Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v George Fahim Sa’id
[2024] EWHC 1619 (Admin)
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Edward James Williams
31 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2151 (Admin)
High Court
A lawyer was in trouble, and the governing body wanted to keep his clients' names secret to protect their privacy. A lower court said no, but a higher court said yes, because client confidentiality is a really important right that trumps the usual rule of open court proceedings in this instance.
Key Facts
- •The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) appealed an order by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) refusing to anonymize former clients of respondent Edward Williams in disciplinary proceedings.
- •Williams was struck off the roll for misconduct involving misappropriation of client funds and falsification of documents.
- •The SRA argued that the SDT's refusal to anonymize breached legal professional privilege (LPP).
- •The SDT relied on the High Court judgment in *Lu v SRA* [2022] EWHC 1729 (Admin) to prioritize open justice over anonymity.
- •The SRA argued that *Lu* was not concerned with LPP and that the SDT misapplied Rule 35(9) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019.
Legal Principles
Legal professional privilege (LPP) is a fundamental right protecting confidential communications between a client and lawyer.
Anderson v Bank of British Columbia (1876) 2 Ch D 644; R v Derby Magistrates' Court ex parte B [1996] AC 487; Balabel and another v Air India [1988] Ch 317; R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [2003] 1 AC 563.
Open justice is a fundamental principle, but departures are permitted where necessary in the interests of justice.
R (Good Law Project Limited and another v Secretary of State for Health [2022] EWHC 46 (TCC)
Decisions on anonymity are appealable under s 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
Lu v SRA [2022] EWHC 1729 (Admin)
The SDT has the power under Rule 35(9) of the 2019 Rules to make orders prohibiting disclosure or publication of information likely to identify a person.
Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The SDT erred in law by failing to adequately consider LPP and misapplying *Lu v SRA*. The SDT incorrectly conflated the thresholds for private hearings (Rule 35(1)-(2)) with its power to anonymise under Rule 35(9). The court held that LPP is absolute unless waived and does not require a balancing exercise against open justice.
Similar Cases
Philip Esper v NHS North West London Integrated Care Board & Anor
[2023] EWCOP 29
YSA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 74 (IAC)
Pump Court Chambers Ltd v Gillian Brown (also known as Gillian Goodfield)
[2024] EWHC 2428 (Ch)
Javad Marandi, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court
[2023] EWHC 587 (Admin)