header-logo header-logo

18 September 2019 / Georgina Squire
Issue: 7856 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Is client confidentiality at risk again?

Lawyers will be keenly watching the latest development in an important dispute over legal professional privilege, says Georgina Squire

Legal professional privilege (LPP) is a key component of the ability of lawyers to advise their clients. It is a fundamental right that enables clients to give full and frank disclosure of confidential information to their lawyers, so that they can receive legal advice secure in the knowledge it will not become disclosable and therefore open to scrutiny at the hands of third parties.

SFO v ENRC

LPP is a principle that, although entrenched in our legal system, has long been a topic of considerable debate. The most important decision on the principle of LPP in recent times came from the Court of Appeal last September, in Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd (Law Society Intervening) [2018] EWCA Civ 2006, [2018] All ER (D) 05 (Sep). This landmark appeal was a defining moment in our understanding of the scope of the LPP principle

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll