SRA defends lack of action in Wagner case described as a ‘textbook SLAPP’

In an unusual move, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has publicly set out its reasons for its decision earlier this month not to take action in a case described as a ‘textbook strategic litigation against public participation’ (SLAPP). SRA chief executive Paul Philip also called for a 'robust legislative solution' to the definition of SLAPPs. 

In a letter to Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Tina Stowell), former chair of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, Philip, said that the regulator had decided that former London firm Discreet Law, whose client Yevgeny Prigozhin had brought a libel claim against the investigative journalist Eliot Higgins, had not acted improperly. The letter was today published by the SRA.

Higgins had reported that Prigozhin was a key figure in the mercenary Wagner Group and the Russian brought defamation proceedings contesting this claim. The claim was held up later as an egregious example of a SLAPP and the decision not to prosecute the firm was widely criticised by anti-SLAPP campaigners. 

In the letter, Philip said the SRA had completed a detailed investigation and found that Discreet Law took steps to verify the information provided by its client and carried out independent research. While there was public speculation surrounding Prigozhin’s connection with the Wagner Group, the SRA found no evidence to suggest the firm was aware, or should have been aware, that the instructions received were false.

‘Our conclusion was that on a careful review of the evidence, the firm did not act improperly,’ said Philip. ‘Our decision did not reach a conclusion or make any statement about whether the claim was a SLAPP.’

He stressed that the rules do not require the SRA to define a case as a SLAPP or not, and the regulator’s role is instead to make sure a solicitor has acted properly and ethically. 

‘In this case we explored the actions taken by the solicitors and concluded that they had taken appropriate steps to do so,’ he added. ‘That facts later emerged which showed that what they had been told was false, does not mean that the firm acted improperly or that regulatory proceedings should necessarily follow.’

While no breaches of SRA rules were found in this case, Philip appeared to invite the government to take legislative action if it wanted to curb SLAPPs. He suggested that the main way to address the issue is through a ‘robust legislative solution’ that gives the courts more powers. In his letter, Philip said this could involve questions around the type of claim, jurisdiction and choice of defendant, evidential burden and cost consequences for the parties.