Category: Communications and Media & Law and Policy

Blue ticks on Twitter – the problems with regulation and self-regulation

31st March 2022

Some people who care about these things are upset when they don’t have a ‘blue tick’ verification mark on their Twitter account.

Some people who care even more about these things are upset when, for whatever reason, their cherished ‘blue tick’ is removed.

I happen to have a high-follower Twitter account – where I tweet about things where credibility and indeed verification can be important – but I do not have and do not want a ‘blue tick’.

(Indeed, I have refused one.)

Why?

Isn’t credibility and verification important?

Well.

There are different ways of having credibility and different methods of verification.

I tweet (and blog) about the law, but I rarely say expressly that I am legally qualified.

This is because I want the content of my commentary itself to have credibility, rather than to appeal to authority.

If I have to resort to ‘actually I am a solicitor’ then something has gone astray in my commentary.

Either I get the law right or I get the law wrong – and in neither case should having ‘lawyer’ or ‘solicitor’ in my bio make any difference, still less a ‘blue tick’ against my name.

(I have a similar problem with lawyers who insist on having ‘QC’ on their social media account, as if their tweets are court pleadings, or formal advices or opinions.)

*

Indeed, in my opinion the ‘blue tick’ can confer a false sense of authority.

A view can be taken that a thing must be true or fair – just because it has been tweeted (or re-tweeted) by a ‘blue tick’ account.

Yet nasty and vile tweets can be tweeted by ‘blue tick’ accounts, as well as factually false information.

This is because a ‘blue tick’ is not actually a badge of credibility or verification, but – too often – a substitute for one.

Such an objection, however, does not mean that anything goes.

Instead, it means people should be critical with what they engage on social media.

Ask questions: who follows an account, who does an account frequently engage with, what are the replies and quote-tweets of a tweet, does the tweeter link to sources – and so on.

Forming your own view, in other words – rather than nodding-along with a false badge of authority.

*

I know the easy response to this will be for some to say that I misunderstand social media – and that people do not want to think for themselves.

But – we are still in the early history of social media and internet-based global communications, and we should not mistake what social media is like now with what it may become.

We could all shout at strangers in the street or on the bus – but almost nobody does, even though the opportunity is there.

And similarly people may become more measured and sensible in how they interact on social media.

The best regulation, in my view, comes from – where possible – empowering people to make informed decisions.

And the arbitrary and non-transparent system of ‘blue ticks’ – which confer respectability on some unpleasant and/or false tweets – is the means of encouraging people to not make informed decisions, rather than making them.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

A balancing exercise in action – Chris Mullin defeats a disclosure request in respect of the Birmingham pub bombings

23rd March 2022

I was born and brought up in the Birmingham of the 1970s, and like many others I had family and family friends who could well have been killed in the Birmingham pub bombings.

There is a powerful public interest in that crime being properly investigated and those guilty being convicted.

Six innocent men were convicted for the bombings, and their prosecution and punishments was an appalling miscarriage of justice, perhaps one of the worst miscarriages of justice in English legal history.

There was a powerful public interest in that miscarriage of justice being exposed and corrected.

And the journalist (and later politician) Chris Mullin was the one who did most to expose and correct that miscarriage of justice.

What happens when two powerful public interests such as the above collide?

That was the issue before the recorder of London at the Old Bailey.

On one hand, those police officers investigating the bombings want access to materials held by Mullin.

You can see why the police would want this – especially if it would contain direct evidence that would aid a successful prosecution.

But that does not necessarily mean the police should get it.

The reason is that the material which Mullin holds was given to him on the basis of confidentiality, so that he could expose the miscarriage of justice.

Without that assurance to his source, Mullin would not have been given that information, and without that information the miscarriage of justice would not have been exposed.

And so the public interest in exposing that miscarriage of justice would have been defeated.

In a detailed and fascinating judgment, the judge shows how the competing – indeed contrasting – public interests in this case should be balanced.

And in a compelling conclusion the judge holds that in this case there should not be an order for disclosure of the material.

It is unfortunate that this means that any prosecution of those guilty of the bombings will not be assisted by this material – but such a prosecution should not be at the cost of undermining the public interest in exposing a miscarriage of justice.

Not only is the judgment compelling, it also is another recent example of a judge taking Article 10 of the ECHR and the right to free expression seriously.

It is a good judgment in a difficult case, and it is recommended reading for anyone interested in practical law and policy.

**

Thank you for reading – these free-to-read law and policy posts take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

What is SLAPP?

22nd March 2022

Sometimes I give blogposts the wrong titles.

Yesterday, the post here had the title: Is there a SLAPP problem in the English courts?

This is a good – and urgent – question.

The problem was that the post did not answer the question, and instead it set out some preliminary views about SLAPP – that is an acronym for ‘strategic litigation against public participation’.

What I should have done before setting out these preliminary views was to explain SLAPP – and I am sorry I did not do so.

Some people even told me on Twitter that they had to google ‘SLAPP’ so as to understand my post.

