Private Eye wins right to name Michael Napier

Disciplinary rulings against solicitors can be made public, the Court of Appeal has unanimously ruled in a case brought by former Law Society president Michael Napier against Private Eye.

In Napier & Irwin Mitchell v Pressdram Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 443, the court dismissed an appeal by Napier, senior partner of Irwin Mitchell, to prevent Private Eye publishing information relating to the outcome of both a complaint by the Law Society against Napier and an ombudsman’s report regarding the Law Society’s handling of the complaint.

Napier had sought an injunction to prevent Private Eye identifying him, on the grounds of confidentiality.

Lords Justices Hughes, Toulson and Sullivan considered whether the complainant owed a duty to Napier not to reveal the fact the adjudication panel found he acted in breach of the Law Society’s conflict of interest rules and decided to reprimand him, or the fact that its findings were upheld by the appeal panel.

On the argument that confidentiality was necessary to protect the solicitor under investigation, Toulson LJ said: “It would only serve to assist the solicitor if the complaint is found to be justified.

“If unjustified, the duty would be contrary to the interests of the solicitor. And it is singularly unattractive to argue that confidentiality should be recognised by the law in order to protect the interests of a solicitor against whom an adverse finding has been made.

“The purpose of the scheme is not to protect the reputations of solicitors against whom adverse findings are made. The purpose of the scheme is to provide a proper means of regulating the profession and maintaining public confidence in it.”

Robin Shaw, partner at Davenport Lyons, which acted for Private Eye, says: “This result helps to put a brake on the ever-increasing efforts of celebrities and the rich and powerful to gag the media through the use of the law or privacy/confidentiality from publishing things they would like to keep from
the public gaze and is an important victory for freedom of speech.”