Yesterday, a debate in the House of Commons highlighted the pressing need for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to enhance its powers to impose fines on solicitors involved in SLAPPs.
Labour MP Lloyd Hatton has criticised the SRA’s current capabilities, stating that it lacks the appropriate tools to hold these lawyers accountable. He revealed that out of 71 SLAPP cases reported to the SRA over the past two years, 23 were closed without further action, and only two out of the remaining 48 were referred to a disciplinary tribunal.
Hatton pointed out the inadequacy of the financial penalties available to the SRA, noting that the regulator can only impose fines of up to £25,000 on traditional law firms. Given the substantial resources of these firms, such fines are often factored into their costs. Therefore, the current system does not effectively deter firms from engaging in legal intimidation.
Additionally, the existing legal framework falls short in handling the minority of lawfare cases that proceed to court. These cases are often not dismissed early by judges, allowing them to progress further than they should. MPs across the political spectrum have agreed on the necessity for legislative changes to address this issue effectively.
Hatton has described the UK as a favourable environment for lawfare tactics, where courts are now a playground for the super-wealthy. He argued that powerful individuals and entities benefit from the protection provided by the threat of legal action, while lawyers find a profitable business in drafting legal letters. An underlying culture prioritises client profit over professional ethics in the legal industry.
Conservative MP Sir John Whittingdale expressed concerns over the lack of empirical evidence regarding SLAPPs, which campaigners have purportedly overlooked. He mentioned that the Society of Media Lawyers suggested a review by the Law Commission. However, he fears such a review might delay necessary measures.
Another Conservative MP, Nick Timothy, noted the absence of comprehensive data on SLAPP cases, as they are often settled out of court. Despite this, he insisted that strong evidence exists, supported by accounts from various MPs.
In response, Justice Minister Heidi Alexander underscored that most legal professionals operate with integrity, but acknowledged that a minority use SLAPP claims to undermine the system’s integrity. She emphasised the importance of holding UK law firms accountable for any breaches of duty and welcomed the SRA’s efforts in addressing these issues.
The 2023 Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act included a statutory definition of SLAPPs and mandated the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to establish procedures for early dismissal of meritless SLAPPs and cost protection for defendants. Alexander expressed gratitude to the CPRC’s SLAPPs sub-committee, which is expected to present its recommendations early next year.
Despite recognising the complexity of the situation, with a balance needed between justice access and free speech, the government prefers to observe the implementation of the 2023 Act before pursuing further legislation. Alexander stated that hasty legislation might lead to unworkable laws with unintended outcomes. Therefore, the government is considering long-term strategies for addressing wider system abuses.
The discussions in the House of Commons highlighted a significant issue within the UK’s legal framework regarding SLAPPs. The debate underscored a unanimous call for more robust measures to ensure that legal intimidation does not undermine the system’s integrity. As the government contemplates future actions, there is a clear acknowledgment of the need for a balanced approach to protect free speech while ensuring access to justice.