This post seeks to remedy the deficiency of yesterday’s post.

*

SLAPP is a term to describe the misuse of the litigation process for the purpose of minimising or eliminating public and media scrutiny.

It is an American term and it appears to date from 1996.

There have been, in turn, various anti-SLAPP laws in America.

The reason why SLAPP is now seen as an issue here is a spate of illiberal legal claims brought (or threatened) in the High Court in London which appear to have the ulterior motive of minimising or eliminating public and media scrutiny – in particular scrutiny of various oligarchs and foreign corporations.

The United Kingdom government has just announced that it is considering introducing anti-SLAPP laws here and it has put out the a call for evidence on SLAPP.

The government describes SLAPP as follows:

“The term SLAPPs is commonly used to describe activity that aims to discourage public criticism through an improper use of the legal system. SLAPPs have two key features:

• They target acts of public participation. Public participation can include academic research, journalism and whistle-blowing activity concerned with matters of societal importance, such as illicit finance or corruption.

• They aim to prevent information in the public interest from being published. This can be by threatening or bringing proceedings which often feature excessive claims.”

Another word for this phenomenon is the splendid portmanteau ‘lawfare’.

*

Now that I have set out a defintion of the term, do have another look at yesterday’s post – which I have now re-titled.

You will see that I aver that although SLAPP is a pejorative and contested term, it is also a useful term as long as you bear its limitations in mind.

In further posts on this blog I am going to look at some recent cases that have been described as SLAPP cases so as to answer the following questions:

1. Is there really a SLAPP problem in the English courts?

2. If so, what is the nature of that problem?

3. And if it is a problem, is it a problem capable of being solved?

I think it is important to ground any consideration of reform in an understanding of actual examples, else one can end up with a mismatch between proposals and problems.

For such a mismatch is what happened, in my view, with the campaign which led to the Defamation Act 2013, where the eventual legislation that was passed would have done little or nothing in respect of the various poster-cases on which the campaign relied.

(With my old Jack of Kent blog I was part of the early part of that campaign for libel reform, though I had and have concerns about the law that was finally enacted.)

Whether there is an actual SLAPP problem and, if so, whether it can be solved is a key issue for our legal system and how that system impacts on public debate.

I would like this blog – with its posts and excellent commenters – to be part of informing the debate on that issue.

I am sorry my post yesterday was running before it was walking – and I hope this further post has put that right.

**

Thank you for reading – these free-to-read law and policy posts take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

SLAPP and English courts – some preliminary issues

21st March 2022

SLAPP – strategic litigation against public participation – is a new-ish name for an age-old problem.

Here is L. Ron Hubbard in 1955 advocating law suits against those who were using Scientology materials without authorisation:

“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly”

(The Scientologist: a Manual on the Dissemination of Material, page 157)

*

SLAPP is, of course, a pejorative term (as this blog recently averred) – but, for want of a better term, is the best name we have got for a certain thing.

The problem with SLAPP being a pejorative term is that, just as one person’s terrorist can be another person’s freedom fighter, one person’s SLAPP case is another person’s legitimate attempt to defend their reputation and/or privacy rights.

Few if any claimants will say expressly that their case is a SLAPP case – not many are as brazen as L. Ron Hubbard.

And it is possible that what one side considers to be a SLAPP case will genuinely not be considered to be a SLAPP case by the other side.

That said, SLAPP as a term has two useful qualities.

First, it is not limited to any one area of law – for example defamation – and so it implicitly recognises that various areas of law can be (mis)used – not only defamation but also misuse of private information, data protection, confidentiality, intellectual property rights, and so on.

Second, it indicates that certain decisions are being made strategically – or at least, tactically (though TLASS is a less handy acronym) – about the purpose to which law is being used.

Another problem, however, with SLAPP as a term is that its American origins may mislead people into thinking all anti-SLAPP legislation is the same.

In fact, much of what constitutes anti-SLAPP reform in the United States is already part of English law, including the ready availability of costs sanctions and early opportunities for meritless cases to be struck out.

There is no single anti-SLAPP reform that fits all jurisdictions.

So as long as the strengths and weaknesses of SLAPP as a term are borne in mind, it is the best description we have got of a certain thing.

*

But – what is that thing?

Well.

One thing it usually is not about is the law or procedural rules being broken by lawyers or their clients.

In almost all SLAPP cases, the lawyers are using the laws and court procedures available to them: the issue is the ulterior purpose to which those laws and court procedures is being put.

This is why, in my view, attempts to ‘name and shame’ the lawyers involved are misconceived.

(Though, for completeness, I know and deal with many of those who are involved.)

The lawyers that have so far been publicly named are but a sub-set of the lawyers competent and willing to take on such claims.

And – frankly – you do not need parliamentary privilege to ‘name and shame’ the lawyers: all you need to do is look at the case reports to see who they are, and at their own websites to see how they promote their practices.

I happen to be a media defence lawyer (among other things) – acting for journalists, campaigners, and politicians – and I chose not to act for claimants in these sort of cases, but that is entirely a personal choice.

