Report comment

Jonathan G has been defending this professional privilege, but also seems to, regretfully, accept some need for reform. As a non-lawyer, I find the apparently knee-jerk reaction to the subject dishonest.
If the ENRC wins the appeal and then successfully defends itself against the SFO, and the papers are subsequently ordered to be revealed, or are 'obtained' by the media, and indeed reveal criminal behaviour, then doubtless the (JG's 'populist') citizenry would expect that whatever criminal charges the 'not guilty' verdict would permit would be pursued. If this, too, were to fall foul of the 'privilege' rule, then I'm sure the rule would fall foul of the people's idea of honesty and integrity and might be swept away rather than, as JG concedes it should be, somewhat 'reformed'.
Worth thinking about? Might a legal historian say that, when these rules were conceived, the gentlemen who became lawyers were less inclined to sail their boats so aggressively close to the shores of Illegality?