A judge has criticised the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's decision to lift the anonymity of a solicitor’s clients in a money laundering case, stating it amounted to an ‘inroad into the historic scope of legal privilege’.

The SDT had refused to anonymise its judgment when it cleared George Fahim Sa’id of charges of breaching money laundering rules by not carrying out an enhanced due diligence check on his clients, a wealthy Iraqi family. In its decision, it said the case ‘did not involve an examination of the underlying advice covered by LPP but was concerned with an alleged failure on Mr Sa’id’s behalf to carry out enhanced due diligence.’

The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed the decision to refuse its application for an order which would see the names of the clients - as well as businesses, properties, persons and a country (‘country X’) - anonymised. Rory Dunlop KC, for the SRA, argued the SDT had failed to follow the precedent of SRA v Edward James Williams from last year, which found legal professional privilege would be breached by publishing a full version of the SDT’s ruling.

In a High Court decision handed down on Tuesday, Mrs Justice Thornton agreed, stating: ‘The scope of legal privilege is broader than suggested by the tribunal. Where information is passed by the solicitor or client to the other as part of the continuum aimed at keeping both informed so that advice may be sought and given as required privilege will attach.

‘In addition, the tribunal considered there was no evidence that the clients in the present case have asserted legal professional privilege. However, this cannot amount to any sort of justification for an inroad into the historic scope of legal privilege and the wider public interest policy arguments in play in its decision which extend well beyond the individual clients in question.’

The Gazette challenged the SRA’s proposed anonymity order, arguing the scope of anonymity should be limited to what was strictly necessary to protect privilege.

Mrs Justice Thornton said: ‘I accept the submission of the Law Society Gazette that there is no justification for anonymising the country of Iraq as Country X, or at all.’ But the judge ruled all the other names should be anonymised, stating that the SDT's decision, which has yet to be published provides a detailed summary of the transactions under scrutiny and ‘multiple references to the family and to individual family members’. 

‘It is not therefore realistic or proportionate at this stage of the proceedings to consider the alternative approach of publishing the names of individuals, but limiting the publicly available information.’

The judge added: ‘I conclude by emphasising that the extent of anonymisation required in this case is specific to this particular case and to thank the Law Society Gazette for its careful submissions.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.