Claim challenges whether the SRA can compel production of legally privileged documents
A High Court dispute has been launched over whether the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) can compel law firms to provide documents protected by legal professional privilege (LPP) during regulatory investigations. The claim has been brought by Carter-Ruck Solicitors and its former client, Mohamed Amersi, following a long-running disagreement with the regulator concerning the scope of its investigatory powers.
According to the High Court case summary, the SRA opened an investigation into Carter-Ruck in September 2023 concerning the firm’s conduct while acting for Mohamed Amersi in data and defamation proceedings. During the investigation, the regulator issued three production notices under section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 requiring Carter-Ruck to produce documents from Mr Amersi’s client files.
Between September 2023 and February 2025, Carter-Ruck and the SRA corresponded over whether the regulator had the legal authority to require production of documents that were confidential and protected by legal professional privilege where the client had not consented to disclosure.
The case summary states that Mr Amersi also made separate representations to the SRA, expressing concern about the use of confidential and legally privileged material. He indicated that he was willing to assist the investigation, provided appropriate safeguards were in place to prevent disclosure of his documents to third parties. No agreement was ultimately reached.
In October 2025, the SRA withdrew one production notice but maintained two others. Carter-Ruck and Amersi subsequently issued a Part 8 claim in the High Court seeking a declaration that section 44B does not permit the SRA to compel production of material subject to legal professional privilege.
The claimants argue that legal professional privilege is a fundamental right that can only be overridden by express statutory wording or necessary implication. They contend that section 44B contains no such wording and rely on authorities including Sports Direct International plc v Financial Reporting Council and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission v Murray. They also point to parliamentary debates on the Legal Services Bill, arguing these are relevant to interpreting the legislation.
The SRA disputes that position. The regulator argues that Parliament intended section 44B to permit the production of solicitors’ files, including privileged material, as part of investigations into alleged misconduct. It also contends that regulators have operated on that basis for decades and that access to privileged material is sometimes essential to effective regulatory oversight.
According to the SRA, where privileged material is obtained, client privilege remains protected because the material is used only for regulatory investigations and enforcement proceedings against solicitors or firms, not against clients themselves.