Regulator clarifies stance on SLAPPs
The legal regulator has outlined its approach to SLAPPs cases following scrutiny over a recent decision
Concerns remain over the role of solicitors in strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPPs), which are cases used to stifle legitimate criticism. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has responded to growing interest in its decision not to take enforcement action against Discreet Law, stating that its approach focuses on ensuring solicitors act ethically rather than defining cases as SLAPPs.
The SRA emphasised that the courts hold the primary responsibility for identifying SLAPP cases and striking them out where necessary. It reaffirmed that solicitors must ensure cases they bring forward are properly arguable and must scrutinise claimants’ instructions before proceeding. The regulator acknowledged that claimants may still seek to misuse the legal system, even if solicitors act in good faith.
“We require solicitors to take steps to satisfy themselves that cases they bring are properly arguable,” said the SRA. “That means there are facts or arguments to test before the court. Solicitors must make sure they properly scrutinise a claimant’s case and instructions in order to do this. And where necessary decline instructions to act where they are not satisfied that there is an arguable case.”
The SRA confirmed it would take action where solicitors are found to have acted inappropriately, citing a recent case where a solicitor was fined £50,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for seeking to prevent publication of correspondence. It also revealed that it has multiple ongoing investigations into potential abuses of the litigation process, with further cases expected to go before the tribunal soon.
In response to a complaint against Discreet Law, which faced allegations of inappropriately progressing defamation proceedings against a journalist over tweets linking Yevgeny Prigozhin to the Wagner Group, the SRA determined that the firm had not acted improperly. It has published its reasoning in a letter addressing concerns around its approach to SLAPPs.
While the regulator maintains its role is distinct from the courts, it reiterated calls for legislative changes to grant courts greater powers in tackling SLAPPs effectively.