From time to time, the same question arises. If a lawyer suspects that a client has committed corruption or another serious offence, is the lawyer obliged to report them to the authorities?
The short answer, in both Romania and England, is no, not in general. But the full answer is more nuanced.
The starting point is confidentiality
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is built on trust. A client must be able to speak openly, even about uncomfortable or incriminating matters, in order to receive proper legal advice. That is why professional secrecy is a cornerstone of the legal profession.
In Romania, this principle is protected under Legea nr. 51/1995, which imposes a strict duty of professional secrecy on lawyers. Information obtained in the course of representation cannot simply be disclosed because it appears morally troubling or legally suspicious.
In England and Wales, the equivalent protection is known as legal professional privilege — a long-standing doctrine of common law that protects confidential communications between lawyer and client. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that this privilege is fundamental to the rule of law, because without it, clients would hesitate to seek legal advice at all.
So far, then, the position seems clear: lawyers are not informants.
The complication is anti-money-laundering law
However, modern legal systems have introduced reporting obligations in the field of money laundering and terrorist financing.
In Romania, under Legea nr. 129/2019, lawyers are considered “reporting entities” in certain circumstances. If, for example, they assist in financial or corporate transactions and detect suspicious activity, they may be required to report this to the Oficiul Național de Prevenire și Combatere a Spălării Banilor (ONPCSB).
Yet this obligation is not unlimited. The law must be interpreted in harmony with professional secrecy. Where the information arises from legal advice or defence work — in other words, from the core activity of representing a client — confidentiality remains protected.
In England and Wales, the position is broadly similar but procedurally stricter. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), solicitors must submit a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) to the National Crime Agency if they have reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering.
Failure to report can itself be a criminal offence. Moreover, once a report is made, the solicitor must not inform the client — doing so could amount to the offence of “tipping off”.
Even here, however, the law recognises an exception: if the information was obtained in “privileged circumstances” — that is, in the course of giving legal advice or conducting litigation — legal professional privilege prevails.
So where is the balance?
Neither in Romania nor in England is a lawyer a general whistleblower against their own client. There is no broad obligation to report every suspected crime to the prosecution authorities.
What exists instead is a carefully drawn exception in the area of financial crime. Legislators have sought to prevent lawyers from being used, even unknowingly, as vehicles for laundering illicit funds. At the same time, they have tried, not always without controversy, to preserve the essential confidentiality of legal advice.
The result is a delicate balance:
- Core legal advice and defence work remain protected.
- Financial transactions with suspicious characteristics may trigger reporting duties.
- Confidentiality is the rule; reporting is the exception.
Final reflection
The tension between professional secrecy and reporting obligations reflects a broader question: is the lawyer primarily a guardian of individual rights, or also a gatekeeper of the financial system?
Both Romania and England attempt to answer: the lawyer remains first and foremost a confidential adviser. But in specific financial contexts, the lawyer also carries a public responsibility.
Understanding that distinction is crucial, both for legal professionals and for clients who wish to know where confidentiality begins and where it may, exceptionally, end.