The Law Society will challenge the Competition Authority in the High Court today over its decision to restrict legal representation in certain circumstances.
The authority made its decision this summer in an attempt to ensure that "whistle-blowers" in companies accused of anti-competitive practices are not discouraged by being represented by their employers' solicitors.
It issued a notice on representation in August to businesses and legal practitioners to this effect.
The Law Society will seek leave for a judicial review of this notice in the High Court today, challenging the authority's power to issue such a notice. The application will be made before Mr Justice McKechnie.
The Competition Authority can offer immunity from prosecution for breaches of competition law to anyone who offers information to the State. This could include employees of companies suspected of anti-competitive practices.
If such an employee did offer information, there would be a possibility of a conflict of interest between him and others working in, or managing, the company. This was the kind of situation envisaged by the authority when it issued its notice stating that, if it considered there was a conflict of interest, it would refuse to accept the same legal representative for more than one person appearing before it.
The Competition Authority is empowered by the 2002 Competition Act to investigate breaches of competition law. It has the powers of the High Court to compel witnesses and to demand documents.
Mr Terry Calvani, the director of the cartels division of the Competition Authority, told The Irish Times last August: "We rely heavily on the testimony and statements of people appearing before the authority. We don't want the enforcement of competition law compromised by conflicts which potentially arise where the same lawyer represents more than one person in the same investigation."
Mr Calvani said it was also necessary to protect the integrity of the process. "We would not want to secure a conviction and have it set aside on the basis that the defendant claimed his legal representation was not truly independent of other interests."