The Solicitors Regulation Authority has warned of confidentiality risks from law firm mergers and acquisitions. It also highlighted dangers arising from cloud computing and complex global business structures.
Comparisons between the 2012 Olympics and the compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) nomination process are more obvious than you might think: both were years in the preparation, shrouded in mystery, beset by operational PR disasters and, ultimately, over in a flash. This month’s blog brings you live coverage of the five-month dash: that’s how long your COLP has to get the firm’s house in order before they become responsible for compliance. Like bog-snorkelling and extreme ironing, the five-month dash is a niche sport, unlikely to grace the Olympics, but pundits are predicting there’ll be a least 11,000 participants by the end of the year.
The Court of Appeal has overturned an injunction that prevented an in-house lawyer from advising on litigation against her former employer. But it acknowledged that the case raised difficult issues around lawyers moving jobs with confidential information.
The High Court has forced a leading City law firm to hand over the confidential contact details of a client to the other side in a civil action. However, it has blocked an effort to make Clyde & Co also reveal what it knows about the client’s assets.
With January running out, it really is time to stop doing 2011 lists, so here is the last instalment of themes I expect to pervade Legal Futures’ coverage during this year. This time I look at legal services and the web, outsourcing in all its many guises, and the changing face of litigation practice.
The Law Society is preparing for a government push to make law firms which engage in lobbying work breach confidentiality by making them disclose details of their clients. Last month Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg confirmed the Coalition will legislate in 2011 to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists.
The High Court has ordered a solicitor to hand over client files to a mortgage lender despite his argument that those parts of them relating to the borrowers were covered by legal professional privilege. The judge ruled that express agreements between borrower and lender in each case overrode the right to privilege and confidentiality.