A group of top City firms is pressing for changes to rules on conflicts of interest and confidentiality adopted just four months ago, claiming that they are impractical and limit clients' freedom of choice.

The group - Linklaters, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Allen & Overy, Slaughter & May and Herbert Smith - is to present a paper to the Law Society Regulation Board outlining its concerns.


This is expected to argue that the rules are an unnecessarily 'gold-plated' version of the original proposals for changes to the rules governing confidentiality.


These original recommendations said firms should have to comply with the requirements of common law - such as the establishment of information barriers - when taking on work for a client when it already holds confidential information on that client's counterparty. However, the current rules effectively require firms to obtain the consent of the counterparty before acting against them.


Raymond Cohen, director of compliance and conflicts at Linklaters, argued that this revision lacks clarity. He added: 'On tactical and commercial grounds, the counterparty has every reason to refuse consent. It is far more sensible to reflect the former common law position, which has proved itself workable.'


Chris Perrin, executive partner and general counsel at Clifford Chance, agreed. He said: 'The board's change is giving an unnecessary level of protection to the counterparty at the expense of unreasonably limiting the freedom of the claimant to use its lawyers of choice.'


The board declined to comment in advance of a meeting with City firms this week on the issue.


By Jonathan Rayner