• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
location iconSuite 503, 5/F, St. George's Building, 2 Ice House Street, Central, Hong Kongphone-icon +852 2868 0696 linkedintwitterfacebook
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 日本語
    • ENG
    • 简
    • 繁
    • FR
Oldham, Li & Nie
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • について
        • 受賞歴・ランキング
        • 企業の社会的責任
  • 業務内容
        • Canadian Notarization Services
        • チャイナ法務
        • 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法
        • 破産法
        • 人身傷害に関する法
        • 税務
        • 企業法務
        • 家族法
        • 保険法
        • プライベートクライアント
        • 商取引上の不正・資産回復
        • フランス法務
        • 知的財産法
        • 金融サービス・許認可
        • 紛争解決
        • ファンドプラクティス
        • 公証業務
        • ジャパニーズ・プラクティス
        • スタートアップ
        • Canadian Notarization Services
        • チャイナ法務
        • 家族法
        • 金融サービス・許認可
        • 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法
        • 保険法
        • 紛争解決
        • 破産法
        • プライベートクライアント
        • ファンドプラクティス
        • 人身傷害に関する法
        • 商取引上の不正・資産回復
        • 公証業務
        • 税務
        • フランス法務
        • ジャパニーズ・プラクティス
        • 企業法務
        • 知的財産法
        • スタートアップ
  • 弁護士紹介
  • インサイト
  • 事業拠点

Suite 503, St. George's Building,
2 Ice House Street, Central, Hong Kong

Tel. +852 2868 0696 | Send Email
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN Blue

OLN

  • Block Content Examples
  • Client Information & Registration
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy (EU)
  • Globalaw
  • Oldham, Li & Nie
  • OLNと地域社会
  • OLNポッドキャスト
  • Our People
  • Privacy Policy
  • Review
  • Reviews
  • Standard Terms of Engagement
  • Test Blog
  • 事業拠点
  • 受賞歴・ランキング
  • 当事務所について
  • 当事務所の歴史
    • OLN | おける企業としての社会的責任
    • 受賞歴・ランキング
  • 採用を希望する方へ
  • 業務内容
  • 評判
  • について
        • 受賞歴・ランキング
        • 企業の社会的責任
  • 業務内容
        • Canadian Notarization Services
        • チャイナ法務
        • 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法
        • 破産法
        • 人身傷害に関する法
        • 税務
        • 企業法務
        • 家族法
        • 保険法
        • プライベートクライアント
        • 商取引上の不正・資産回復
        • フランス法務
        • 知的財産法
        • 金融サービス・許認可
        • 紛争解決
        • ファンドプラクティス
        • 公証業務
        • ジャパニーズ・プラクティス
        • スタートアップ
        • Canadian Notarization Services
        • チャイナ法務
        • 家族法
        • 金融サービス・許認可
        • 人事労務・就労系ビザ関連法
        • 保険法
        • 紛争解決
        • 破産法
        • プライベートクライアント
        • ファンドプラクティス
        • 人身傷害に関する法
        • 商取引上の不正・資産回復
        • 公証業務
        • 税務
        • フランス法務
        • ジャパニーズ・プラクティス
        • 企業法務
        • 知的財産法
        • スタートアップ
  • 弁護士紹介
  • インサイト
  • 事業拠点
Navigating Legal Minefields: Directors’ Dilemmas in Relying on Legal Advice Given to his Company

Navigating Legal Minefields: Directors’ Dilemmas in Relying on Legal Advice Given to his Company

Legal advice

Navigating Legal Minefields: Directors’ Dilemmas in Relying on Legal Advice Given to his Company

5月 27, 2025 by OLN Marketing

  1. BUSINESS PRACTICE OF SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE

In the ever-evolving business world, legal issues are an inevitable challenge that organizations must navigate to ensure compliance, mitigate risks, and safeguard their interests. Since directors can be held personally liable for companies’ conduct in some cases, out of prudence, it is not uncommon for the directors to seek advice either from external legal advisors or internal legal advisors or both.

