{"id":7465,"date":"2022-08-23T09:05:29","date_gmt":"2022-08-23T08:05:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxpolicy.org.uk\/?p=7465"},"modified":"2024-01-21T15:36:04","modified_gmt":"2024-01-21T15:36:04","slug":"sra2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heacham.neidles.com\/2022\/08\/23\/sra2\/","title":{"rendered":"The end of secret libel letters?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Last month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer instructed lawyers to write to me<\/a>, accusing me of libel and requiring me to withdraw my allegation that he had lied<\/a>. They claimed their letters were confidential, and warned me of “serious consequences” if I published them. This was tosh<\/a>. I did not retract, and I published the letters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’d been aware of SLAPPs – “Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation” – where a wealthy and\/or famous person uses the threat of libel proceedings to shut down debate. I hadn’t been aware of what turns out to be the widespread practice of libel lawyers claiming their letters were confidential and\/or “without prejudice” and couldn’t be published. In most cases this is not true<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It may come as a surprise to many people, but solicitors are not allowed to tell fibs<\/a>. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority requires solicitors to behave in accordance with the SRA Principles<\/a>: to act with honesty<\/a>, integrity<\/a>, independence, and to uphold the rule of law. Intimidating people into not publishing letters they are perfectly entitled to publish is the very opposite of these Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So I wrote<\/a> to the Solicitors\u2019 Regulatory Authority, asking them to end the practice of solicitors making phoney claims of confidentiality in libel letters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve now received a response<\/a>. It is excellent:<\/p>\n\n\n

As part of our work, we are currently developing further specific guidance to the profession on the topic of SLAPPs, highlighting the issues arising from our casework. Further to your letter, we plan (amongst other things) specifically to address the practice of labelling correspondence as \u201cprivate and confidential\u201d and \/ or \u201cwithout prejudice\u201d, and to address the conditions under which doing so may be a breach of our requirements. We think that this approach will help solicitors to comply with our existing standards and regulations and to use those labels only when appropriate. We can update you as and when we publish this guidance. <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

We are also to carry out a thematic review of a targeted sample of firms, looking at the steps taken by firms to address the issues raised in our Conduct in Disputes guidance. The outcomes of this review, as well as our enforcement work and the work currently being done by the government on reform of the law relating to SLAPPs, may in due course inform further updates to our guidance. <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

Silence is integral to the SLAPP strategy. A small-time blogger says something you don’t like. You get your lawyers to write them a letter warning them off. The blogger deletes their blog, and nobody has any idea what happened1<\/a><\/sup>This is not a theoretical example; after my experience I was inundated with messages from bloggers who had been at the receiving end of SLAPP letters<\/span>. The SRA now has a fantastic opportunity to end this, and to force libel lawyers and their clients to step into the light. If you want to threaten someone with libel: fine2<\/a><\/sup>Actually not fine; I tend to think libel law should only apply to the most serious<\/a> of deliberate lies<\/span>. But you’ll have to face the consequences of everyone knowing what you’re up to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n