Written by Former clients · Wills · Conflict analysis
A will retainer may end, but the professional questions may not. Where a firm that once handled sensitive estate-planning information is later said to have acted in relation to a connected business asset, the issue is not answered by saying the earlier file was closed. The issue is whether former-client confidentiality, adverse interest, consent, safeguards and the decision to act can be explained.
Publication snapshot
This article uses a named case study involving Burnetts Solicitors to examine the wider professional-conduct issue: what should happen when a firm that previously handled a will or estate-planning matter is later said to have acted in a connected adverse matter involving a business asset. It does not present disputed allegations as findings. It asks what records, safeguards and explanations a firm should be able to produce where former-client duties are in issue.
Reader note: this article is public-interest commentary and practical legal education. References to Burnetts Solicitors, will drafting, former-client duties, business assets, conflicts, confidentiality, fiduciary language, adverse acting and professional conduct are analysis of concerns raised. They should not be read as findings of fact, misconduct, dishonesty, unlawful conduct, fiduciary breach, negligence or professional wrongdoing by any named person, firm, client, landlord, regulator or public body unless established by a competent court, tribunal, regulator, ombudsman, inquiry, audit report or official decision.
The case-study point
Conflict disputes involving solicitors are often argued at the wrong level. One side says the retainer had ended. The other says the later instruction felt like a betrayal. Neither answer, by itself, is enough.
The proper question is more precise. What did the earlier retainer involve? What information did the firm receive? Was that information confidential? Was it material to the later matter? Did the later client have an interest adverse to the former client? Was informed consent required? Were effective measures in place? Was the decision to act recorded?
That is why a named case study can have wider public value. The purpose is not to ask readers to decide a disputed complaint on limited information. The purpose is to show the professional route that should exist when former-client information, estate-planning work and later adverse acting are alleged to overlap.
What is alleged
The concern raised is that Burnetts Solicitors drafted a will in April 2022 which is said to have identified or reflected significant business interests. It is then alleged that, in August 2023, the firm acted for another party in a matter said to be adverse to those business interests.
Those allegations are serious. They are also disputed unless and until established through the proper route. For publication purposes, the safer and stronger analysis is not to assert a breach as a fact. It is to ask whether the later instruction engaged former-client confidentiality, whether any material confidential information was held, whether there was an adverse interest, and whether the firm can show how the risk was analysed.
The difference matters. A public article should not convert a complaint into a finding. But it can legitimately identify the accountability questions that arise where a former client says a later instruction touched the same asset, business or confidential background.
Retainer closure is not the whole answer
A concluded retainer may answer one question: whether the solicitor was still actively instructed on the earlier matter. It does not answer every professional question that follows.
Former-client duties can survive the closing of the file. Confidentiality is the clearest example. A solicitor may no longer be acting, but information obtained during the earlier retainer does not become available for use in a later adverse matter simply because the original task was complete.
That is why the concluded-retainer argument needs to be tested rather than accepted as a complete defence. It may be relevant to scope. It may be relevant to timing. It may be relevant to whether there was a current-client conflict. But it does not remove the need to address material confidential information, adverse interest, consent and safeguards.
Closed file
Was the earlier will or estate-planning retainer completed, and how was scope recorded?
Continuing information
What confidential information was obtained, and could it be material to the later matter?
Later instruction
Was the later client seeking an outcome adverse to the former client's interests?
Why will drafting changes the question
Will drafting can look narrow from the outside. It may be treated as a discrete transaction: instructions are taken, assets are identified, testamentary intentions are recorded, the will is executed, and the file is closed.
But the information disclosed in that process may be sensitive. It can include family relationships, ownership structures, business assets, property interests, intended beneficiaries, liabilities, succession concerns and personal priorities. Some of that information may later become material if a dispute arises around the same business, asset, property or relationship.
The public-confidence issue is not that every will file prevents a firm from ever acting for another person. It does not. The issue is whether the firm can show that it understood what information it held and why the later matter did or did not create a real conflict or confidentiality risk.
Confidentiality and adverse interest
Former-client confidentiality is not limited to the physical documents on the file. It can include the professional knowledge obtained through instructions, meetings, drafts, correspondence, asset schedules and the client's explanation of their affairs.
The SRA framework distinguishes between different risks. There may be an own-interest conflict, a current-client conflict, or a former-client confidentiality issue where a new client has an interest adverse to a current or former client and material confidential information is held.
