SRA relaxes conflicts rules after review of use of Chinese walls
City law firms will now be able to make wider use of Chinese walls after the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) finalised a review of the rules governing conflicts. The rule changes, approved by the Legal Services Board earlier this month (13 July), lift the restrictions which formerly only allowed law firms to act for multiple clients with information barriers in place if the firm had already been instructed at the time the conflict arose. Rule four of the SRA Code of Conduct previously only permitted work involving Chinese walls to be completed after a conflict became apparent.
July 27, 2010 at 07:29 AM
2 minute read
City law firms will now be able to make wider use of Chinese walls after the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) finalised a review of the rules governing conflicts.
The rule changes, approved by the Legal Services Board earlier this month (13 July), lift the restrictions which formerly only allowed law firms to act for multiple clients with information barriers in place if the firm had already been instructed at the time the conflict arose.
Rule four of the SRA Code of Conduct previously only permitted work involving Chinese walls to be completed after a conflict became apparent.
However, firms will now be able to accept new instructions, even when it is apparent that there are risks concerning confidentiality, provided the firm in question has the infrastructure in place to set up legally compliant information barriers.
The SRA has warned that most law firms will not have such capabilities and that Chinese walls should therefore continue to be used with "extreme caution".
Commenting on the amendments, an SRA spokesperson said: "It really only will be of significance to the largest City firms, mainly because you need to have the size and infrastructure in place to comply with common law on information barriers."
The latest changes come as a result of a review conducted by the SRA in February which also looked into amendments to Rule three of the Code of Conduct, which would have allowed firms to act for multiple 'sophisticated clients' in related matters with client consent – a proposal that was scrapped after concerns were raised.
The SRA initially consulted on change to the conflicts rules in 2008, but launched a second consultation last year after a lack of response from the in-house community. Network Rail was the only in-house legal team to participate in the consultation's first round out of a total of 38 respondents.
Five in-house legal teams took part in the second round, along with 11 City firms and one large national firm, while there were also responses from the City of London Law Society, the Law Society and one barrister.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJones Day, BCLP & Other Major Firms Boost European Teams with Key Partner Hires
4 minute read$13.8 Billion Magomedov Claim Thrown Out by UK High Court
Ropes & Gray, Mori Hamada, Nishimura & Asahi Act on Bain Capital’s $634M Aircraft Business Acquisition in Japan
Trending Stories
- 1‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 2State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 3Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
- 422-Count Indictment Is Just the Start of SCOTUSBlog Atty's Legal Problems, Experts Say
- 5Judge Rejects Walgreens' Contractual Dispute Against Founder's Family Member
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250