It’s 7pm and the phone rings. A national journalist is on the line asking if your firm acted for a high-profile politician whose property transaction is now under scrutiny: 'Would you care to comment?'
What do you say?
This was the scenario faced by Verrico and Associates, a small conveyancing firm, unexpectedly pulled into a national news story about Angela Rayner MP, stamp duty, and her house purchase. While the headlines initially focused on politics, the reputational spotlight then turned to the firm. And in that moment, the balance between legal obligation and public communication came sharply into focus.
For any law firm, whether a six-fee-earner outfit in Hove or a Magic Circle heavyweight, the regulatory framework around client confidentiality, privilege, and conduct rules is non-negotiable. You cannot confirm whether someone is a client without their explicit consent. Nor can you disclose the nature or scope of the advice provided unless permitted or required by law.
But that does not mean you have to stay silent.
This story is not just a regulatory issue. Nor is it simply about media headlines. It is where risk, compliance and communications collide. And firms must be ready to navigate those areas all at the same time. Legal and risk teams bring an understanding of regulatory lines, professional obligations, and the scope of advice. Communications professionals bring judgement on tone, timing, and trust. One without the other is risky. Together, they offer a route through the storm.
What’s more, this partnership cannot be left to chance and should not be forged in the heat of the fire. Firms need agreed protocols, shared messaging, and clarity on who leads when, ahead of time. Sure, silence can be damaging and a call from the Daily Mail at 7pm can feel intimidating. But so too is saying the wrong thing, however well-intentioned. Navigating that line requires experience from both sides of the table.
Read more
In Rayner’s case, public documents at HM Land Registry had already identified the firm’s involvement in the transaction. That arguably allowed for limited confirmation from the firm without breaching client confidentiality. But just because you can say something, does not always mean you should, and it would be better to have a client’s express permission to do so.
More problematic was the release of information about the scope of the retainer. At that point, it was not in the public domain. At the time of writing, it remains unclear whether the client consented to its disclosure. There is tension between regulatory duties to the client and the reputational interests of the firm. If in doubt, we defer to regulation over reputation and comply with the SRA’s rules. Such is the price of being a regulated adviser.
This situation also prompts wider questions about tax advice, regulatory competence, and scope creep. Since 2020, the definition of tax advice under the regulations has broadened significantly. If you tailor advice to a client’s circumstances in relation to tax, it is likely to fall within that definition. Simply stating that SDLT is payable is one thing. Advising on its calculation specific to the client’s circumstances is quite another. Pointing someone towards the SDLT calculator is different to running the projections for them or advising them on the accuracy of the same.
Many conveyancing firms exclude tax advice from their retainers. That is not unusual, but it is equally not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Scope creep is common and often poorly managed. So, if tax advice is excluded in writing but included in practice, you may still find yourself caught within the regulatory net. Your professional indemnity insurers might have something to say, too!
Rayner, as a politically exposed person, should have triggered enhanced due diligence. That includes scrutiny of the source of funds for the transaction and her source of wealth more generally. A comprehensive risk assessment before taking the work on should have flagged the risks posed by this client and this transaction.
All firms need robust, documented policies when it comes to PEPs. Some will act. Some will not. This is important, not just to satisfy the regulator, but to ensure they are equipped to manage the additional risks, from compliance breaches to reputational fallout.
Too often, media strategy is reactive. For law firms, where reputational risk and regulation are intertwined, it needs to be rehearsed and ready.
That means:
● agreeing in advance how to handle speculative media queries
● drafting pre-approved statements that explain your professional obligations
● training senior lawyers on how to triage press calls, especially out of hours
● stress-testing your approach with realistic simulations
When the journalist calls, your first instinct might be to defend yourself. But clarity, not defensiveness, must lead. Buy yourself some time, even if it’s just a few minutes t reflect before you speak on the record.
Equally, a firm in this situation can say: We are professionally required not to confirm the identity of any client without their express permission. We also cannot comment on the specifics of any transaction. These obligations exist to protect client confidentiality, and we take them seriously.’
That message may not make headlines, but it sends the right signal to your existing clients. It shows calm, compliance, and integrity.
You may also be able to speak in general terms about how you typically approach these types of matters. Just be clear you are not referring to any specific case.
Once the story breaks, the work is not over. Risk, comms and legal teams need to regroup quickly and openly. Did the firm hold the line? Were the messages understood? Was the response fast enough? Did clients feel reassured? Have the angles evolve and did they prompt new questions as to your involvement?
This is not just about debriefing. It is about preparation for the next event. Because there will be one.
Eloise Butterworth is an expert in risk and compliance and Simon Marshall is a marketing and communications specialist
10 Readers' comments