The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s power to compel production of documents subject to legal professional privilege is to be tested before the High Court in a three-day hearing listed for 20 to 22 July 2026 — a case that could fundamentally alter the boundary between the SRA’s investigative powers and the solicitor-client privilege rights that every law firm in England and Wales relies on to conduct its practice.
The case, Carter-Ruck Solicitors and Amersi v Solicitors Regulation Authority, arises from an SRA investigation into Carter-Ruck opened in 2023 following the High Court’s dismissal of a defamation claim brought by businessman Mohamed Amersi against former MP Charlotte Leslie.
The SRA issued three production notices under section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 requiring Carter-Ruck to produce client files. Over the following eighteen months Carter-Ruck and the SRA exchanged correspondence over the extent of the regulator’s power to require production of material subject to legal professional privilege. Amersi raised concerns about the use of confidential files covered by LPP.
The SRA provided details of its safeguarding procedures but no agreement was reached. In October 2025 Amersi and Carter-Ruck issued a claim against the SRA seeking declaratory relief after the regulator declined to suspend two of its production notices.
The legal question before the High Court is one of the most significant in regulatory law affecting the profession. Carter-Ruck and Amersi assert that LPP is a fundamental right and that the Solicitors Act 1974 does not expressly override it — and that the Legal Services Act 2007, which comprehensively reformed legal services regulation, did not take the opportunity to confer on the SRA any express power to override privilege.
The SRA’s position is that its investigative powers under section 44B permit compelled production of LPP materials and that the regulator and its predecessors have operated on this basis for decades, with privilege and confidentiality safeguarded through internal procedures.
The outcome will directly affect every firm in England and Wales that has received or may receive a section 44B production notice from the SRA. If the court upholds Carter-Ruck’s position that LPP cannot be overridden without express statutory authority, the SRA’s investigative framework will require legislative intervention — a consequence that will engage the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Legal Services Board as well as Parliament.
If the SRA’s position is upheld, the decision confirms the regulatory architecture that has underpinned SRA investigations for decades and provides clarity — though firms will want to understand precisely what safeguards apply when privileged materials are accessed. The Carter-Ruck hearing follows the SRA’s recent post-Mazur supervision guidance, which introduced SDT fine thresholds and AI oversight obligations for law firms — a pattern of regulatory expansion that makes the July privilege ruling the most significant test of the SRA’s investigative boundaries in the current reform period.
Law firms with regulatory compliance and professional discipline practices should ensure clients facing section 44B notices are advised on this litigation before the July hearing, and should review their SRA investigation protocols alongside the post-Mazur guidance before that date.