The Court of Final Appeal’s recent judgment in 

[2024] HKCFA 6 addresses several fundamental issues on legal professional privilege (“

”), waiver of LPP and the legal aid regime.

”) had her legal aid certificate revoked by the Director of Legal Aid (“

”) based on information as to her financial resources (“

”) relayed by her former counsel. MK had allegedly conveyed the Information to counsel in a conference before legal aid assignment.

Lord Phillips NPJ held that MK’s former counsel was not under any reporting duty to the Director at the time the Information was communicated to the Director. But since MK’s later conduct had waived LPP, the Director committed no public law error in relying on the Information. Lord Phillips NPJ also noted (without finally deciding) that it seems “

far from axiomatic that a public official is bound to disregard information relevant to the performance of his duties if it is communicated to him in breach of confidence, even where the information is subject to LPP

Particularly important to practitioners and the public are the following general findings on the extent of LPP under the legal aid statutory regime:

• The statutory scheme aims (1) to provide, at the public expense, legal assistance to litigants with limited financial means; and (2) to ensure that this assistance is not abused by those who fail to make true disclosure of their means or who pursue litigation whose prospects of success do not justify the public expenditure.

• Before grant of legal aid, information conveyed within the client-lawyer bipartite relationship client is protected by LPP against the outside world, including the Director. But once the Director assigns lawyers to a case, there forms a tripartite relationship between the aided person, the lawyers and the Director.

• Within the tripartite relationship, LPP does not preclude assigned lawyers from passing on information derived from the aided person to the Director, including information conveyed pursuant to the duty to report possible legal aid abuses under Reg.21(1).

• LPP in this context is abrogated by Reg.12(10), which is 

• Temporally, the abrogation of LPP within the tripartite relationship extends to matters pre-dating assignment and grant of legal aid. The same applies for the Reg.21(1) reporting duty. But the reporting duty does not apply to counsel who has ceased to be an assigned lawyer at the time he communicates information to the Director.

, instructed by Jimmie K.S. Wong & Partners, acted for the Appellant

, instructed by the Department of Justice, acted for the Interested Party

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Court of Final Appeal on Legal Professional Privilege and the Duty to Report Legal Aid Abuses

About

Members

Recruitment

What’s New