Legal privilege case takes further twist

Kashflow logo
Share this content

The case for extending legal professional privilege (LPP) to the clients of chartered accountants has taken another turn and will now be heard by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has agreed to grant leave for Prudential to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment of October 2010 that unanimously confirmed LPP should not be extended beyond qualified lawyers.

Please Login or Register to read the full article

The full article is available to registered members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register. Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

About Robert Lovell

Business and finance journalist


    Please login or register to join the discussion.

    24th Apr 2011 14:45


    In my view it would be impossible, and indeed possibly unlawful, to grant legal privalege to one section of the accountancy profession.  The "protection" of the term accountant is a non starter as any such move would lead to a huge number of challeges under european legislation. 

    In my view legal privalege should be extended - to cover ANYONE whatever profession or trade, who is approached for advice on potential court proceedings. 

    With the pressure on legal aid more & more people will use "McKenzie friends" in court proceedings.  At present comunication between the accused and his counsel is privaleged, but identical communication if between a defendant and a McKenzie friend, is not.  Totally wrong & unjust. 


    Thanks (0)
    27th Apr 2011 11:34

    Legal Privilege

    On the flip side, arn't all lawyers "officers of the court"?

    If legal privilege were to be extended to accountants, wouldn't the quid pro quo be that they also become "officers of the court" and accept the obligations that go with such standing?

    Thanks (0)
    27th Apr 2011 11:43

    Interesting perspective

    ...Mr. W. Dragon!

    In their greed for unaccountable money extraction, the Overlords have in effect, denied the impecunious any legal advice or defence which may assist them. The accountancy question is a mere corollary to that, but an incredibly important and complex one.

    As with Gagging Orders, the modern Robber Barons will be able to pay their way out of embarrassment.

    Let us hope the Overlords have sewn their own minefield this tine.










    Thanks (0)
    By chatman
    27th Apr 2011 14:34

    '"officers of the court" and ... the obligations that go with su

    What are the "obligations that go with such standing"?

    Thanks (0)
    30th Apr 2011 22:55


    What are the "obligations that go with such standing"?


    Posted by chatman on Wed, 27/04/2011 - 14:34


    The most relevant obligation is to assist the court at all times in the administration of justice - which obligation of course is often not always in the clients best interest. 


    Thanks (0)