The High Court has ruled that the Solicitors Regulation Authority cannot use its statutory investigation powers to compel solicitors to hand over documents protected by a client’s legal professional privilege where that privilege has not been waived.
Mr Justice Butcher handed down judgment on 21 September 2026 in Carter-Ruck Solicitors and another v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd [2026] EWHC 2416 (KB), following a challenge brought by Carter-Ruck Solicitors and its client Mohamed Amersi.
The dispute arose from an SRA investigation that began in 2023 into Carter-Ruck’s conduct while acting for Amersi. The investigation followed litigation involving Amersi and former MP Charlotte Leslie. Amersi had instructed Carter-Ruck in defamation proceedings against Leslie, which were dismissed by the High Court in June 2023. The Court of Appeal later refused permission to appeal.
During its investigation, the SRA issued notices under section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 requiring the firm to provide documents and information. Amersi did not waive his legal professional privilege, leading Carter-Ruck and Amersi to ask the High Court to determine whether the regulator nevertheless had the statutory authority to require privileged material.
The SRA argued that section 44B gave it sufficiently broad powers to obtain material needed to investigate possible professional misconduct. It maintained that the ability to examine relevant information could be important when investigating complaints, particularly where allegations were made by people who were not clients of the solicitor under investigation.
The High Court rejected that interpretation. Mr Justice Butcher concluded that section 44B does not contain sufficiently clear wording to override the fundamental protection afforded by legal professional privilege.
The judge considered whether such an override could nevertheless be implied from the legislation. He concluded that the SRA had not established the necessary implication. The fact that preventing access to privileged material could make some investigations more difficult was not enough to demonstrate that the statutory purpose would otherwise be defeated.
The judgment also considered previous authorities concerning the Law Society’s regulatory powers. The court concluded that those decisions did not require it to find that section 44B overrides a client’s privilege.
The court’s decision means that, where a client has not waived legal professional privilege, the SRA cannot rely on section 44B to require a solicitor to produce material protected by that privilege.
The judgment records that the issue had arisen in the context of the SRA’s wider regulatory work and that the regulator had used section 44B to obtain privileged material for many years. The decision therefore affects the scope of a power that has formed part of regulatory investigations over an extended period.
Carter-Ruck welcomed the ruling, saying that the decision confirmed the firm’s position that it was required to protect Amersi’s privilege under the professional obligations applying to solicitors.
The SRA said it would seek permission to appeal. Jonathan Peddie, the regulator’s executive director for investigations, enforcement and litigation, said that access to relevant evidence was important to its ability to investigate potential wrongdoing and protect the public. He warned that losing access to privileged information could make it more difficult to establish what had happened in some investigations and could also affect cases in which such information might demonstrate that a solicitor or firm had not committed misconduct.
The High Court’s ruling does not prevent the SRA from conducting investigations generally, but it limits the circumstances in which the regulator can compel production of material covered by a client’s unwaived legal professional privilege under section 44B.
The judgment also leaves open the possibility of further consideration by an appellate court, as the SRA has indicated that it intends to seek permission to appeal.
