A leading litigation solicitor will face a five-day tribunal hearing over his conduct in representing former chancellor of the exchequer Nadhim Zahawi.
Ashley Hurst, head of client strategy at Osborne Clarke, is facing allegations of misconduct over an email and subsequent letter sent to tax expert Dan Neidle. Neidle referred Hurst to the SRA in 2022 after receiving the legal correspondence in relation to allegations he had made over Zahawi’s tax affairs.
The email and letter have been published by Neidle on his website. The email was labelled as ‘confidential and without prejudice’ and the letter was headed ‘not for publication’.
Neidle said the correspondence was an attempt to silence criticism which had no basis in law, and he reported the matter to the SRA. Hurst is now alleged by the regulator to have breached two of its principles: to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the profession, and to act with integrity.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal yesterday rejected an application from lawyers acting for Hurst for a determination over whether the correspondence was indeed without prejudice and to be treated as confidential.
Ben Hubble KC said Hurst had been correct or arguably correct to insert the words he did into the email and letter. Describing the SRA’s case as ‘misconceived’ Hubble saidthat the regulator was wrong on an issue of law and that its rule 12 statement to the tribunal had a ‘degree of inconsistency and confusion’.
Hubble said the SRA could not make out any positive case that the email was wrongly labelled and that it was troubling for the regulator to make different interpretations of the phrase ‘without prejudice’.
David Price KC, for the SRA, said Hurst’s application for the SDT to determine a preliminary issue of law was unprecedented. Price said Hurst had been advancing a ‘threatening’ libel claim on behalf of the chancellor and was trying to stop Neidle from telling anyone about this.
The tribunal opted not to make any determination on the nature of the correspondence, effectively allowing the matter to proceed. Hurst will face a five-day hearing starting on 16 December.
In a statement, an Osborne Clarke spokesperson said: 'We are disappointed with the SRA’s decision to refer this matter to the tribunal, and we disagree with the basis and reasoning for the referral. We have carefully considered and investigated the matter with external advisers and are confident that the partner acted within the established law and practice in this area, a view supported by an independent leading media law KC.
'We consider that the partner concerned behaved fairly and appropriately in their communications with the third party and did not seek to mislead or take unfair advantage in any way. At no time did they provide any tax planning advice. We fully support and stand behind the partner in their defence of this matter.'
