Hatton: No proper deterrent for lawyers
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) needs greater fining powers to sanction solicitors involved in SLAPPs, the House of Commons was told yesterday.
Opening a debate on strategic lawsuits against public participation, Labour MP Lloyd Hatton said the SRA was “not equipped with the right tools to hold lawyers to account”.
He explained: “Of the 71 SLAPPs reported to the SRA over the past two years, 23 cases were closed with no further action, and of the 48 remaining live, only two were ever referred to a disciplinary tribunal.
“What is more, the financial penalties at the regulator’s disposal fail to match the deep pockets of the individuals and law firms that engage in these tactics. The SRA has a paltry fining power of just £25,000 for traditional law firms, which pales in comparison with the firms’ resources. In effect, the fines are likely priced in by the offending law firms.”
Mr Hatton said there was no “proper deterrent” or ability to impose “real financial penalties on the lawyers and firms that knowingly engage in legal intimidation”.
Further, the legal framework also “fails the minority of lawfare cases that eventually make it to the courts”, meaning that those cases could not be thrown out by a judge at an early stage.
MPs from all sides of the House agreed that legislation was needed, highlighting many specific SLAPPs as well as the private member’s bill that was going through Parliament earlier this year before the election was called. This would have extended the anti-SLAPPs provisions of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 beyond economic crime.
Mr Hatton described the UK as “a go-to destination for lawfare tactics”, with the courts now “the playground of the super-wealthy”.
“Aside from the powerful individuals and entities directly benefiting from the protection afforded by such threats, sending legal letters is also a lucrative business for the lawyers who write them. The legal professionals who knowingly engage in this abuse of the legal process are the product of a culture in which client choice is based on profit over professional ethics.”
Conservative Sir John Whittingdale said the Society of Media Lawyers had suggested to him that there was a lack of empirical evidence and that campaigners ignored existing legal and regulatory tools.
“It also suggested that this is an area that the Law Commission should perhaps review, but I have a concern that such a review is a way of pushing the matter into very long grass and would unnecessarily delay measures on which a great deal of work has already been done.”
Fellow Tory Nick Timothy said the lack of comprehensive data on SLAPP cases—given that many were settled out of court – “has been exploited by claimant lawyers, who argue that there is no such problem”.
But he said “the evidence we have, and we have heard such evidence from members on both sides of the House, is incredibly strong”.
Responding for the government, justice minister Heidi Alexander emphasised that “the vast majority of legal professionals in this jurisdiction operate with the utmost honesty, professionalism and respect for the rule of law”.
But the “small minority who abuse our system by bringing SLAPP claims risk undermining its integrity and reputation”.
She noted that the SRA has taken action, updating warning notice on SLAPPs and publishing guidance for members of the public who may have been targeted by one.
“We remain engaged with legal service regulators on this important subject. I am clear that where UK law firms or practitioners are accused of breaching their duties, it is important that regulators can hold them to account and tackle poor conduct. I therefore welcome the work of the SRA in doing that.”
The 2023 Act introduced a statutory definition of a SLAPP and required the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to develop a new early dismissal process to strike out SLAPPs without merit, and to develop rules providing cost protection for defendants.
“I thank the CPRC’s SLAPPs sub-committee, which has been working hard on developing these rules. We expect its work to conclude early next year.
“The CPRC will then consider the matter, and once recommendations are adopted there will be clear court procedure in place to deal with these abusive lawsuits where they relate to allegations of economic crime. The measures will go some way towards tackling this abusive practice.”
But she said this was a complex area, where “the right balance has to be struck between access to justice and the right to free speech” and the government wanted to see first how the 2023 Act’s provisions bedded in.
Ms Alexander continued: “We should not legislate in haste, only to find ourselves with unworkable legislation with unintended consequences. We do not currently intend to legislate in this parliamentary session, but we are continuing our work to consider how best to tackle wider abuses of the system in the longer term.”
Leave a Comment