Publishing a judgment or article: pseudonymising the parties
A case note, a blog post or a training slide needs the reasoning of a judgment, not its parties. What to remove, what to keep, and the standard the courts apply to themselves.
Updated on 29 September 2026
A lawyer publishes more than one might think: a case note in a law review, an article on the firm's website, slides for a CPD session, a model document derived from a real file, a decision sent to a working group of the bar. Each time, the reader needs the reasoning of the judgment, not the identity of the parties. This guide sets out the legal framework and a method that keeps the text readable.
Three frameworks at once
Professional secrecy comes first. Writing about a case you handled is a disclosure, and secrecy covers the facts entrusted to you, not only the names. Removing the parties' names reduces what is disclosed; it does not by itself decide whether a publication is possible. Check the rules of your bar before publishing on your own files.
The GDPR applies to the publication. A judgment that names people contains personal data, and publishing it is processing. Article 85 of the GDPR asks Member States to reconcile data protection with freedom of expression. Belgium did so in article 24 of the law of 30 July 2018, which disapplies a number of GDPR provisions for processing for journalistic purposes and for academic, artistic or literary expression. That exemption is partial, and it leaves professional secrecy untouched.
The courts' own standard is a useful benchmark. The law of 16 October 2022 created the Central Register for the decisions of the judiciary. It amended article 782 of the Judicial Code so that, before a judgment is stored in the register in its pseudonymised form, the version made available to the public, the following are pseudonymised within the meaning of article 4(5) of the GDPR:
- the identity data of the natural persons mentioned in the judgment, except those of magistrates, court clerks and lawyers;
- any element of the judgment that makes it possible to identify those persons directly or indirectly, within the limits of the readability and understanding of the judgment.
The same provision requires human control when this pseudonymisation is automated. It also forbids reusing the identity data of magistrates, clerks and lawyers to evaluate, analyse, compare or predict their professional practices. Note the legislator's choice of words: it speaks of pseudonymised judgments, not anonymous ones.
What to remove, what to keep
| Element | Usual treatment | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Parties, children, witnesses, third parties | Replace with letters or roles | Children first; they are the most exposed |
| Addresses, national register numbers, IBANs, plates, phone numbers | Remove | Of no use to the reader |
| Companies, employers, schools, hospitals | Replace | The GDPR protects natural persons only, but a company name can point to the people behind it, and to your client |
| Health, criminal matters, religion and other data under GDPR art. 9 and 10 | Generalise, for example "[health data]" | Keep only what the reasoning needs |
| Places | Generalise to province or region | A small municipality identifies quickly |
| Dates other than that of the decision | Month and year, or relative ("three months later") | Exact dates can be cross-checked |
| Amounts | Round, unless the amount is the point of the note | An exact amount can be recognised by those involved |
| Court, date of the decision, legal references, ECLI | Usually kept | They are what makes a case note useful |
| Case number | Editorial choice | Court, date and case number together make the original decision easy to trace |
Letters, initials or roles?
- Arbitrary letters (X., Y., Z.) are the safest choice. They follow the Belgian convention without carrying information.
- Real initials are traditional, but in a small professional or local community, initials combined with the facts can be enough to recognise someone.
- Roles ("the employee", "the landlord", "the claimant") read naturally and keep the procedural logic visible.
- Plausible pseudonyms read smoothly but can be mistaken for real people. If you use them, say so in a note.
Whatever you choose, stay consistent: the same person keeps the same letter throughout the text.
The details that identify without a name
A fictitious example: "the only pharmacist of a village of 900 inhabitants, dismissed after thirty years of service in the week of the fire at the market square". No name appears, yet everyone in the village knows who it is. The profession, the size of the municipality, the length of service and a unique event are enough. Generalise them ("a self-employed healthcare professional", "a rural municipality", "after long service") or leave them out when the reasoning does not depend on them.
How to do it with Localex
- Open the tool and load the judgment (PDF, DOCX or pasted text).
- Choose the Anonymise mode, so that no key is created, and the Publication / doctrine preset.
- For persons, choose Initials or role tokens, and give the parties their role in Parties. Everything stays consistent across the document.
- Check Never mask: courts, public bodies such as SPF/FOD and CPAS/OCMW, and ECLI references are kept by default. If your editorial line keeps the names of magistrates or lawyers, untick those items.
- Review places, dates and amounts with particular care. The AI features, free after e-mail verification, add a re-identification risk analysis that flags details left in clear.
- Tick I have read the result and export, for example as DOCX to keep editing. The leak scan checks the file for the original values before the download.
- Add a short note describing what was done, for example: "The names of the parties have been replaced by letters; places and dates have been generalised."
Honest limits
- The tool does not decide whether you may publish. Professional secrecy, your client's interests and the editorial rules of the publisher remain your call.
- Detection is not exhaustive, and no tool can see the combination of details that a local reader would recognise. Read the text as that reader would.
- A published text cannot be recalled. Take the time for a second reading, ideally by someone who does not know the file.
- Removing names does not make a text anonymous in law; see pseudonymisation vs anonymisation.