Don’t get involved in ‘abusive litigation’ aimed at silencing clients ‘legitimate critics’, regulator warns lawyers
SRA issues notice on SLAPPs
Solicitors and law firms have been warned not to get involved in “abusive litigation” that aims to silence the “legitimate critics” of their clients.
The warning notice, published yesterday by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), comes amid a rise in reports of lawyers bringing a type of legal action known as a strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) on behalf of their usually very wealthy clients.
The aim of the legal manoeuvre is to “harass or intimidate” another person who could be criticising or holding to account the firm’s client for their actions, and “thereby discouraging scrutiny of matters in the public interest”, the SRA said. The action is usually targeted at journalists, campaigners and whistleblowers.
The SRA notice warns firms not to act for clients in this way and outlines some of the activities that it views as “abusive litigation”, including bringing cases or allegations without merit, making unduly aggressive and intimidating threats, or claiming misleading outcomes such as exaggerated cost consequences or imprisonment in a civil matters.
The regulator does however recognise that lawyers can have a “legitimate role in encouraging journalists and others to ensure that what is published is legal and accurate, but that proceedings must be pursued properly”.
Paul Philip, SRA chief executive said: “SLAPPs pose a significant threat to the rule of law, free speech and a free press. The public rightly expect that solicitors should act with integrity. They should not be misusing litigation to prevent legitimate scrutiny from journalists, academics and campaigners.”
He continued:
“This warning notice again makes clear our expectations. The right for clients to bring legitimate claims and for solicitors to act fearlessly in their interest is important. Yet representing your client’s interests does not override public interest obligations, so when solicitors cross the line into SLAPPS, we will take action.”
The regulator also provided a few pointers on the use of terms such as “private and confidential” or “without prejudice” in legal correspondence.
Accepting there are instances such labelling may be appropriate, the SRA said solicitors need to make sure they have considered the reasons for such labelling and whether further explanation of the label is required, particularly where the the recipient may be vulnerable or unrepresented. It added that unless there is a specific legal reason which prevents this, recipients of legal letters should generally be able to disclose that they have received them.
For all the latest commercial awareness info, news and careers advice:
Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter
8 Comments
Pathetic Virtue Signalling And Misplaced Priorities
This:
“The SRA notice warns firms not to act for clients in this way and outlines some of the activities that it views as “abusive litigation”, including bringing cases or allegations without merit, making unduly aggressive and intimidating threats, or claiming misleading outcomes such as exaggerated cost consequences or imprisonment in a civil matters.”
That sums up most of the correspondence from copyright trolls and debt collecting “firms” which are really pockets of large commercial entities. SLAPPs affect a tiny number of people directly, compared to other abuses that impact millions of ordinary people. SRA seem more interested in virtue signalling than improving the conduct of the profession that could make a real difference to hard working families.
Anon
Is this anger about the SRA clamping down on sexual harassment and abuses of power?
I would say the greater harm to families comes from solicitors who like to cheat on their wives at work.
Whatanon?
I think the person with anger issues is 11:11! How do you leap from the first post to that response?
Dan Neidle enjoyer
Dan Neidle is such an OG.
LOL!
When will the SRA calm down?
Terms such as ‘abusive litigation’ and ‘legitimate critics’ are clearly not defined black and white and totally subjective. Even the clarification provided by the SRA is not black and white!
Whilst there will be clear cases where there may be clear ‘abusive litigation’ taking place, or where one is indeed clearly a ‘legitimate critic’, oftentimes this will NOT be the case. Such ‘warnings’ from the SRA are therefore most unhelpful.
Anon
There are plenty of examples of obviously abusive SLAPPs out there, at least this will cause solicitors to think twice about whether they fall into that category.
Supervising Associate Grande
Maybe I should give my trainee a SLAPP to handle.
Doctor Doom
Post equine-escape lockup of the stable door springs to mind.
Comments are closed.