1 Feb 2007, 09:00

A woman had instructed a law firm to act for her in a dispute with a local business. The woman was not satisfied with the firm's work, and she complained to the Law Society's Complaints Committee. The Complaints Committee ruled that the complaint was not justified.

The woman also disputed the firm's invoice, and refused to pay it. She complained to the Law Society's Costs Revision Committee, which reduced the invoice. In the meantime, the firm had filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal for payment of the invoice. The Disputes Tribunal ruled that the woman should pay the amount set by the Costs Revision Committee.

As part of its defence to the woman's complaints, the firm gave the Law Society a copy of a file note that the woman had provided to the firm. It also gave the file note to the Disputes Tribunal to support its claim. The file note was her account of a telephone conversation that she had had with a manager of the business. It illustrated the complex nature of the dispute, the woman's attitude to the dispute, and the acrimony between her and the business.

The woman argued that it was a breach of her privacy for the law firm to provide the copy of the file note to the Law Society and the Disputes Tribunal.

This complaint raised issues under principle 11, which provides that an agency must not disclose personal information unless one of the exceptions applies. The relevant exceptions here were principle 11(d) and principle 11(e)(iv).

Principle 11(d) permits disclosure of personal information if the agency reasonably believes that the disclosure is authorised by the individual concerned. Normally, a positive act of authorisation is required for an agency to rely on this exception. Occasionally, however, authorisation can be implied. This was the case here.

In my view, by laying a complaint with the Law Society, the woman had accepted that the firm would have to defend itself. To do so, it would have to give the Law Society relevant information that it held in relation to the dispute and the work it had done for her. It was obvious to anyone that the Law Society could not make a decision based on one-sided information. Any response from the firm would, to some extent, disclose the nature of the woman's dealings with the firm. The file note was relevant to the firm's defence because it demonstrated the difficulties involved with the dispute, and therefore showed the nature of the work that the firm had had to undertake. Providing the file note allowed the Law Society to determine whether the complaints were justified. I was therefore satisfied that principle 11(d) extended to permit disclosure in these circumstances. It was reasonable for the firm to believe that the woman had impliedly authorised it to provide relevant details of the dispute and her dealings with the firm to the Law Society.

Principle 11(e)(iv) permits disclosure of personal information if the agency reasonably believes that this is necessary for the conduct of proceedings before a tribunal. I was satisfied, again, that the file note demonstrated the nature of the dispute, and the nature of the work the firm had to undertake. It was reasonable for the firm to believe that the file note was relevant to the Disputes Tribunal's ability to make a decision on the claim. I therefore found that the exception applied in this case.

I notified the woman of my final opinion that there was no interference with her privacy, and closed the file.

March 2007

Disclosure of personal information – law firm – file note relating to work firm had done – disclosure to Law Society impliedly authorised – disclosure to Disputes Tribunal necessary for conduct of proceedings – principle 11(d), principle 11(e)(iv)