It is trite under common law that advice by external legal advisors (i.e. law firms or barristers in private practice) would be covered by legal professional privilege (LPP). LPP is a fundamental right that protects confidential communication between a lawyer and their client from being disclosed without the client’s consent, ensuring that the client can seek and receive legal advice in confidence. Unlike other communication with non-lawyer (such as an accountant), even a law-enforcer empowered to demand for information cannot compile disclosure of material covered by LPP. The case Citic Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice (No 2) [2015] 4 HKLRD 20 confirms that such LPP can also be enjoyed for communication with in-house counsel.

A company has to act through individuals. Usually a company’s conduct is directed and done through its directors. In process of seeking legal advice and receiving legal advice, the role of directors is indispensable. Not only directors act on behalf of the company, but also by actively engaging with legal counsel, by signing a retainer with lawyer, giving debriefing on issues at hand, providing instructions to lawyer and corresponding with lawyer on behalf of the company. There is therefore no surprise if directors have the confusion that the advice from the lawyer is given to himself and he could rely thereon for certain personal act.

As a matter of law and the principle of separate legal personality. The legal advice addressed to a company does not belong to the directors. Ownership of LPP is with the company but not the directors. This can potentially cause problems. Imagine a director sought legal advice on behalf of a company and rely on such advice to act in a certain way. Such act by the director was later found to be illegal and the director faced criminal charge. When the director wished to rely on the legal advice as a defence, such evidence was not available because the advice was covered by LPP but only the company, as the owner, could waive the same.

In such hypothetical case, the crucial legal questions would be:-

  • Who owns the LPP over the communications with legal counsel (external and internal)? The company (legal person) or the director (natural person), or jointly?
  • Who can waive such LPP in litigation to further one’s claim and/or defence?
  • Is there any exception to LPP such that LPP can be compelled to be disclosed?

  1. HONG KONG POSITION

Ownership of LPP

When a company’s employee, on behalf of company (but not in his/her personal capacity), seeks and receives legal advice from duly qualified legal advisor (external or internal), it is the company who owns the LPP over the communications and documents which are created for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice, but not the employee himself/herself, as the Court of Appeal held in Citic Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice (No 2) [2015] 4 HKLRD 20 at §59:-

“…It can, we think, be said that the client is simply the corporation, and that the question is really one of which of its employees should be regarded as being authorised to act for it in the process of obtaining legal advice. As we have suggested earlier, there are good reasons why such employees should not be restricted to select members of the corporate legal department and we see no good reason why such restriction is required….”[1]

Provided that a director is authorised to act for the company in obtaining legal advice, it is the company who owns the LPP over the communications and documents.

Absolute nature of LPP and Waiver of LPP under HK law

LPP is a constitutional right entrenched in Article 35 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that “Hong Kong residents shall have the right to confidential legal advice, access to the courts”. The absolute nature of LPP is discussed by Ribeiro PJ in Secretary for Justice v Florence Tsang Chiu Wing (2014) 17 HKCFAR 739, whereby His Lordship stated at §29 that:-

“While an exercise of balancing competing interests is required in deciding whether some should be released from implied undertaking, it is well established that “LPP does not involve such a balancing of interests. It is absolute and is based not merely upon the general right to privacy but also upon the right of access to justice”

As such, LPP entails the right to resist the compulsory disclosure of those communications. Unless the privilege is waived by the client, “once privileged, always privileged”[2]. As privilege of the client, it can be waived, expressly or impliedly, by the client. For example, there is a waiver when the client brings proceedings for professional negligence against the solicitor, or where the client applies for an order of wasted costs against the solicitor[3].

The absolute nature of LP is strict, such that even athird party who has come into possession of a privileged writtencommunication, whether through inadvertence, mistake or even surreptitiousconduct, should not be allowed to give evidence of it unless the client waivesthe privilege[4].

