themselves but either way the main function is protection in this case you have the burden don't you to show why clients identity should be protected no i don't think i do why some reasonable belief that there should be an identification of a witness who is not a party to the proceedings that's not now they they have yes you a question and you right and the room and the ritz your objection yes ok and they have the burden to try to how do they have the burden because if you didn't object to the to the information on the basis  judgment creditor that is relevant that's exactly my point they have no such information how do we know we'll let them tell you what their information but they know when they don't know the identity of her client that's their problem not mine that's your problem th assets of that individual lives and the court said that's not a proper purpose for a citation to go discover witnesses you know here we do have evidence only because you admitted that this client provided you with something of value you call it in tangible but it provided you something of value good goodwill right oh absolutely yes like what does this pro bono impregnate all i don't know what that transitive instead of pro bono publico i mean you're getting good will here you're trying to prevent them from finding out the name of the client and i think you have to persuade us that  somebody for free is that what you're trying to get at no what i'm suggesting is that there are inferences here that you are receiving client matters in the form of goodwill and that your colleague on the other side is suggesting that that leads to an inference that there might be some information that they have regarding the underlying debtor's i don't think that should we do that for us at all and i don't see how it does now i know you don't think it should let's talk about the substantial harm exception to revealing the client's name there is a substantial harm in this is any case they had to pass ability that the client would be charged with a felony there's a substantial harm here my client believes that there's actual harm because this client would be exposed to the harassment that's been going on in this case is the very beginning with the rest this is a citation that is no the real world is some good person just out there giving you cases obviously a free will for no reason at all just because what because they like you because they like this client of yours that they heard about wh representation without having any connection to the case that is underlying the situation absolutely so that the respective of the point justice levon asked a very good question where's the prejudice when you have mentioned so far isn't prejudice the that in a collection matter you go to a bank bank as a rd party have no connection with the litigation and you can go to a relative no connection with all of the let occasion they may have money that is  you can go to whatever i mean there's a lot of people their employer no connection whatsoever the litigation so that is not a point so let's put that to the side when i ask you i'm trying to help you i'm trying to find out what is it in the record that shows prejudice or public interest i understand your point but i disagree with what you can disagree with but is there anything in the record you can see there's nothing in the record you know i think there are things in the record that your party said the light of your attorney and i knew the cover this now and the question is that you have to have you disagree but it is you're going to come up with something and we're just the fact that you don't like it or your client doesn't like it is not a sufficient under the law and so i'm trying to find out if there is something here that we're missing otherwise you haven't presented anything to substantiate your claim the only way i could do that soon you're saying this was not  consultation with this client for giving legal advice right but the only way i can approach that issue is to tell you what my client said to me and that's not right that's not fair that's putting the cart well before the  the result is the order from the crown court if that is the rule and i don't believe that it is it would require me to reveal the conversation with my client in order to the stablish what you call the that's what the lawsuit i mean i was so unless you can give us a basis other than generalities i cannot reveal what my client said to me without revealing what conversation always route so he's a p d f judgment that was already within the jurisdiction of the court ok and that person apparently had had financial dealings with the judge and debtors the opinion doesn't read very well frankly it's hard exactly what happened but from what i can believe from that the individual who was involved there with the attorney actually was dealing with them why worry two ha two grounds gotcha all right i want to wrap up and then we'll hear from your colleague well i think i've said everything that cover these issues so i don't know everything to wrap up but let me say this i think that policy wise it makes no sense to require attorneys to reveal the names of nine clients i buy one clients but clients who are not parties to litigation i don't think that's a wise course i think it will lead to unintended consequences and i don't think it should be allowed thank you very much that question he's not he gave us an answer back we thought it might be but he wasn't entirely clear and the problem with this particular judgment better is his relationship with the truth is flexible the so we don't have to take the judgment  on his word we issued a citation to counsel we attempted to work things out with him for a long period of time and when it became clear that we weren't going to be able to do so we engaged the citation examination we asked him questions that were relevant and he refused to answer those questions intangibles as as the brief describes it goodwill the referral of other clients favors only goes so far and there's a reason that paper was called in and we would like to know what it is one of the one of the clear implications is there is some kind of financial relationship between this and identify still exist so your your honour's were were absolutely accurate in identifying that the burden here rests entirely with my colleague to establish his claim a privilege to establish his claim of company chali and there's just no facts in the record six or the comics there to as a shield against disclosing the identity of the client and that particular argument has been rejected by scheck and and it's been rejected by sina so mr stack cannot invoke that on to avoid  judgment debtors that's not substantial harm and there's no great a workable here in this it's it's it's bedrock law in a way that the identity of your client is not privileged and mr stack's argument would turn that rule on its head and what's been swallowed and i think is the swallow it all is the actual rule governing citations of the supreme court where they said there has to be some belief i take that to mean a reasonable belief that someone is holding assets before you can go on a fishing expedition looking for that's what's going on here yes attention proceedings are brought that doesn't mean that they swallow every other rule doesn't mean that they swallow attorney client privilege it doesn't mean that they swallow rule one point a music ace where there was all kinds of theoretical evidence that this rd party was somehow involved with the judgment that including the fact that he they had taken the website that  we have one case behind you so if you can retreat