Written by Legal ethics - confidentiality language - public trust
Confidentiality is a vital part of legal practice. So is the without-prejudice rule. But neither should be used as a vague threat, a shield against legitimate questions, or a device for discouraging a client or litigant from testing what happened. When legal language is used imprecisely, the immediate harm is confusion. The wider harm is public distrust.
Snapshot
This article examines a public-interest concern raised by the source material: that vague or overconfident references to confidentiality, privilege or without-prejudice communications can discourage scrutiny and weaken confidence in legal services. It does not suggest that every assertion of confidentiality is improper. The point is narrower and more important: protective legal language must be used accurately, proportionately and transparently.
Reader note: this article is public-interest commentary and practical legal education. References to a named law firm and to alleged misuse of confidentiality language are criticism and analysis based on the source material supplied. They should not be read as findings of fact, misconduct, dishonesty, unlawful conduct or professional wrongdoing by any named person, firm, regulator or public body unless established by a competent court, tribunal, regulator, ombudsman, inquiry, audit report or official decision.
Why legal language matters
The legal system depends on technical language. Confidentiality, privilege and without-prejudice communications all have proper functions. They protect client information, encourage settlement, preserve candour and support the administration of justice. Used correctly, they make legal work safer and more effective.
The problem begins when protective language is used loosely. A phrase such as confidential does not answer every question. A without-prejudice label does not automatically prevent scrutiny of all communications. A general warning that something cannot be discussed may be accurate in one context and misleading in another. The distinction matters because members of the public are often not equipped to test the label being placed in front of them.
The source material refers to earlier concerns involving Burnetts Solicitors and alleged use of confidentiality language in a disputed context. Those allegations have not been independently determined here. They are used as a case study for a wider issue: when lawyers use technical language without explaining its scope, clients and litigants may reasonably ask whether the language is being used to protect a legal principle or to suppress a difficult question.
The public-confidence issue. Legal labels should clarify rights and obligations. They should not leave a non-lawyer unsure whether they are being warned about a genuine legal restriction or simply being discouraged from pursuing an uncomfortable point.
Confidentiality is not a fog
Solicitor-client confidentiality is serious. The SRA Code requires solicitors to keep the affairs of current and former clients confidential unless disclosure is required or permitted by law or the client consents. SRA guidance also explains that the duty is not merely a duty to avoid disclosure to a third party; it is a wider duty not to misuse confidential information.
That does not mean the word confidential can be used as a blanket answer to every criticism, document request or procedural question. The proper inquiry is more disciplined. What information is said to be confidential? Whose confidentiality is being protected? What legal basis prevents disclosure? Is the document privileged, private, commercially sensitive, subject to a court restriction, or merely inconvenient?
That distinction is particularly important where a complaint concerns a solicitor's own conduct. A client or former client may need to refer to correspondence, advice, costs information, chronology, complaint material or regulatory concerns to obtain redress. The fact that legal work involved confidential information does not remove the need for a clear explanation of what can and cannot properly be disclosed for complaint, regulatory or legal purposes.
Identifies the information, the legal basis for restriction, the person whose interests are protected and any safe route for disclosure.
Uses a broad label to deter questions, avoid explanation or imply that any challenge to the solicitor's conduct is impermissible.
Without prejudice is not a magic label
The phrase without prejudice is often misunderstood. In broad terms, it protects genuine settlement communications from being used as admissions in the dispute being negotiated. It is not a magic label that turns every letter into secret material, and it is not a general tool for placing pressure on an opponent without accountability.
That is why context is critical. A communication marked without prejudice may still require analysis. Was there a genuine dispute? Was the communication part of a real attempt to settle that dispute? What is the purpose for which the material is later being referred to? Is the issue the merits of the claim, the fact of negotiations, alleged impropriety, costs, or some other recognised exception?
For litigants in person and members of the public, the danger is practical. If a solicitor uses without-prejudice language in a way that appears absolute, the recipient may believe they are legally barred from mentioning the communication at all. That belief can stop a complaint, deter evidence gathering, or prevent a person from seeking independent advice. The label then becomes more than technical shorthand. It becomes a barrier.
Separate settlement material from ordinary procedural correspondence, advice, demands or factual records.
Clarify whether the material is being used to prove liability, explain conduct, address costs or support a complaint.
Use proper advice before deploying disputed material in court, in a complaint or in public commentary.
How public trust is damaged
The SRA Principles place public trust and confidence at the centre of professional regulation. That is not an abstract ideal. The public has to believe that solicitors use their expertise to explain legal rights, not to obscure them. When technical phrases are used vaguely, that confidence is weakened.
The damage is not confined to one client or one dispute. Members of the public often encounter legal correspondence at moments of stress: a business dispute, a property dispute, a family breakdown, a debt claim, employment conflict, probate, professional negligence, or regulatory complaint. If the first experience is a dense letter implying that the recipient cannot speak, complain or challenge, the system feels closed before the merits are even reached.
