Bowman v Fells has apparently re-established the position that existed prior to the unsatisfactory outcome of P v P.

Resolution has advised us that we should not now report Bob the Builder to the National Criminal Intelligence Service where he has confided to us, in his litigation instructions about contact with his children and financial support for them etcetera, that he may not have disclosed all of his earnings to the Inland Revenue.


We all applaud the restored position relating to basic client confidentiality and privileged information. But may we please have some guidance as to what we are to do about the clients whose rights we have already reluctantly breached in compulsory 'over-compliance' with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002? We have all wittingly and covertly prejudiced these clients in respect of third parties, even though it was done because of our own fear of potential prosecution, and the ruling in P v P. My inclination as a matter of legal ethics would be to advise clients that we have so breached confidentiality. I think they have a right to know. Or are we still bound by the 'tipping off' provisions of the Act even though we should not have reported the client in the first place?


Can the Law Society now advise us as to our position in this regard and what protection, if any, it may be able to afford us from any law suits or complaints that will inevitably arise claiming compensation for these clear breaches of clients' rights?


Rory Khilkoff-Boulding, Khilkoff-Boulding & Co, Gravesend, Kent