The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“SDT”) has today dismissed all allegations made by the SRA against Christopher Hutchings, a partner at Hamlins LLP, following a “SLAPP” complaint.
This case was a complaint following a successful defamation claim brought by “Client A” (Hutchings’ client) against “Client B”. The action was resolved by way of a consent order whereby legally represented Client B undertook to remove defamatory content in Publication 1. Client B subsequently published substantially the same defamatory content in Publication 2 in alleged breach of the undertaking.
A without prejudice call took place between the lawyers for both parties in which it was communicated that Client A was willing to bring contempt proceedings, but was prepared not to do so if Client B were to grant a copyright licence in respect of the defamatory content which would assist with the take down in respect of third-party publications. Client B alleged that the content of the call was blackmail.
The SDT dismissed all the allegations against Mr Hutchings and indicated that its detailed reasons would be provided later. The SDT declined to depart from the usual costs award of “no order”
The entirety of the proceedings against Mr Hutchings were heard in private following the publication of an article in The Times in breach of an anonymity order designed to protect client privilege for the parties in the underlying dispute. Various interventions were made to have the hearing made public (including an eleventh hour application, after the evidence had been heard and before closing submissions) which had the effect of delaying the proceedings yet further. A further application for non-party disclosure was adjourned today.
The case casts doubt on the SRA’s decisions to bring a disciplinary proceedings against media solicitors in relation to interactions with other solicitors in the ordinary course of their business. In Mr Hutchings’ case, the matters complained of took place 7 years ago with the parties both legally represented. The SRA’s investigation into the matter commenced over 3 years ago with a decision being made to prosecute over 2 years ago.
The decision will no doubt be welcomed by claimant lawyers communicating with opposing parties in what they believe are the best interests of their clients.
Leave a Reply