Your article 'Protecting a privileged position' (see [2005] Gazette, 17 March, 9), which looked at the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bowman v Fels, raises a concern that it could undermine alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

The article suggests that the judgment '...effectively creates an imbalance by affording a protection to parties in litigation, or in the run-up to litigation, that those who choose a different method of resolving their dispute will not enjoy'.


The judgment establishes that steps taken in the conduct of litigation do not constitute an arrangement or a prohibited act within sections 327-329, nor does the consensual resolution of issues by settlement in the context of existing or contemplated legal proceedings.


While ADR was not specifically referred to by the court, the policy reasons given for the exclusion from the money laundering reporting regime of activities associated with litigation and consensual resolution apply with equal force to ADR. The Law Society's money laundering task force considers that paragraphs 99 to 101 of the judgment, in particular, support this view.


Robin Booth, chairman of the Law Society's money laundering task force, London