Hildebrand Documents & Marco Pierre White: why family lawyers should worry
As noted in my previous post about Hildebrand Documents, the recent ruling of the Court of Appeal in the Marco Pierre White case alarmed me. I would like to look at the judgment in detail.
I must warn you in advance: this is a lengthy post. However if you are a family law practitioner in England and Wales, are you aware of this judgment’s implications?
It appears to be the case that, even if you have advised a client in accordance with accepted Hildebrand practice in the family law courts, you could still potentially be liable to the opposing spouse in civil law.
I have previously described my experience of a Hildebrand case and the decision that I was called upon to make in a matter of minutes. Would I inspect the three boxes of documents that my client had delivered to our offices, even though I believed that she had obtained the documents illicitly? With the alarm bells ringing, I decided not to do so. Instead, I chose caution.
Lawyers can find themselves sued for damages if documentation taken secretly by their client is copied and used in court, and the client’s spouse takes exception to this. Admittedly such a case may not get off the ground because damage may be too minimal, but in theory at least, lawyers could be liable.
In my case I had every reason to suspect that the Hildebrand Rules, as they are known, had been breached by my client. The generally acceptable defence available under Hildebrand would therefore not apply to her or to me. We could both have been sanctioned and sued by her husband and by his company, which was an entirely separate entity.
Now it may be the case that the generally acceptable defence under Hildebrand does not protect legal practitioners or their clients in any such case at all. Continue reading »







Recent Comments