Protecting client confidentiality has become a fundamental part of the legal profession and is considered such a key element to fair and effective legal representation that it would require the most extraordinary circumstances to allow a lawyer to get around this problem. While confidentiality is important and a great concept, in theory it is not without its problems and limitations, with some arguing that it doesn't work as well as it should and others that it works too well and that it has been taken too far. still be considered an advantage for the pursuit of justice within the legal system. To determine whether confidentiality is an advantage or a weakness of the UK justice system, it is important to explore what confidentiality means in the UK and the arguments within each different perspective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Within the UK legal system, there are two ways in which a client's information can be protected. The first is the doctrine of confidentiality, which protects any and all communications between a lawyer and his client unless the client waives his right to this privilege, or there is an extraordinary circumstance that allows the lawyer to circumvent this privilege. A lawyer has a responsibility not to mislead the court, but confidentiality means that a client can be completely honest and the lawyer can then choose what to include in their legal arguments in order to achieve the best outcome for their client. The second mechanism is Legal Professional Privilege. If a client or lawyer has been asked to provide any information that has been shared as part of the legal advice process, they can refuse to do so, as it is legally protected by their privilege. In the context of the legal profession, there is an ongoing debate on the effectiveness of the principle of confidentiality. Many see it as a vital part of a successful legal system because it promotes the importance of a client's right to privacy, as well as their right to fair legal representation. In the Three Rivers case (No. 6), Lord Scott supported the importance of equal access to adequate legal representation. In the same speech, he also argued how important this right is for the public interest, as clients who feel protected by confidentiality are more likely to be honest with their lawyers, which means lawyers can provide them with better representation legal, which creates a better system for obtaining justice. A similar argument was made by Lord Millett in Bolkiah v KPMG: he argued that it is in the best interests of society that everyone has access to the best possible legal advice and that the protection of client confidentiality is central to that idea. However, many have argued that confidentiality is a bad part of our legal system or that it has gone too far. For example, Stevenson argued that “many more evils arise from secrecy than from transparency” and that secrecy rules are protecting too many criminals, eroding the equality and effectiveness of our justice system, and allowing lawyers to get away with keeping secrets that allow illicit acts. beliefs and ruining lives. For example, State v Macumber, in which the court did not allow the testimony of two lawyers whose deceased client had confessed to the murder of which Macumber was accused; the court ruled that the information was confidential and therefore inadmissible. Even though it's a coincidenceAmerican, this is a demonstration of how confidentiality doesn't seem to work so well in practice. Another argument against confidentiality is the unfair advantage it gives law firms. For example, in the Prudential case, an accounting firm was asked to provide legal advice to its clients on a tax matter and sought to use legal advice privilege to prevent them from having to share details. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this has only ever applied to lawyers, so changing it now would cause too much imbalance within the legal profession. But this is probably unfair because a client is more likely to seek advice from a law firm so that their information is protected, which is a disadvantage for accounting firms that can provide the same advice. To transform privacy from an idea to a legally required reality, systems had to be put in place to protect it. Within the UK's legislation and legal regulatory manuals, there are rules written and explained in a way that makes them easy to follow and understand; the BSB Handbook and SRA Code of Conduct provide rules on confidentiality. Additionally, law firms have compliance controls and contracts in place to ensure confidentiality. Many companies use Lexcel accreditation to demonstrate the quality of their business and to obtain it they must undergo checks and one of these essential checks is confidentiality. With these systems in place, confidentiality can work well in practice. One problem law firms face now, compared to fifty years ago, is the fact that a large amount of sensitive information is now shared via email. Despite cybersecurity, there is always the risk of a hacker breaking into a law firm's system and obtaining confidential information, including emails and any documents that have been backed up on an online server. While these backups are great for protecting hard work, it's quite the opposite for protecting confidential information, because an online server is much more hackable than a physical hard drive. This represents a huge barrier to the effective practice of confidentiality in contemporary law firms. There is also a growing ease among lawyers who may disclose confidential information to friends or family. A key example of this was when JK Rowling published a book under a pseudonym and her identity was revealed thanks to one of her lawyers telling his wife's friend in a "private conversation", who then passed the information on to a reporter. This undermines how privacy works in modern businesses. A modern privacy issue is the schemes that have had to be put in place during the coronavirus pandemic. Law firms were legally forced by the government to close their offices, so lawyers had to work from home to keep their businesses running. Within the space of a law firm, steps can be taken to ensure confidentiality is protected, which is largely impossible when working from home. It is up to the individual lawyer to protect their client's privacy when working from home, not only from the prying eyes (and ears) of their family members but also from hackers, as personal cybersecurity systems are often much more accessible to hackers. compared to the systems of large law firms. This presented a completely new challenge for law firms and resulted in the need for new risk assessments and new guidelines. This is a brand new obstacle to the effective work of.