Solicitor Tricked Into Sharing Client Info With Private Investigator

Solicitor Tricked Into Sharing Client Info With Private Investigator

In a Commercial Court judgment handed down on 13 November 2025, the court heard how the defendants’ litigation solicitor was deceived into meeting a private investigator who was acting for the other side. The solicitor believed he was pitching for a new client. Instead, he was questioned, secretly recorded, and drawn into discussing confidential aspects of his clients’ position, including litigation and settlement strategy.

Legal Futures later reported the key facts in accessible terms: the solicitor was a newly promoted partner, and there were three meetings in total, one virtual and two in person abroad on the same day, including meals and alcohol. The solicitor has been reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. 

The case matters because it highlights a vulnerability that sits outside the usual “risk registers”. No system was breached. No inbox was hacked. The weak point was a conversation.

What happened, in brief

The judgment records that the solicitor “was deceived into meeting a private investigator” and that the meetings were “secretly filmed and recorded”. The recordings were then provided to the claimants, who applied for summary judgment.

According to Legal Futures’ reporting of the hearing, the operative’s questioning was persistent and designed to draw out insights on strategy, perceived merits, and the defendants’ position around worldwide freezing orders. The solicitor later said he acted out of courtesy and an eagerness to impress. The judge’s view was blunt: despite the deception, the solicitor remained responsible for any breach of client confidentiality.

On the court’s response, this did not become a simple “strike out and walk away” story. The judge refused the claimants summary judgment in circumstances where the application was stitched together with curated extracts from the transcripts, and he characterised the conduct as an abuse of process.

A follow-up Legal Futures piece on 2 December 2025 reported that the Court of Appeal is set to consider whether an attempt to dupe an opposing solicitor into disclosing confidential information is, by itself, an abuse of process, and that the claimants were ordered to pay indemnity costs.

Why sophisticated people still get caught

The details are uncomfortable precisely because they are familiar.

Business development creates a strong incentive to be personable, helpful, and confident. A credible-sounding prospect can trigger all the good instincts at once: build rapport, show competence, demonstrate commercial understanding. A skilled interrogator uses that.

The judgment and reporting describe a gradual process across multiple meetings. That spacing matters. It normalises the relationship. It creates a sense of trust. It makes the next question feel like a natural continuation rather than a boundary crossing.

None of this requires the solicitor to be careless with documents. It only requires them to talk slightly more freely than they would in a formal client instruction, and to forget that strategy itself is valuable information.

The professional rule that applies every time

The SRA’s position on confidentiality is not complicated: solicitors must keep the affairs of current and former clients confidential unless disclosure is required or permitted by law, or the client consents.

That covers more than client names or attached files. It includes tactical assessments, settlement thinking, views on credibility, what evidence matters, and how a case is being approached. Put another way, insights can be confidential even when no documents change hands.

Tremark’s position on tactics like this

What’s described here is the kind of behaviour that gives private investigation a bad name. A PI turning up under a false identity, pressing an opposing solicitor for insights, and secretly recording the conversation isn’t clever tradecraft, it’s an attempt to manufacture advantage by coaxing out confidential information. That line shouldn’t be blurry, and for us it isn’t.

Tremark will not take instructions that depend on tricking solicitors (or anyone else) into disclosing privileged or confidential material. We don’t approach opposing counsel under pretence, we don’t run “prospect meetings” as interrogations, and we don’t go fishing for litigation strategy.

Practical protections that do not slow firms down

This is preventable. The fix is mainly habits and guardrails.

1) Treat prospect meetings as a controlled setting

A first meeting is for understanding the prospective client’s problem, conflicts, scope, and whether the firm can act. It is not a forum for war stories about live disputes or commentary on current clients.

A simple internal line helps staff hold the boundary:
“I’m happy to explain our general approach, but I can’t discuss live matters or current clients.”

2) Verify who you are meeting before you meet

In higher-value disputes, basic verification is a control, not admin:

• Who is the person, and who do they represent
• How did they find you, and can that be independently validated
• A contact path that does not rely on the details provided in a single email
• A short written overview of the issue that avoids pulling you into privileged territory

If someone is pushing back on these basics, that itself is a signal.

3) Do not meet alone when the context is unusual

If a “new client” wants to fly you out for a same-day sequence of meetings and hospitality, treat it as a risk decision. A second attendee changes the dynamic and reduces the chance of being steered. It also creates an internal record of what was discussed.

4) Keep early conversations structured

A loose chat is easier to manipulate. A structured agenda is harder.

Good early-meeting questions keep you on safe ground:
What is the issue, what are the deadlines, what do you want to achieve, what documents exist, who else is involved, what budget constraints apply.

If the other party keeps pulling you back to “how strong is the defence” or “what would your client accept”, the motive becomes clearer.

5) Train staff on “hostile curiosity”

Many firms run cyber training; fewer run conversation training.

A short session with realistic scenarios goes a long way:

• A “prospective client” who asks for your view on a well-known case you are in
• A meeting that starts broad, then pivots to settlement posture
• A friendly lunch that turns into pointed questions

If someone realises they have disclosed too much

Speed matters. So does documenting what happened.

If personal data may have been disclosed, the ICO’s guidance is clear that notifiable personal data breaches must be reported without undue delay and, where feasible, within 72 hours of becoming aware of the breach. The clock starts when you discover it, not when it occurred.

Even where the incident is not notifiable, a clear internal record helps: what was said, to whom, when, what was recorded, and what steps are being taken.

This also needs to be treated as a professional conduct issue, not only an information security issue, given the SRA confidentiality duties and the possibility of client impact.

Conclusion

The court’s description of what happened is stark: an opposing party’s solicitor was deceived, recorded, and drawn into discussing confidential strategy.

If your firm handles disputes, you already operate in an adversarial environment. That environment does not stop at pleadings and disclosure. It includes conversations, introductions, and prospect meetings that are designed to extract more than they reveal.

FAQs

Can you breach confidentiality without sharing documents?

Yes. Case assessments, settlement posture, and strategic thinking can be confidential client information even when no files are exchanged.

Is it reasonable to require conflicts checks before discussing details with a prospective client?

Yes. It protects the firm and the prospective client. It also forces identity and representation checks before any sensitive discussion begins.

What are common warning signs in a “new client” approach?

Pressure to meet quickly, unusual hospitality, reluctance to verify identity, and repeated questions that seek opinions on a live matter’s strengths, weaknesses, or settlement position.

If personal data was disclosed, do we have to notify the ICO?

Only notifiable breaches must be reported, but you should assess risk promptly. If a breach is reportable, the ICO expects notification within 72 hours of awareness.

Does the court’s criticism of the investigator’s tactics remove the solicitor’s responsibility?

No. The judgment records that the solicitor was deceived, but also that responsibility for any breach of client confidentiality still sits with the solicitor.