In a case study of this kind, the key question is not whether a reader believes the former client. The key question is whether the firm can demonstrate the professional route: what information was held, what mattered to the later instruction, who had access, what safeguards were applied, and whether informed written consent was required or obtained.
Consent and safeguards
Consent must be real, informed and recorded where the rules require it. A former client cannot give meaningful consent if the risk is described in vague terms or if the connection between the earlier information and later instruction is not explained.
Safeguards must also be more than a general statement that different people or departments were involved. The relevant question is whether effective measures removed any real risk of disclosure of confidential information. That requires a practical record: who was screened, when the screen was imposed, what systems were restricted, and what information was protected.
If a firm relies on the concluded-retainer point without explaining consent or safeguards, the analysis is incomplete. The closing of the first file does not itself show that the later instruction was professionally safe.
Consent
Was informed written consent needed, sought, refused, given or never addressed?
Safeguards
What practical measures prevented access to or disclosure of material confidential information?
Decision record
What note explains why the firm decided it could act in the later matter?
Evidence discipline
The original draft uses the language of breach, fiduciary duty and ethical failure. Those may be the concerns being advanced, but publication discipline requires separation between allegation, evidence and finding.
That does not weaken the article. It strengthens it. A former-client conflict complaint is more persuasive when it identifies the earlier retainer, the information supplied, the asset or business involved, the later adverse instruction, the overlap between the matters, the absence or presence of consent, and the explanation given by the firm.
Words such as breach, misconduct, bad faith or fiduciary failure should follow the evidence route, not replace it. The better public-interest question is whether the firm can show a defensible route through the duties that survive retainer closure.
The firm record
A conflict concern should leave a record on both sides. The former client should be able to identify what was disclosed, why it was sensitive, how the later matter was adverse, and why the connection mattered. The firm should be able to identify what it checked, what it knew, what it protected and why it decided to act.
The absence of a clear record creates the public-confidence problem. A firm may ultimately be right that it could act. But if it cannot show how it reached that decision, the former client is left with an unresolved question about confidentiality, loyalty and professional judgement.
The evidence route is therefore practical. It turns a broad allegation into a structured issue that can be tested through a complaint, regulatory review, professional advice, data request or litigation route where appropriate.
Earlier will file
Retainer scope, client care letter, drafts, instructions, asset information, correspondence and closing record.
Later adverse matter
Parties, dates, issue overlap, business or asset connection, firm explanation and consent position.
Route selection
SRA complaint, Legal Ombudsman issue, negligence advice, SAR route, evidence preservation or right of reply.
Source anchors
These sources support the professional conduct framework used in this article. They do not prove any disputed conflict, confidentiality breach, fiduciary breach, negligence issue, will-file issue, landlord dispute, unlawful act or organisation-specific failure.
SRA Principles
Rule of law, public trust, independence, honesty, integrity and client interests.SRA Code of Conduct
Own-interest conflict, client conflict, former-client confidentiality, adverse interests, consent and safeguards.SRA conflicts guidance
Conflict avoidance, own-interest conflicts, adverse interests and safeguard expectations.SRA confidentiality guidance
Current and former client confidentiality, misuse of information and duties after retainer end.SRA terminating retainer guidance
Retainer scope, termination, good reason, reasonable notice and work-end risk management.SRA client care guidance
Agreed work, next steps, what is included and what is outside scope.The Legal Lens point
The important question is not whether the will retainer ended. It almost certainly did at some point. The important question is what survived it.
Confidentiality may survive it. Knowledge of assets may matter after it. A later adverse instruction may require analysis because of it. Consent and safeguards may be needed notwithstanding it. The professional record should show how those questions were considered.
A closed file is not the same as a cleared conflict. The public-confidence question is whether the firm can show the route from earlier retainer, to information held, to later instruction, to risk analysis, to consent or safeguards, to decision. Without that route, the former client is left not merely with disappointment, but with an accountability gap.
Former-client conflict route map
Get a free written assessment of the route
If a former-client conflict concern involves a will file, business asset, later adverse instruction, missing consent or unclear safeguards, Legal Lens can help structure the documents and route before escalation or specialist review.
Clarify the will file, scope, asset information, confidential material and closing record.
Connect the later client, adverse interest, business or asset overlap, access route and firm explanation.
Separate SRA conduct issue, Legal Ombudsman issue, negligence advice, SAR route and public commentary issue.
Retainer, confidential information, adverse interest, consent, safeguards and route selection.
Documents, chronology, firm explanation, missing records and next questions.
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.