High Court rules on social media conduct

In the recent judgment of Farrukh Najeeb Husain v Solicitors Regulation Authority, the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division examined the critical implications of social media conduct for solicitors. This case emerged from a comprehensive disciplinary investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) into Mr. Husain, a solicitor admitted in 2014, due to antisemitic comments made on Twitter, which were easily linked to his legal profession. His tweets were considered offensive and sparked debate regarding acceptable discourse in a professional environment, especially concerning political expression.

The SRA initiated its investigation in response to complaints lodged in May 2021. The inquiry meticulously analysed Mr. Husain's tweets, many of which expressed criticism towards Israel and included language that the SRA classified as antisemitic. Investigators found that from September 2020 to June 2021, Mr. Husain posted numerous tweets that led the SRA to determine he had violated various principles of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, particularly those concerning integrity and public trust.

Following this, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal convened a twelve-day hearing in which Mr. Husain admitted to being the author of the tweets but argued that they should not incur any disciplinary penalties as they were made in a personal capacity. However, in March 2024, the Tribunal ruled against Mr. Husain, resulting in his removal from the Roll of Solicitors.

In appealing to the High Court, Mr. Husain presented four consolidated grounds, contesting the Tribunal's findings. He argued that his mental health issues were a contributing factor to his conduct, suggesting that the Tribunal ignored his medical evidence in its deliberations. He further asserted that his tweets represented political speech that warranted strong legal protection and challenged the Tribunal's interpretation of antisemitism, citing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition.

In considering Mr. Husain's appeal, the High Court meticulously reviewed the case's nuances. It stressed the need to handle allegations of antisemitism with care, maintaining a delicate balance between Mr. Husain's political expression rights and the public interest in preserving the integrity of the legal profession. The judgment highlighted that the Tribunal had effectively differentiated between legitimate political speech and language that could breach professional conduct standards.

The court took a holistic view of Mr. Husain's tweets by assessing their cumulative effect. Despite Mr. Husain's insistence that he was merely voicing political opinions, the court found that the derogatory nature of his comments evidenced a failure to uphold the SRA's principles regarding integrity and public trust.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings concerning the severity of Mr. Husain's actions and the appropriateness of the imposed sanction. This ruling underscores the expectation that solicitors must carefully navigate the intersection of their personal and professional identities, especially in public spaces like social media. The case stands as a pertinent warning for legal professionals about the potential consequences of their online behaviour and highlights broader discussions on societal standards of acceptable speech in the legal field.

This case further illustrates the necessity for solicitors to uphold professionalism even in personal expressions, especially as social media increasingly blurs the lines between personal and professional lives. The court's ruling resonates with ongoing debates regarding free speech, accountability, and the complexities presented by modern communication methods

Copyright & permissions