A representative body for media lawyers has accused the Law Society of advancing a 'one-sided and misleading account' of the issues surrounding SLAPPs (strategic litigation against public participation).

In a letter to the Society, the Society of Media Lawyers (TSML) says the media narrative ‘grossly exaggerates the problem, and unfairly singles out media lawyers for criticism’. It adds: ‘The Law Society appears to have succumbed to media and political pressure and, as a result, to have advanced a one-sided and misleading account of the issues.’

The Society has previously called for action on SLAPPs to prevent potential ‘abuses of justice’. This came amid intensifying scrutiny of rich and powerful people using so-called ‘lawfare’ to silence and intimidate critics. A number of law firms were singled out in January this year by Tory MP Bob Seely, who accused their reputation management teams of 'legal gangsterism'.

The media lawyers argue pressure on them could compromise privacy rights and the right to access to justice, ‘principles that should be fiercely guarded by the Law Society even if this means disagreeing with the government of the day’.

‘Whilst we recognise that there is a spectrum of views on the subject (including within the legal profession)…public statements issued by the Law Society have all enthusiastically supported the media/government line, principally by accepting, as an established fact, that there is a SLAPP issue requiring a legislative response. This is despite there being a complete absence of independent evidence to support this view.’

Responding to the letter, Law Society president Nick Emmerson said: 'Naturally there is huge interest in the question of SLAPPs reform, and we understand the concerns that media lawyers have. Many Society of Media Lawyers members played an active role in shaping our position through our working group.

'The Law Society has to balance its position carefully taking into account the interests of members – both claimant and defendant – access to justice and the rule of law. We’re happy to work with the Society of Media Lawyers to further inform our thinking – just as we are happy to hear all positions.'

 

This article is now closed for comment.