SRA under fire for not taking action on “textbook” SLAPP


Prigozhin: Case raises questions about SRA’s approach to SLAPPs

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has come under fire for closing a complaint about a law firm that represented a Russian warlord without any further action.

The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition said the decision “casts a shadow over the regulator’s role to hold those enabling SLAPPs [strategic lawsuits against public participation] to account”.

Discreet Law – which is no longer in business – acted for Yevgeniy Prigozhin, an ally of Vladimir Putin and leader of the Wagner Group, a group of Russian mercenary paramilitaries, in a libel claim against journalist Eliot Higgins, founder of the investigative website Bellingcat, over various retweets.

This case was thrown out by the High Court in 2022 over non-compliance with court orders, by which time Discreet Law had ceased acting.

Mr Higgins’ solicitors, London firm McCue Jury & Partners, then complained to the SRA, saying “the proceedings seem to be a textbook example of SLAPP” by trying to deter Mr Higgins from publishing criticisms of Prigozhin.

This week, the Substack blog Democracy for Sale revealed that the SRA had declined to take action, having found “no evidence” that Discreet Law was aware that Prigozhin – who died in 2023 in a helicopter crash – ran the Wagner Group and said the law firm “went above” the required due diligence checks.

The blog quoted the SRA’s letter in saying that “whilst there was public speculation surrounding Mr Prigozhin’s connection with the Wagner Group, there was no evidence to suggest the firm should have been aware that his instructions in this respect were false”.

The SRA added that “Mr Prigozhin did not acknowledge his position in the Wagner Group until September 2022, which was after the firm ceased acting in March 2022.”

An SRA spokesman told Legal Futures: “We take allegations that solicitors have engaged in SLAPPs or abused the litigation process very seriously.

“We looked at all the available information and decided to close the matter with no further action. If further information is made available, we can look again at the issues.’

“Our investigation took some time due to the complexity of this matter and the need to make sure we thoroughly investigated all the issues raised.”

In a statement, the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition said: “The SRA’s decision to close the complaint without further action is extremely disappointing, and casts a shadow over the regulator’s role to hold those enabling SLAPPs to account.

“Prigozhin’s lawyers helped a sanctioned warlord target an individual journalist for a series of tweets linking to reports, while notably not challenging the better-resourced media outlets. While lawyers should not be conflated with their clients, they are responsible for the strategies they decide to pursue on their behalf.”

It pointed out that, while Prigozhin denied his link to the Wagner Group at the time, he was already sanctioned, meaning Discreet Law had to seek exemption from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation to receive payment to represent him.

“The red flags were there, and how the SRA can conclude that the law firm satisfied itself of the merits of their client’s case, when the truth was in fact the opposite, is baffling. We are seriously concerned that the closure of this case will result in a loss of confidence in the regulator and fewer people experiencing SLAPPs coming forward to complain.”

Mr Higgins added: “It’s difficult to imagine a clearer example of a SLAPP, so to be told by the SRA Prigozhin’s lawyers are in the clear suggests to me that current legislation around SLAPP cases are insufficient and new legislation is required.”

McCue Jury declined to comment.

A spokesperson on behalf of Discreet Law told the blog: “Following a thorough investigation, the SRA concluded that Discreet Law had behaved appropriately in relation to this matter, and that the complaints were unfounded.

“Discreet Law cooperated fully with the investigation and points out that the SRA’s findings were based on information which Discreet Law were unable to share with anyone other than the SRA because lawyers owe a duty of confidentiality to former clients.”

Discreet Law “could have done literally one Google search and found clear evidence Prigozhin ran Wagner”, he went on.

“The SRA isn’t stupid. The likely reason is that the SRA feels it has to apply a very generous standard, and only penalise law firms if the SRA is *certain* the firm knew their client was lying. Which will almost never happen. If that’s right, it’s important the SRA says so.

“Both lawyers and the public need to know the standard by which lawyers are judged. And if lawyers can turn a blind eye to lying clients, and launch meritless SLAPPs, without any sanction, we absolutely need to know. And the government needs to know, so it can change the law.”

The coalition also raised broader concerns about the SRA’s actions on SLAPPs, highlighting the decision in Mr Neidle’s case. Solicitor Ashley Hurst was fined £50,000 for trying to improperly restrict publication of an email he sent to Mr Neidle over the affairs of former Conservative MP Nadeem Zahawi.

The case was painted as the first before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to concern a SLAPP but the panel said it did not consider it to be one as “there was no attempt to prevent scrutiny of Mr Zahawi’s tax affairs per se”.

Dr Helen Taylor, senior legal researcher at coalition member, Spotlight on Corruption, argued that the SRA’s case “was very narrowly formulated”.

It only addressed the concerns about the labelling of correspondence, “which missed the opportunity to engage with Neidle’s more fundamental allegation that the firm had been complicit in misleading him about Zahawi’s tax affairs and threatened a defamation claim in order to prevent scrutiny of those tax affairs”.

The SRA has 44 open investigations relating to SLAPPs or “behaviours relevant” to SLAPPs, with a second case after Mr Hurst’s before the tribunal next month.

In Parliament this week, Labour MP Lloyd Hatton referenced Mr Higgins’ case and the SRA’s decision, and asked what steps the government was taking “to create a tough deterrent against harmful lawfare tactics, particularly when they are deployed by insidious individuals like Prigozhin”.

Justice minister Sarah Sackman described SLAPPs as “intolerable”, adding: “My focus, and the focus of this government, will be on the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which introduced an early dismissal mechanism and cost protection for SLAPP defendants.”

Photo: By УлПравда ТВ, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=133750091




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Residual balances – why now again?

Residual balances have been on the SRA’s radar for several years and seen as potentially a material breach, so why include them in a questionnaire about accountant’s reports?


Three key ingredients for running a successful law firm

Have you considered a ‘pre-mortem’, which involves planning for potential failures by identifying everything that could go wrong and working backwards to prevent those issues?


Choose the right social media platforms for your business

Two-thirds of the world’s population are on it for almost two-and-a-half hours each day, on average. Each uses at least half a dozen different platforms every month.


Loading animation
loading