This is why clarity is an ethical issue. A solicitor can robustly protect a client's position while still explaining the basis for confidentiality. A firm can assert privilege while still distinguishing privileged advice from non-privileged factual records. A lawyer can mark settlement correspondence without prejudice while still avoiding the impression that the phrase is a general gag. Precision protects everyone.
Unclear language may make them uncertain about their rights to complain, seek advice or request their file.
Broad labels may deter legitimate responses from litigants in person who already feel outmatched.
Repeated opacity reinforces the perception that legal rules protect lawyers more readily than the public.
The access-to-justice problem
Access to justice is not only about court fees or legal aid. It is also about whether ordinary people can understand the procedural position well enough to make an informed decision. Misused confidentiality language can create a chilling effect: the person does not know whether they can speak, whether they can share documents with an adviser, or whether a complaint would expose them to legal risk.
That effect is sharper for litigants in person, vulnerable clients and those already distrustful of institutions. A represented party may be able to test the wording immediately. An unrepresented person may simply stop. The legal label succeeds not because it is right, but because it is intimidating.
The answer is not to weaken genuine confidentiality. The answer is to insist on explanation. If information cannot be shared, say why. If only part of a document is protected, identify the protected part. If without-prejudice material can be referred to only for limited purposes, explain the limit. If a complaint route exists, do not imply that legal language shuts it down.
The evidence route
Allegations about misuse of confidentiality language should be tested through documents, not rhetoric. The strongest evidence will usually be the correspondence itself, the surrounding chronology, the purpose for which the phrase was used, and any later explanation provided by the solicitor or firm.
A useful evidence review asks whether the language was legally accurate, whether it was explained, whether it was proportionate, and whether it had the practical effect of deterring a proper complaint or challenge. The review should also identify what the recipient was trying to do: settle a dispute, complain to a regulator, obtain independent advice, disclose wrongdoing, respond to a claim, or publish public-interest commentary.
That is the difference between a serious accountability exercise and a broad grievance. The issue is not whether a solicitor used technical language. The issue is whether the technical language matched the legal reality and whether the recipient was left with a fair understanding of their position.
What words were used, where were they placed, and what restriction did they appear to assert?
Was the restriction based on confidentiality, privilege, without-prejudice protection, court rules or another source?
Did the wording stop a complaint, deter advice, limit disclosure or create unnecessary fear?
Did the firm explain the basis for the label and correct any misunderstanding once challenged?
Complaint routes and accountability
The complaint route depends on the issue. A complaint about poor service, unclear communication, delay, cost or inadequate complaint handling will usually begin with the firm and may then fall within the Legal Ombudsman's process. The Legal Ombudsman expects the complainant to raise the issue with the service provider first and says the provider has up to eight weeks to respond before the complaint can usually be brought to the Ombudsman.
A serious concern about misleading conduct, conflict of interest, breach of confidentiality, taking unfair advantage or failure to act in a client's best interests may also raise an SRA conduct issue. The SRA says it investigates serious or repeated poor behaviour, but it also emphasises evidence and seriousness. A vague feeling that language was used unfairly is unlikely to be enough. A dated document trail is stronger.
For public-interest commentary, the same discipline applies. The safer article is not the one that makes the loudest allegation. It is the one that identifies the legal label, explains why it matters, separates established documents from contested conclusions, and gives the subject of criticism a fair opportunity to answer where fairness and responsible publication require it.
Source anchors
These source anchors support the regulatory and complaint framework discussed above. They do not prove the contested facts of any case study or establish professional misconduct by any named firm.
Primary regulatory statement on public trust, rule of law, independence, integrity and acting in each client's best interests.
Current rules on conflicts, confidentiality, former clients, accountability and justification of decisions.
Guidance on the duty to keep client information confidential and the continuing nature of that duty.
Consumer-facing guidance on serious conduct concerns, evidence and the SRA's assessment approach.
Guidance on complaining to the provider first, response times and evidence needed for a service complaint.
The closing point
Confidentiality language has a legitimate role in legal practice. The concern is not protection. The concern is misuse. When technical language is used without explanation, it can turn a legal safeguard into a practical barrier. That damages clients, litigants in person and the credibility of the profession itself.
Confidentiality and route decision point
Get a free written assessment of the evidence route
Legal Lens can structure a preliminary written review of disputed confidentiality language: what was said, what legal label was used, what evidence exists, and which complaint or escalation route fits the issue.
Separate the document trail, legal label, practical effect and missing explanation.
Identify whether the issue is service, conduct, evidence handling, confidentiality or public-interest commentary.
Confidentiality, privilege, settlement language, complaint route and evidence gaps.
The records needed before complaint, escalation or publication.
Independent Legal Lens consultancy. Legal Lens is not a regulated solicitors' firm. A preliminary assessment is not a substitute for regulated legal advice where that is needed.