Is the sort of case where the court can make an order that you're not allowed to talk about? 

There is an SRA judgement

The top of the SRA judgement talks about Article 8.  Presumably on that basis the SRA have been convinced to retain discretion (or perhaps conceded without arguing the point - who would know) .  This is part of the judgement about his fitness to be a lawyer. How that impacts any right to protect identity being reported re the wider story (if such facts are or were in the public domain) is an interesting one...

vom @ the "worked hard to retain a relationship with his daughters" mitigation

that should surely be an exacerbation

Having looked at what the SRA say about their own standards "

• in all the circumstances the impact of publication on the regulated person would be disproportionate. In particular, we need to consider Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and balance the right to a private life with the legitimate aim of publication, as set out above.

It would appear from this, given they have cited Article 8, that they have been convinced by the wrongun that there was no need to state who he is. Presumably because the role of the SRA is to protect the profession - and the court case covering the protection of the public has already taken place.  It makes sense in some ways - if the SRA only got to this say 10 years after the offence it would stir it all up again.