The court held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect emails between a company and its unlicensed foreign senior in-house lawyer.
From the Opinion:
“If the Plaintiffs are correct that Dutch law applies, the Boonstra communications plainly are not privileged. Although Dutch law affords a ‘legal professional privilege’ to licensed in-house counsel, there is no recognized Dutch privilege for unlicensed lawyers. In re X v. Stichting H9 Invest, HR Mar. 15, 2013, LJN BY6101. Nor does there appear to be any exception to that rule in circumstances where a client reasonably believes that its conversations are privileged.
If, on the other hand, the Citco Defendants are correct that American law governs, Mr. Boonstra’s communications still are not privileged. In the United States, the attorney-client privilege generally applies only to communications with attorneys who are licensed to practice law. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated January 20, 1998, 995 F. Supp. 332, 337 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (Raggi, J.). Since Mr. Boonstra is unlicensed, no privilege could attach to his communications with the Citco Defendants.”