fbpx

Solicitors Are Under a Lifelong Duty to Guard Client Confidentiality

11th January 2018 By Arman Khosravi

One of the advantages of placing your trust in solicitors is that they owe a lifelong duty to maintain the confidentiality of any information you give them. That point was underlined by a High Court case in which a solicitor was banned from taking instructions that could conflict with the interests of her former clients.

The solicitor had, for about a year, worked as an in-house lawyer for a property company. During that period, she had access to confidential information concerning the company’s assets and its financial and legal affairs. She had also been retained by the businessman who ran the company to advise him personally.

Surprisingly, she later accepted instructions from a family who were contemplating proceedings against the company and the businessman. Before doing so, she sought guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority and had required her prospective clients to sign a waiver, the terms of which had not been disclosed.

In granting an injunction that forbade her from acting for the family in the proposed proceedings, the Court noted that it is of the highest importance to the administration of justice that there must not be even an appearance of solicitors acting in a manner that might put current or former clients’ confidential or privileged information into the hands of those with interests adverse to them.

There could be no doubt that she had come into possession of information that was confidential to the company and the businessman, neither of whom had consented to its disclosure. It was also possible that such information might be relevant to the current dispute. The solicitor had made conscientious attempts to ensure that there would be no conflict of interest, but they had not avoided, or even reduced, the risk that she might make subconscious use of confidential information.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...

Flat Owner Not Liable for Pre-existing Structural Issues

16th April, 2024 By

When building owners carry out works on their property, are they liable for damage to adjoining properties that results from pre-existing structural issues? The Court of Appeal recently provided welcome clarification on that question. The owner of a ground-floor flat wished to extend it by building out into his garden. He served notices on owners of adjoining properties, as required by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The works caused the rear wall of two adjoining properties to drop by about 2 mm, which led to internal walls and floor...

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...