Breached code but not SLAPP, says tribunal
A partner at Osborne Clarke has been fined £50,000 and ordered to pay a hefty £260,000 in costs after a disciplinary tribunal found he breached regulatory rules in a “without prejudice” email to a former Magic Circle partner turned tax blogger.
The matter dates back to the summer of 2022, when Osborne Clarke’s head of client strategy, Ashley Simon Hurst, was advising then-Conservative party chairman Nadhim Zahawi (pictured top) on reputational matters amid high-levels of media scrutiny over his tax affairs.
The tribunal heard that Hurst sent an email, marked “without prejudice”, to Dan Neidle — a former Clifford Chance partner and head of the think tank Tax Policy Associates — following Neidle’s public claims that Zahawi was providing unsatisfactory answers. The email also said Neidle was “not entitled to publish it or refer to it other than for the purposes of seeking legal advice”.
Neidle filed a complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which then brought charges against Hurst, alleging that he had “improperly attempted to restrict” Neidle’s right to publish or discuss the email’s contents.
Following a five-day hearing, the disciplinary tribunal ruled on Friday that Hurst’s email breached the SRA code. A separate allegation regarding a letter was found not proven.
The tribunal fined Hurst £50,000 and ordered him to pay costs of £260,000.
Although initially badged by the media as the first disciplinary case involving a
strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), the tribunal said that it did not consider the email to qualify as one.
It noted that Hurst made “no attempt” to prevent scrutiny of Zahawi’s tax affairs and the email “was not seeking to stop Mr Neidle asking questions based on facts as he saw them”.
A spokesperson for Osborne Clarke said:
“We are extremely surprised and disappointed with this outcome in light of the legal position and evidence heard at the Tribunal. We will await the detailed reasons of the Tribunal before commenting further.”
The tribunal’s full reasons will be published in the coming weeks.