That's okay; I'm just joking. Don't worry.
First of all, the problem is not.... If you compare the money laundering legislation and this legislation, it's true that they're on two separate topics, but the reporting requirements for a lawyer, in whatever area we are talking about, raise a very serious privilege issue, in whatever domain you are.
On the second point, about the benefit, I don't buy the argument at all, because you have lots of cases in which you have contingent fees, as for instance in class actions or in medical malpractice. A poor lady does not have any money and she has been the victim of a bad operation. She doesn't have the cash to put forward to bring an action. The lawyer will say, “I'll take 30% of whatever I get for you.”
Do you think that type of arrangement would affect the solicitor-client privilege? To link the method of fee arrangement to the privilege is I think a very dangerous, slippery slope, and I would strongly recommend that you not get into it at all.
For lawyers, with money laundering the basic deal that was struck with the government—but it was not enough, so that's why we went to court anyway—was that if the law societies do whatever is required to discipline bad lawyers....
I have a good quotation here: “When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken.” Disraeli said that.
If the law societies have what it takes, by way of their own regulations and the staff to enforce them, to discipline the bad lawyers, that is enough. The independence of the bar is very important for the general public.