  1. CRIME/FRAUD EXCEPTION TO LPP

Although the nature of LPP is absolute, it is settled that privilege does not attach to communications between lawyer and client if the purpose of the client in seeking legal advice is to facilitate criminal or fraudulent conduct[5].

  1. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FACED BY A LITIGANT IN WHITE-COLLAR LITIGATION

By reason of the absolute nature of LPP and that the LPP is owned by the company, if a defendant (e.g. director/employee), who is privy to these LPP communications/documents and who wishes to disclose these LPP communications/documents for his defence at criminal trial, he must first seek waiver from the company. As it is the company who owns the LPP and LPP is a constitutional right entrenched in Article 35 of the Basic Law, he must not disclose or refer to these communications/documents without prior waiver from the company, no matter how useful and exculpatory these LPP communications/documents are.

As it is the company who owns the LPP, and that the company and the director/employee are separate legal entities, the company may well elect not to waive its LPP claim over these communications/documents, even though this may be at the expense of the director/employee.

In the event the company refuses to waive its LPP claim over these communications/documents, not only this creates insurmountable difficulties to a defendant’s defence at trial, this, arguably, even renders a trial unfair to a defendant, for he is effectively prevented to refer and rely on relevant and pertinent defence evidence though there is no fault on his own part (assuming crime/fraud exception does not apply). Arguably, the predicament he is caught in is akin to the prejudicial situation where there is a key defence witness absent for the trial.

  1. CONCLUSION

The situation where in a criminal trial, a director/employee is unable to refer or disclose communications/documents subject to LPP owned by the company is unsatisfactory, which warrants reform. The position in other common law jurisdictions is different (to be discussed in another article) and Hong Kong may draw reference therefrom. This is more pertinent in the current business landscape than before as regulatory frameworks continue to evolve and expand, the need for ongoing legal guidance has become not just a precautionary measure, but an essential component of sustainable and compliant business operations.

At the same time, legislative reform should be considered to establish a balanced approach that respects the company’s privilege while ensuring director/employee is not unduly hindered in their roles. Such reforms could include statutory exceptions or protocols for accessing privileged documents under specific circumstances, subject to judicial safeguard. By providing clearer legal pathways and updating the legislative framework, the interests of both companies and their director/employee can simultaneously be safeguarded, promoting fairness and efficiency in corporate governance and legal proceedings.


[1] Citic Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice (No 2) [2015] 4 HKLRD 20 at §59
[2] CITIC Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2012] 2 HKLRD 701 at §§23-24
[3] Johannes Chan SC (Hon) LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE: IS IT ABSOLUTE? P.465
[4] CITIC Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2012] 2 HKLRD 701 at §§40-51
[5] CITIC Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2012] 2 HKLRD 701 at §77

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

Filed Under: カテゴリーなし, Regulatory Compliance, Investigations and Enforcement Tagged With: Compliance, Hong Kong law, White-collar litigation, Waiver of privilege, Corporate governance, In-house counsel, Directors' liability, Legal professional privilege, Business practice, Legal advice, Regulatory Compliance, Investigations and Enforcement

Primary Sidebar

This website uses cookies to optimise your experience and to collect information to customise content. By closing this banner, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies. Please read the cookies section of our Privacy Policy to learn more. Learn more

Footer

OLN logo

Suite 503, 5/F, St George's Building
2 Ice House Street, Central
Hong Kong

Tel. +852 2868 0696 | Email us
について 弁護士紹介 事業拠点 OLN IP Services プライバシーポリシー
業務内容 インサイト 採用情報 OLN Online
について 業務内容 弁護士紹介 インサイト 事業拠点
採用情報 OLN IP Services OLN Online プライバシーポリシー
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN logo

© 2025 Oldham, Li & Nie. All Rights Reserved.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
お問い合わせ

メッセージの詳細をここで共有してください。すぐにご連絡させていただきます。

    x