have varying rules on attorney-client privilege, and may also evaluate the same communication differently–especially when third parties, in-house lawyers, or mixed business and legal discussions are involved. 

Does copying a broker or consultant on an email to counsel waive privilege?

Often yes. If the advisor is not necessary to the rendering of legal advice, that person’s presence on the communication may destroy privilege. Cross-border deals create more of this risk because more third parties are involved and the pressure to keep everyone informed is constant.

Are communications with foreign lawyers automatically privileged?

No. The answer depends on the jurisdiction, the nature of the advice, and the law applied by the court or regulator evaluating the issue. The rules of each country as to confidentiality protections are beyond the scope of this post.

Are in-house counsel communications treated the same way internationally?

No. Some jurisdictions are less protective than U.S. companies expect, especially when the lawyer is acting in a business role as well as a legal one. This is especially true of civil law countries.

Can sharing legal advice with translators or consultants create privilege problems?

Yes. Sometimes a third party may be sufficiently necessary to the provision of legal advice, but that should not be assumed. Their involvement should be structured carefully.

What happens to privileged communications after the deal closes?

Control can shift. If the transaction documents do not address pre-closing privileged communications expressly, the buyer or surviving entity may later claim access to materials the seller expected to keep protected.

To view the full article click here

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.