A UK High Court decision has delivered another significant setback to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), after a senior solicitor successfully overturned a misconduct ruling linked to alleged
strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as SLAPPs. The judgment adds to growing scrutiny of the regulator’s approach to policing aggressive legal tactics and raises important questions about professional standards, free expression, and regulatory overreach.
High Court Quashes Misconduct Finding
The case centered on Ashley Hurst, a partner at international law firm Osborne Clarke, who had been fined £50,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). The tribunal concluded that Hurst engaged in misconduct while acting for former UK finance minister Nadhim Zahawi, during a period of intense media and public scrutiny regarding Zahawi’s tax affairs.
The SDT had ruled that Hurst’s legal correspondence specifically a warning sent to a former tax adviser who was writing publicly about the matter amounted to an improper attempt to suppress publication. Regulators characterized the communication as a SLAPP-style threat designed to intimidate or silence criticism.
However, the High Court of Justice disagreed.
In a detailed judgment, the High Court found that the tribunal had failed to properly assess whether Hurst’s actions could reasonably have been motivated by legitimate concerns, including confidentiality, accuracy, and professional obligations to his client. The court concluded that the SDT applied an incorrect legal test when determining misconduct, rendering the finding unsafe.
As a result, the misconduct ruling and accompanying fine were overturned.
Growing Pattern of Regulatory Defeats
The decision represents the latest in a series of high-profile losses for the SRA in cases involving alleged SLAPP conduct. Over the past year, the regulator has made public commitments to crack down on abusive litigation tactics, particularly where lawyers are accused of using legal threats to deter journalists, whistleblowers, or public commentators.
Yet tribunals and courts have repeatedly rejected the SRA’s arguments.
In December, the SDT dismissed misconduct charges against a solicitor accused of improperly threatening contempt proceedings against a journalist. In a separate case, the tribunal also cleared a partner at a prominent London firm who had represented entities connected to the now-defunct cryptocurrency scheme OneCoin, finding no breach of professional rules.
Legal commentators say the string of defeats suggests that while the SRA’s objectives may be well-intentioned, its enforcement strategy is
struggling to withstand judicial scrutiny.
Balancing Free Speech and Client Advocacy
The ruling underscores the
complex line lawyers must navigate between robust client advocacy and improper intimidation. SLAPPs have become a growing concern in the UK and internationally, particularly as governments seek to protect investigative journalism and public participation in matters of public interest.
However, the High Court emphasized that not every firm legal warning constitutes a SLAPP. Lawyers are entitled and often required to challenge inaccurate or damaging statements, especially where confidential information or reputational harm is at stake.
In Hurst’s case, the court noted that the tribunal failed to adequately consider whether the solicitor genuinely believed publication of the email would be inappropriate or misleading. That omission, the court said, undermined the fairness of the misconduct finding.
Reaction From the Parties
Following the ruling, Hurst welcomed the judgment, describing it as a clear vindication after years of regulatory proceedings. His legal team argued that the case had raised serious concerns about the chilling effect overly broad SLAPP enforcement could have on legitimate legal practice.
Osborne Clarke also welcomed the outcome, reiterating its support for responsible regulation while stressing the importance of allowing lawyers to fulfill their professional duties without fear of unjustified disciplinary action.
The SRA said it is reviewing the High Court’s decision and considering its next steps. While the regulator remains committed to tackling abusive litigation tactics, the ruling may prompt a reassessment of how SLAPP-related allegations are investigated and prosecuted.
Implications for the UK Legal Profession
For solicitors and law firms across the UK, the judgment carries important implications. It highlights the need for regulators to apply clear, proportionate standards when assessing alleged misconduct and reinforces the principle that disciplinary findings must be grounded in a full and balanced evaluation of a
lawyer’s intent and professional obligations.
As debates around SLAPPs continue to evolve, the legal profession is likely to see increased guidance and possibly legislative intervention aimed at clarifying where legitimate legal advocacy ends and improper suppression of speech begins.
For now, the High Court’s ruling sends a strong signal: while abusive legal tactics must be addressed, enforcement efforts must be carefully calibrated to avoid undermining the
core function of legal representation.
Looking to stay ahead in the evolving legal landscape? Explore top legal job opportunities, law firm openings, and exclusive attorney career resources today on
LawCrossing. Take the next step in your legal career with insights that matter.
