Most businesses understand that the professionals who act for them are regulated. Even if they’ve never had to think about it in any real way, they know regulators exist to keep standards high and protect clients when things go wrong. What they probably haven’t thought about is what happens when a regulator wants to see a client’s private legal file as part of its oversight function. Is that something businesses should be concerned about? And can a regulator simply demand it? This raises an important question about legal professional privilege and whether regulators can demand access to a client’s confidential legal file.
And that’s exactly why the recent High Court decision in Carter‑Ruck Solicitors & Mohamed Amersi v SRA is significant. The case goes right to the heart of a simple but important question: if a regulator wants to see a client’s private legal file, can it force a solicitor to hand over documents that are protected by legal professional privilege?
Spoiler: no, it can’t.
Carter‑Ruck had been acting for businessman Mohamed Amersi in defamation and data protection matters. The SRA launched an investigation into the firm’s conduct and issued three notices under s.44B of the Solicitors Act 1974, demanding production of Amersi’s client files - including privileged material.
Amersi wasn’t thrilled. He was willing to cooperate, but only if his privileged documents were protected. Carter‑Ruck took the same view. When the SRA refused to back down, they issued proceedings asking the High Court to declare that s.44B does not allow the SRA to compel privileged material.
The SRA, for its part, argued that it needed access to privileged communications to carry out effective regulatory oversight. In this case, the investigation touched on concerns about SLAPP‑type conduct and whether Carter‑Ruck had acted properly when pursuing defamation and data protection claims. The SRA also pointed to other recent matters - involving allegations of dishonesty, conflicts of interest, and even fraudulent transactions - to illustrate why, in its view, access to privileged material can sometimes be necessary.
A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is essentially legal action used to deter or discourage criticism, rather than to resolve a genuine dispute. It’s where the process of litigation is used as pressure - often against journalists, campaigners or commentators - to make them think twice about speaking out.
The judge, Mr Justice Butcher made it very simple:
A notice under s.44B cannot require solicitors to produce documents or information protected by their clients’ legal professional privilege unless the client waives it.
The judge rejected the SRA’s argument that older cases (like Parry‑Jones) gave them this power. He also noted that when Parliament updated s.44B in 2007, it considered giving the SRA an express power to override privilege - and decided not to.
Privilege is a fundamental right. If Parliament wants to override it, it has to say so clearly. It didn’t.
For most businesses, the idea of a regulator wanting to see their solicitor’s file feels remote. They trust their professional advisers, they assume regulators act properly, and they may never have reason to think about legal professional privilege at all. But the solicitor’s file is, fundamentally, the client’s file. It contains the client’s instructions, the client’s strategy, the client’s concerns, and the client’s private legal advice.
That’s why this decision matters. It confirms that a regulator cannot simply reach into a client’s confidential legal communications, even when investigating the solicitor. Privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer, and not the regulator. Only the client can decide whether to waive it.
In practical terms, this means businesses don’t need to worry that their private discussions with their solicitor could be disclosed without their say‑so. If a regulator wants to see privileged material, the client has a choice - and that choice is protected by law. Cooperation with a regulator does not require sacrificing confidentiality.
It’s a helpful reminder that privilege isn’t a technicality. It’s a safeguard that ensures clients can speak openly with their lawyers, explore risks honestly, and receive candid advice without fear that those conversations might later be exposed. The High Court has now made it clear that this protection remains intact, even in the face of regulatory scrutiny.
From a client’s perspective, the case is a clear reminder of how legal professional privilege and regulators interact when oversight investigations touch on confidential legal advice.
Privilege is more than secrecy. It’s a safeguard that lets clients speak openly with their lawyers, explore risks honestly, and get clear advice without worrying who might read it. This decision confirms that those protections stay in place, even when regulators are doing their job.
The information in this article is provided for general guidance only. This blog does not constitute legal advice, nor does it offer a complete or authoritative statement of the law in England and Wales.
I take care to ensure the information is accurate, but I give no warranty, express or implied, as to its correctness. I accept no liability for any errors or omissions.
You should always seek expert advice before acting on any of the information contained in this article.
© Melissa Worth, October 2026