I write in connection with the article 'Jousting for privilege' (see [2004] Gazette, 14 October, 20).


Judging by his remarks in connection with the Home Office consultation, Jonathan Golds-mith, the Secretary-General of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of the European Union, appears not to have distinguished between legal professional privilege in its wider sense, and the narrow issue of the existence of 'privileged circumstances', providing a defence against failure to report under section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.


This is not about 'extending privilege to accountants'. This is simply about providing equal treatment for regulated professionals, when providing directly comparable services, in terms of the professionals' obligation to report suspicion, or knowledge, of money laundering. It is no more, or less, than the relevant EU directive demands.


The key issue is surely the potentially adverse effect on clients of the current lack of equal treatment. The issue is not that 'accountants want to use privilege as a marketing tool' as Mr Goldsmith asserts. This is about restoring to clients the ability to make a choice between advisers that is not distorted by different treatment under the Proceeds of Crime Act of two different types of regulated professional providing directly comparable services.


I cannot see how 'the specific role of lawyers in society' when providing advice on rights and obligations in connection with tax law differs from that of the accountant doing exactly the same thing.


Karen Silcock, Deloitte & Touche, London