Bar Council: US surveillance powers threaten UK legal privilege

US authorities could access legally privileged information held by barristers, the Bar Council has warned.

Guidance issued to all barristers in England and Wales explains that the Patriot Act and other surveillance laws could allow US authorities to access confidential, legally privileged data held in the cloud and on external back up services that use computers owned by US corporations.

The US Patriot Act is just one law that confers powers on US authorities to access personal information stored on facilities provided by state-side persons or companies, without the knowledge or consent of their customers.

The result is that legal professionals may inadvertently infringe the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

The Bar Council IT panel issued the warning and asked barristers to undertake a due diligence exercise to ascertain the risks to their practices.

Jacqueline Reid, chair of the panel, said: 'The USA Patriot Act and the USA Freedom Act confer considerable surveillance powers on US authorities.

'Barristers routinely retain legally privileged information relating to their clients, and they should be aware that these surveillance powers can place the confidentiality and security of this highly confidential information at risk.'

Barristers have been warned to check where legally privileged and confidential information is stored and whether any company which stores professional information has US parentage, and if they could be subject to the provisions of the Patriot Act.

In addition, barristers have been asked to consider encrypting access to data placed on external servers.

The warning comes as new intelligence laws are scrutinised in the UK. Earlier this month, government plans to boost surveillance powers suffered a setback after a committee of MPs and peers voiced fears that the state could use the law to spy on conversations between lawyers and their clients.

The all-party joint committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill said that while the government was right to bring forward the legislation, provisions to prevent the state from intercepting legally privileged communications should be incorporated into the Bill itself, rather than as a separate code of practice.