In a notable case in Sheffield, solicitor Lois Bayliss has been fined due to her controversial letters to school leaders concerning Covid measures.
- Bayliss sent letters to schools opposing vaccinations, arguing potential liabilities from Covid-19 safety protocols.
- The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Bayliss guilty of professional misconduct, leading to a fine and significant costs.
- The tribunal balanced free expression rights with professional responsibilities, a key aspect of the case.
- Bayliss stands by her actions, which she claims were in children’s best interests, despite her misjudged approach.
Lois Bayliss, a solicitor from Sheffield, was fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £30,000 in costs by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The penalty came after she was found guilty of misconduct for sending letters to school leaders. In these letters, she opposed Covid vaccinations for children, citing potential civil and criminal liabilities that schools might incur. Bayliss, raising over £60,000 through GoFundMe for her legal defence, described her communications as a ‘friendly warning’.
The tribunal, however, determined that Bayliss’s letters, sent to 450 school leaders, amounted to an abuse of her professional position. While Bayliss held a ‘genuine belief’ in the harm of Covid-19 measures on children, the tribunal found her actions crossed from personal activism into professional misconduct. They concluded that she breached professional standards through implied legal threats aimed at discouraging public health measures.
The tribunal dismissed other allegations against Bayliss, such as claims of misleading statements and encouraging similar actions by others. An interesting aspect of the case was the balance between a solicitor’s right to free expression and their professional obligations. Bayliss asserted that her human right to free expression was restricted, as she protested against government policy using her professional title. Despite this, the tribunal noted that solicitors must adhere to certain standards and cannot act in the same way as ordinary citizens.
Bayliss’s legal team highlighted her long-standing career without any prior issues, arguing that her intentions were to shield children. Bayliss remains convinced of her justification, stating that if her actions protected even a single child, they were worthwhile. This incident marks a notable point in her previously impeccable career, bringing significant attention to the balance between professional conduct and personal convictions.
Bayliss’s case underscores the complex interplay between personal beliefs and professional responsibilities within regulated professions.
