{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS","Sverre Tyrhaug"]
[null,null,"Trond Hatland"]
[]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 5/1/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien","index":1,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","Norway"]
["Attorney-Client/Solicitor-Client Privilege (ACP)"]
["Is the ACP recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes. According to section 2.3 of the \nNorwegian Bar Association Code of Conduct for Lawyers (\"\nCode\"), all attorneys are obliged to preserve confidentiality regarding any facts known to them in connection with their provision of legal services. Breach of the obligation of professional confidentiality may result in penalties, disciplinary reactions, etc.\nNote that Norwegian ACP rules are not as categorical as in the Anglo-American legal tradition. In the Norwegian system, an assessment of the nature of the exchange and the content of the information is to be made in each case to decide whether the ACP applies to certain information exchanges. If information is of confidential nature and is \"entrusted\" to the attorney within the scope of the law, the information is covered by the ACP.\n"]
["If the ACP is not recognized in your jurisdiction, are there rules of professional confidentiality or other rules that would enable a lawyer or a client to withhold attorney-client communications or work product prepared by counsel from disclosure in a civil proceeding?\n\nNote: This question is directed primarily to civil law jurisdictions that do not recognize common law jurisdictions’ privilege doctrines.","N/A with reference to paragraph I.A.1.\n"]
["Is a distinction made in applying the ACP or professional confidentiality rules in civil and criminal proceedings? May government authorities require disclosure of attorney-client communications and legal work product?","Within the litigation system, disclosure of privileged information is regulated in two almost identical provisions within Norwegian civil and criminal proceedings, respectively section 22-5 of the \nNorwegian Dispute Act and sections 119 and 204 of the \nNorwegian Criminal Procedure Act.\nThe law states that evidence must be handled and, if relevant, be presented in a manner that corresponds with the duty to maintain confidentiality provided by law. The governmental authorities cannot require disclosure of attorney-client communication and legal work product is neither criminal nor civil cases without the party's consent.\nNote, however, that for criminal cases the law states that the ACP can be waived when the attorney's deposition is necessary to ensure correct judgments in favor of the accused, or to avert serious crimes.\nFurthermore, please note that an attorney is always referred to make an assessment of the situation in which the information is exchanged and the nature of the content in order to determine whether the information in question is actually covered by the ACP, regardless of the case type.\nWhere there is a question of presenting evidence in court that is allegedly subject to privilege, it is decisive whether the information in question is \"entrusted\" to the attorney in his/her capacity as a professional attorney. The term entrusted does not only include information provided in confidential conversations between the client and his/her attorney, but also information the attorney otherwise obtains or accesses on behalf of the client in his/her capacity as a professional and as part of the client relationship.\nIt must be assessed specifically whether the information is made known in the attorney's \"capacity as a professional attorney\". In practice, a distinction is made between genuine and ingenuine legal practice, where the latter is not covered by the ACP. Genuine legal practice consists of legal aid and advice, and both general aid and aid in connection with a lawsuit are covered. As an example, financial advice and real estate services are considered ingenuine, but if legal issues arise in connection with these situations, the legal advice is covered by the ACP.\n"]
["In the corporate context, what test is applied to determine who within a corporation is considered the client for the purposes of the ACP?  (e.g., in the U.S.: the Upjohn approach, control group test, etc.)","Under the Norwegian judicial system, no test or similar approach applies. According to section 2.3 of the \nCode, the starting point is that the ACP applies in relation to all information an attorney receives from clients and others in connection with his/her work. Hence, the privilege does not only apply to clients, it applies more generally, and, in principle, everyone within a corporation can be covered.\nAs mentioned above in section I.A.1., an assessment must however be made in each case to determine if the information is covered by the ACP. In this respect, it does not matter whether someone is considered a client or not, the decisive factor is the situation in which the information is exchanged and the nature of the information.\n"]
