秘匿特権は戦略的に大切

民事事件の訴訟代理や交渉は弁護士の仕事であることは誰もが知っています。また最近では、記者会見などで弁護士が同席し、当事者の説明をリードしたり、法律的な面から補充説明を行ったりする光景を見かけます。

しかし、刑事事件では弁護人を依頼する権利は認められているものの、日本では取調べに弁護士が同席することは認められていませんし、税務調査や行政手続きも基本的に同席は認められていません。

最近、カルテルなどの独占禁止法違反を取調べる公正取引委員会の審査手続きについて、弁護士の立会いを求める動きが話題となっています。グローバル化が進む中で、欧米並みに制度を整備しようというのです。

立ち入り検査で、弁護士に連絡を取ろうとして止められる、膨大な資料が押収され業務ができなくなる、長時間の事情聴取で正確なことを確認できないまま署名を求められる、そんな時にこそ弁護士の協力が欲しいものです。弁護士の立会いが認められれば、独禁法違反で告発される可能性のある企業に対しても調査への協力が期待できるかもしれません。

また、弁護士への相談が後に不利な証拠として使われてはたまりません。未だに日本では意識されていないことですが、「弁護士秘匿特権」―弁護士に相談した内容について当局への提出を拒めるーも、公取のカルテル調査の手続き見直しで議論の俎上に上がっています。

もっとも、調査に限らず、交渉事も海外との取引が盛んになっている昨今、いつ、証拠となる書類の提出を求められるかわかりません。その点でもっと日常的に秘匿特権を意識すべきだと思います。契約の交渉過程で秘匿特権を放棄したとみなされることのないような企業行動を求められていることに、日本はあまりに無防備です。

ディスカバリーの手続きで訴訟資料の開示をまず求められる米国の訴訟手続きを想像すればその危険性は明らかです。

国際的なＭ＆Ａ契約でなくとも、常に意識をもって弁護士の活用を考えたいものです。

弁護士の意見書などを無限定に相手方に送ってしまうと、本来秘匿特権が期待でき将来ディスカバリーの対象から外れる書類であったとしても、秘匿特権を放棄したものとみなされてしまうのです。

電子メールでのやり取りが記録に残る今、社内文書をＣＣで弁護士にも送っておく？それもよく考えて！

〈中部経済新聞　「中経論壇」平成26年６月17日掲載　池田桂子　〉

Secret Privilege is important strategically

Everyone knows that negotiation and litigations on behalf of civil cases is the responsibility of an attorney. In recent years, I have seen lawyers who have attended public platforms such as a press conference; after which you can then read the description of the issues of the parties involved, or perform the description into legal terms.

However, the right to ask for a defense counsel to be present is recognized in criminal cases, but a lawyer cannot be present during an interrogation and is not permitted to do so in Japan, attendance is not recognized as well in basically administrative procedures and tax audit as well.

Recently, about the review process of the Fair Trade Commission to investigate antitrust violations such as cartels, a movement seeking attendance of lawyers has become a hot topic. In the attempt of globalization, it is attempting to develop a system at the same level as Europe.

For example, in an on-site inspection, in a case where a concerned party wants to contact a lawyer to ask which position is better, to either sign or discontinue, when that party is facing a huge amount of material seized. Privilege is extremely important strategically.

In an on-site inspection, the party can be asked to sign business documents and cannot be stopped from trying to contact a lawyer, when there is a huge amount of material seized, while unable to confirm the exact circumstances the party may be listening for a long time, without the cooperation of lawyers. Only in such a case is it in your best interest and it is what you will want. Attendance of attorney is rarely recognized, cooperation in an investigation might be expected from companies that may be accused of antitrust violations.

It also does not affect consultation with a lawyer which is being used adversely as evidence later. The goal is to not have been aware in Japan which still is, “attorney privilege” – over to refuse submitting to the authorities about what you consult with to a lawyer has also turned up on the cutting board of discussion in a procedural review of the cartel investigation of the Fair Trade Commission.

However, these days it is not limited to research, trading with overseas companies has become a popular for negotiation issue, I do not know when it is required, with respect the submission of documents to be entered as evidence. I think that we should be aware of “privilege” on a daily basis in that regard. That it is required to corporate in your behavior, such as not to be deemed to have waived the privilege in the negotiation process of the agreement, Japan is then vulnerable too.

The risk is obvious, if you imagine the proceedings of the United States which sought first disclosure of litigation documents in the proceedings of discovery.

Even without an M & A agreement of that of an international nature, It is something you may wish to consider, and entertain the use of lawyer with a aware of the issues at all times.

If you sent documents to another party that is unqualified and without the written opinion of counsel, even though the documents are out of the target of future discovery, privilege can be expected originally, it would have been deemed to have waived privilege.

Now that the exchange of e-mails remains on the record, it should also be sent to a lawyer in a cc as an acknowledgement of an internal document. I think it would serve you well to do so!

It is so dangerous not to confirm the exact circumstances while listing specifics which might seem as doubtful if the company waited for a long time; cooperation of lawyers is what all parties want. With the attendance of an attorney it would be recognized, as being cooperative in the investigation which might be expected with companies that may be accused of antitrust violations.