Khalique: Solicitor remembers nothing of ex-client
A law firm representing a woman in a dispute with her ex-husband can continue to act despite hiring the partner who previously supervised the legal work for him, the High Court has ruled.
“The existence of a former professional relationship does not itself establish current possession of confidential information,” said Nageena Khalique KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge.
“Nor does the mere possibility that information was once known. Evidence is required… The evidence before me is that Mr Burrows remembers nothing. I accept that evidence.”
‘C’, represented by Birketts, is in dispute with her ex-husband, ‘A’, over ownership of a property in Tunbridge Wells.
A first spoke to Sebastian Burrows, then a partner at Stowe Family Law, in January 2025 and a file was opened the following month.
Another solicitor handled the day-to-day work but the client-care documentation named Mr Burrows as the partner with overall responsibility. The evidence indicated that A and Mr Burrows were not in direct contact after February.
Mr Burrows resigned from Stowe in September 2025 and was placed on garden leave until the end of the year, with no access to its systems.
In December 2025, Birketts sent a letter before action and A decided to dispense with Stowe and represent himself.
Mr Burrows joined the Cambridge office Birketts in April, but which time C’s case was already fully pleaded by her legal team, based in Bristol. No new evidence has been disclosed since.
Nonetheless, A argued before the court that, by virtue of imputed knowledge, Birketts had a conflict of interest and could no longer act.
Judge Khalique described Mr Burrows as “an impressive witness” and accepted his evidence that he had no recollection of the defendant or the case. He said he had supervised a very substantial caseload at Stowe, involving numerous clients and multiple fee-earners, and had not brought any documents with him either.
“Mr Burrows emphasised that he was fully aware of his own professional obligations regarding confidential information and would not jeopardise his own or his employer’s professional reputation by such careless conduct.
“He further described that high standards of professional conduct in this regard were practised not only by himself, but by [the fee-earner handling the case] and other members of the team with whom he had worked at Stowe.”
The judge said the case law did not establish, as A had contended, that imputed knowledge was on its own sufficient to prevent Birketts from acting.
She said there was “simply no evidence” that Mr Burrows had any confidential information to disclose. He had not contacted C’s team in Bristol and he had no access to the file.
“There is no risk of, and has been no actual deliberate or inadvertent disclosure by Mr Burrows to Birketts or vice versa.” Any suggestion it could happen “can properly be characterised as wholly speculative and fanciful”.
While there was therefore no need for Birketts or Mr Burrows to provide any undertakings in relation to A’s confidential information, “I note that such undertakings have been unconditionally offered on behalf of Birketts and by Mr Burrows. Taken together, they provide substantial additional protection”.
Leave a Comment