IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v21y2025i1p81-119..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Attorney–Client Privilege in Antitrust: Unravelling the Transatlantic Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantinos Pantelidis

Abstract

The Attorney–Client Privilege constitutes an essential and widely recognized right in judicial systems worldwide, aiming to protect the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and their clients. However, there is no single understanding among jurisdictions on the scope of the privilege, which stems from different approaches between legal traditions as to the role of the lawyer within the judicial system. In adversarial systems, an attorney is an agent and zealous representative of their client, whereas inquisitorial systems consider the lawyer primarily an instrument to the administration of justice and the search for the truth. On this basis, while the US courts recognize the privilege for in-house lawyers, the European Court of Justice has refused such recognition holding that in-house lawyers are not sufficiently independent to safely fulfil their judicial functions. In an environment of increased international trade between the US and the EU it has become ever-more important to understand and scrutinize both approaches. Issues regarding legal professional privilege become increasingly complicated in cases with extraterritorial elements, where foreign interests rise as a crucial element in the assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantinos Pantelidis, 2025. "The Attorney–Client Privilege in Antitrust: Unravelling the Transatlantic Debate," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 81-119.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:21:y:2025:i:1:p:81-119.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhae019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:21:y:2025:i:1:p:81-119.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.