["Is in-house counsel expected to meet a higher burden than outside counsel in order to establish that privilege applies to in-house counsel’s communications?","The Norwegian judicial system does not distinguish between in-house counsel and external counsel. All attorneys abide by the same rules, however, there will have to be an assessment of the role of the in-house counsel in each separate matter. In-house counsel cannot assert privilege if the correspondence does not meet the criteria mentioned above in section I.A.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: May in-house counsel assert privilege or professional confidentiality?","Yes, see section I.B.2.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: Is in-house counsel allowed to be active members of your jurisdiction’s bar?","Yes. This does, however, not constitute that you are an attorney. Hence, it is also advisable that in-house counsel or at least the Head of Legal has a government-issued license to practice law.\n"]
["Is the common interest doctrine recognized in your jurisdiction?","No, not as such. There will have to be made an assessment in each case if the disclosure to a third party from an attorney is still protected under the general ACP rule in Norway. Again, the criteria mentioned above under section I.A. apply.\n"]
["How is the doctrine articulated in your jurisdiction?","N/A with reference to section I.C.1.\n"]
["Must a common interest agreement be in writing?","There is no common interest concept as such in Norway. However, when making the assessment of whether or not communication between an attorney and a third party is privileged, a relevant factor is if the lawyer has clearly set out in writing that the exchange is confidential.\n"]
["Is litigation funding permitted in your jurisdiction?  Are there any professional rules in this respect?","Litigation funding is permitted in Norway. As of the date of this questionnaire, litigation funding is not subject to any special legal provisions, and the parties (the claim owners and the funders) are therefore free to define their contractual relationship. The lawfulness of litigation funding has not been subject to the Supreme Court's assessment yet, however, neither the City Court nor the Appeal Court seems to object to the concept.\nThe claim owner's lawyer must nevertheless comply with the \nCode, which contains, inter alia, loyalty, independence and confidentiality clauses, as well as clauses pertaining to conflict of interests and fee restrictions. Consequently, an attorney cannot act on behalf of both the funded party and the funder as there is a clear risk of these clients having conflicting interests in certain aspects of the case.\nSimilarly, an attorney representing a funded party must never allow the interests and influence of the third-party funder to affect his or her advice to the client. The litigation funding contract should be drafted with these principles in mind.\nThe Norwegian Financial Supervisory Authority (the \"\nFSA\") has also confirmed that professional third-party funding requires an \nFSA license.\n"]
["Have the courts in your jurisdiction addressed whether communications with litigation funders may be protected by the ACP or the work-product protection","No, this issue has not been raised for Norwegian courts.\n"]
["Is the crime-fraud exception recognized in your jurisdiction?","No, not as such. On the contrary, if the result of the assessment, mentioned in the sections above, comes out questionable, the Norwegian courts seem to favor the ACP in criminal cases.\n"]
["What statutes or key court decisions articulate the crime-fraud exception in your jurisdiction?","There is no crime-fraud exception, but please note that the Norwegian Prosecution Authorities may take investigative steps where they, as a byproduct, get access to privileged information. However, the part of the evidence concerning privilege cannot be presented in court. The conditions for the investigative steps in question are strictly regulated in sections 202 a., 216 c. and 216 m. in the \nNorwegian Criminal Procedure Act."]
["Work Product Doctrine/Litigation Privilege (doctrine that protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial)"]
["Is there a statute or rule that protects information obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure in legal proceedings?  (In the U.S.:  What state rule is your jurisdiction’s analog to FRCP 26(b)(3)?)","There is no \nWork Product Doctrine in Norway. This type of information is protected only within the scope of professional confidentiality of attorneys, see section I.A above.\n"]
["What are the elements of the protection in your jurisdiction?","Not applicable, reference is made to section II.A above.\n"]
["Other Privileges"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize an accountant-client privilege?","Yes, this is regulated in section 10-1 of the \nNorwegian Auditor Act and section 10 of the \nNorwegian Accounting Act."]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a mediation privilege?","There are no statutory rules in respect to mediation and the parties are therefore free to define this their contractual relationship. In respect to court-sponsored mediation, section 8-6 of the \nNorwegian Dispute Act states that such mediation is mostly privileged.\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a settlement negotiation privilege?","There are no statutory rules in respect to out-of-court settlements. Hence, the parties are free to define their contractual relationship. As for in-court settlements, both the content and the settlement as such, are to be entered in the court record, which is public.\n"]