IntroductionThe concept of lawyer-client privilege has long been a cornerstone of the English legal system. It is probably one of the fundamental principles of justice. This is why when this doctrine is in danger we must pay close attention. This was the case in Bowman v Fels, where the entire capital was arguably the subject of major reform. The discussion in this paper will critically analyze the decision reached in this case and the reasoning behind that decision. I will begin my analysis by first establishing the facts and issues that arose during the hearing. And then proceed to analyze the issues to better determine the broader impact the case has had. Following the Court of Appeal's decision, many critics have raised questions about the issues not addressed by the decision, these criticisms and further questions raised about the scope and direction in which English law is going will also be analysed. Before we begin to delve into the analysis we must first establish the facts of the case as presented. Facts The appellant, Jennifer Bowman, lived with the defendant, William Fels, for 10 years. The house in which they resided was registered solely in the name of Mr. Fels. Once the relationship between the two cohabitants ended, Ms. Bowman “asserted the right to a beneficial interest in the property arising from a constructive trust.” She claimed that an agreement had been reached between her and Mr Fels that the property would be purchased jointly. The proceedings of the case had begun and the trail was scheduled for 25 March 2004. It so happened that after inspection of the defendants' trail file by the appellant's lawyers a discrepancy was found. They suspected that the defendant had included the cost of work carried out on his home with...... middle of paper ......nclusion While the ruling in Bowman v Fels allowed lawyers to feel safe from prosecution pursuant to s.328, and although the judgment upheld the golden principle of legal privilege, broader questions arise about what justice is and how to go about achieving it. Does our legal system want to protect people it knows or suspects are guilty of a crime? It is true that the backbone of our legal system is the right to a fair trial, but should that right also extend to known criminals? Is the goal of justice not achieved through the prosecution of a known/suspected criminal? In particular circumstances can the means justify the end? These are all controversial questions raised by this case, questions that have no right or wrong answer, questions deeply rooted in individual interpretations of what is moral and what is right..