Defending a client who has privately admitted guilt but wants to plead not guilty

It is a defendant's right to require the prosecution to prove its case, and the client cannot be prevented from pleading not guilty, even after admitting guilt to their solicitor. The SRA's paper on balancing duties in litigation confirms that the admission remains covered by confidentiality (Code para 6.3) and legal professional privilege. The solicitor may therefore continue to act. She can test the prosecution evidence, for example by challenging the identification from the CCTV, and argue that the evidence does not prove guilt to the criminal standard. She must not mislead the court (para 1.4) or put forward assertions that are not properly arguable (para 2.4). She cannot suggest that Danny did not take the money, run a positive defence she knows to be false, or call him to give evidence denying the theft. The SRA paper says that if a client continues to mislead the court despite advice, the solicitor should cease to act.

Why B is wrong: A client who has admitted guilt may still plead not guilty and require the prosecution to prove its case; the solicitor may act within limits.

Why C is wrong: The admission is confidential and privileged; the duty not to mislead does not require her to disclose it.

Why D is wrong: Advancing an alibi she knows to be false would mislead the court and could involve fabricating evidence.

Why E is wrong: The plea is the client's decision; a solicitor cannot enter a plea against the client's instructions.