Where to draw the line between aggressive litigation tactics & misconduct? Clare Hughes-Williams & Megan Hill explore a recent tribunal decision
- Sets out the facts of Solicitors Regulation Authority v Hurst, which considered the publication of Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs.
- Highlights the need for meaningful supervision of junior lawyers as the distinction between working hard for a client and committing misconduct can be difficult to identify.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation—or SLAPPs, as they are often referred to—remain a hot topic for law firms, given the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA’s) continuing focus on addressing what it sees as the abusive litigation tactics deployed by some litigators.
In what was widely reported to be the first prosecution on this issue, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) handed down its decision in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Hurst (Case no 12612/2024) on 20 December 2024.
The case
Mr Hurst had been instructed by former minister, Nadhim Zahawi (pictured), to consider the legal position in relation to articles that had been published about his tax affairs.
Mr Hurst had been corresponding with
