IntroductionThe concept of solicitor-client privilege is a long-standing foundation of the English legal system. This is undoubtedly one of the fundamental principles of justice. Therefore, when this doctrine is threatened, we must pay special attention to it. Such was the case in Bowman v. Fels, where the entire directorate was perhaps undergoing major reform. The discussion in this article will critically analyze the decision made in this case and the reasoning behind it. I will begin my analysis by first establishing the facts and the questions raised during the hearing. Then, conduct issue analysis to better determine the broader impact of the matter. Following the Court of Appeal's decision, many critics have raised questions regarding issues not addressed by the decision. These criticisms and other questions raised about the scope and direction that English law is taking will also be analyzed. Before we begin the analysis, we must first establish the facts of the case as presented.The FactsThe claimant, Jennifer Bowman, lived with the defendant, William Fels, for 10 years. The house in which they resided was registered only in Mr Fels' name. The two cohabitors' relationship ended, Ms Bowman "asserted a right to a beneficial interest in the property arising under a constructive trust". She maintained that an agreement had been made between her and Mr. Fels that the property would be purchased jointly. The proceedings had begun and the trial was set for March 25, 2004. It so happened that during the inspection of the defendants' file by the plaintiff's lawyers, a discrepancy was noted. They suspected the defendant had included the cost of work done to his home with...... middle of paper ......nclusion Although the judgment in Bowman v Fels made the lawyers feel immune from prosecution under 328, and while the judgment upheld the golden principle of legal privilege, larger questions arise about what justice is and how we achieve it. Does our justice system want to protect individuals it knows or suspects guilty of a crime? It is true that the backbone of our legal system is the right to a fair trial, but should this right extend to known criminals? Isn't the goal of justice achieved by prosecuting 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 an individual's interpretation of what is moral and what is right...