“There is no rule 6” and there is just one rule-the reality of the Chatham House Rule-Post 1 in the your legal s**** series

A crazy skit by the classic English comedy troupe, Monty Python was a weird and wonderful starting point to my lifelong interest in the common confusions around legal rules.

The skit depicted the Australian ‘Bruces’ working out faculty rules at the University of Woolamaloo (there were 7 very politically incorrect rules but no rule 6) Alarmingly, this was also my first introduction to Australians!

I attended a seminar last week where the presenter announced that the Chatham House Rules would apply. What they were meaning was, that to allow free discussion, which might involve known or identifiable individuals, the discussions should be kept confidential. Whenever anyone talks about the CH Rules, I wryly think first of the Bruces and then the lawyer in me gets bothered because there is only one rule and it is not about confidentiality of subject matter, as many believe.
The rule originated in 1927 in the building now known as Chatham House in London, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. They needed a protocol to allow free and open dialogue so speakers could express their personal opinions outside of party lines, without concern of attribution to them. It did not mean confidential discussions with information not to be expressed outside the room; it just meant no attribution to an individual speaker, ever. The refined rule published in 2002 says "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".
The nub of the matter is if you want total confidentiality for any discussions in a meeting say so, or go with the more relaxed "what goes on tour stays on tour" principle, but if you only want or need anonymity of personal contribution with no attribution, go with the CH Rule.
The Rule is clearly unnecessary and inappropriate if you are jamming with a group of Thought Leaders throwing ideas around, but could be absolutely essential with clients and colleagues if you are trying to have an open conversation without the limitations caused by butt covering.
It might take time to get to grips with this distinction, but using this rule when what you need is confidentiality can, as the Bruces would say "going to cause a little confusion".

Jennie Vickers