The court held that section 44B does not override clients’ unwaived legal professional privilege.
The High Court has ruled that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) cannot use section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 to compel solicitors to produce documents or information covered by a client’s unwaived legal professional privilege (LPP).
Mr Justice Butcher gave judgment on 21 September 2026 in Carter-Ruck Solicitors and another v Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited [2026] EWHC 2416 (KB). The case concerned whether SRA production notices could require Carter-Ruck to provide privileged material from files relating to its client, Mohamed Amersi.
The SRA had been investigating Carter-Ruck and one of its partners since September 2023 over their conduct while acting for Amersi in connection with data protection and defamation claims brought or threatened in 2021 and 2022. The firm, the relevant partner and Amersi denied wrongdoing.
The regulator issued three production notices under section 44B, dated August 2024, February 2025 and October 2025. The first was later withdrawn, while the dispute over the remaining notices led Carter-Ruck and Amersi to seek declaratory relief from the High Court.
The SRA argued that access to privileged material was necessary in some investigations, particularly where complaints were made by non-clients or where solicitors’ conduct was being investigated in connection with alleged improper litigation. It argued that section 44B either expressly or by necessary implication allowed the regulator to override client LPP.
The court rejected that interpretation.
Mr Justice Butcher noted that section 44B contains no express provision overriding LPP. Because legal professional privilege is a fundamental right, the principle of legality requires clear words or a necessary implication before legislation can remove or restrict it.
The judge concluded that the wording of section 44B did not meet that high threshold. The section could, at most, be described as equivocal on the issue and was not “compellingly clear” enough to establish an implied override.
The court also rejected the SRA’s alternative argument that providing privileged material to a legal regulator was not an infringement, or was only a permissible infringement, of LPP. Mr Justice Butcher held that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Sports Direct International plc v Financial Reporting Council required that argument to be rejected.
The judgment also considered Parliamentary material from 2007. A proposed amendment would have expressly allowed the production of confidential and privileged material to the Law Society. The amendment was withdrawn after the Government expressed concerns about allowing a regulator to override professional privilege or obtain unfettered access to confidential material.
The court therefore concluded that section 44B does not permit the SRA to require production of documents subject to a client’s unwaived LPP.
The judgment does not determine whether Parliament should give the SRA such a power. Mr Justice Butcher expressly left that question to Parliament.