In my experience of seeing dozens of threatening letters (of varying quality), almost all the threats are within the scope of law and practice as it stands.

And if a threatening letter did not come from one firm, I can imagine pretty much the same sort of letter coming from a dozen other firms.

The problem is with the law and practice, and so – if you sincerely want to solve the problem – that is where the solution will be.

Although therapeutic, ‘naming and shaming’ the lawyers involved is a cul-de-sac.

*

Another thing to note is that, in England, SLAPP is not just about costs – even if the amounts involved can be eye-watering.

Yes, London claimant lawyers are expensive – too expensive.

But: American lawyers are expensive too, sometimes even more expensive than English lawyers.

Media lawyers in other jurisdictions are also high-charging and highly paid.

Yet, it is in England that certain cases are brought – and threatened.

This is because the problem with SLAPP cases in London is not just the costs, but how those costs can be easily weaponised as part of of a legal threat.

London litigation is often not a game of thrones, but a game of costs.

The dynamics of many cases will come down to costs, and how costs consequences can be inflicted and deflected.

And how this happens comes down to the structure and practice of the relevant law.

*

But perhaps the biggest difficulty about discussing SLAPP in England is that the discussion can sometimes seem abstract.

SLAPP is a bad thing, and nice people are against bad things.

Let’s boo at SLAPP!

But the challenge is to make any SLAPP reform work practically – to make a difference in actual cases.

There are a number of ways law and practice can be misused, and so any reform needs to be set against actual cases to see if the reform would make any practical difference.

One thing I recall from the campaign which led to the Defamation Act 2013 is that the key case for mobilising support – the misconceived and illiberal claim brought by the British Chiropractic Association against science writer Simon Singh – turned out not to be directly relevant to the legislation that was then passed.

Little in that Act would stop another such case being brought again – and indeed it was the court’s own decision in that case, and not any legislation, that has stopped further similar claims.

There can be a practical disconnect between cases that attract public concerns and the reforms then promoted for dealing with such concerns.

That is why this blog is going to look over the next few days at a ‘data-set’ of SLAPP cases, to see what the actual problems are and to see what, if any, solutions can be put in place to stop similar cases being threatened and brought.

*

In the meantime, I would suggest anyone interested in SLAPP, and what practical reforms can be implemented to prevent such cases, look at the following:-

– the transcript of the oral evidence at the foreign affairs select committee on the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (or watch it here);

– the excellent and comprehensive work by Susan Coughtrie and the Foreign Policy Centre on SLAPPS – including this policy paper;

– this House of Commons library briefing on SLAPP; and

– the UK government’s recent call for evidence on SLAPP.

**

Thank you for reading – these free-to-read law and policy posts take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

One difficulty with SLAPP

17th March 2022

I am currently writing something for publication elsewhere about SLAPP – that is strategic litigation against public participation.

There is, however, one point about SLAPP that I thought was worth making by itself in a brief post.

The point is that SLAPP is a loaded, pejorative term.

It is not an agreed term.

It is instead a term a critic uses to describe certain litigation that the critic does not like.

Very few people – if any – would say they are pro-SLAPP.

And this is a problem in respect of reforming law and procedure so as to make such illiberal and misconceived law suits more difficult to threaten and to bring.

For if there is no objective definition of what one is trying to avoid, there can be no easy set of changes for avoiding it.

And many of the features of American anti-SLAPP legislation are already part of English law and procedure.

So, of course SLAPP is wrong: for what sensible person would not be against strategic litigation against public participation?

But being against a thing framed in loaded terms is not the same as knowing what to do to counter that thing.

More thought is needed than just to say SLAPP is wrong.

We should not be, well, slapdash about SLAPP.

**

My Comments Policy now has its own page.

About comments on blogs and ‘below the line’

16th March 2022

Thanks to many of you, this blog has a very high standard of comments.

The only credit I can take for this is that I pre-moderate the comments – and I wish other sites pre-moderated their comments too.

In the olden days, newspapers used to take pride in their ‘letters to the editor’ page – and so not any old letter sent in would get published.

Some newspapers even had individuals responsible for editing these pages – and one or two may still do.

But then – the internet came along.

Comments ‘below the line’ became, for want of a better word, content – and free content at that.

It even became more legally safe not to pre-moderate the comments, as you could say that you were unaware of what was said until you had a complaint.

And this led to many sites where the comments ‘below the line’ are unpleasant or not worth the effort in reading.

Of course: if you really want to say something not nice, or useless, there is nothing stopping you – there are many places on the internet for you to go, like Twitter.

But freedom of expression does not confer the absolute right to impose that expression on another person’s website.

Yes, pre-moderation takes time and effort to do – but it is worth that time and effort.

Indeed, moderating and curating comments ‘below the line’ is itself an exercise in free expression – of how I want this blog to present itself to the world.

And there is the internet truth that good comments encourage other good comments, and bad comments encourage other bad comments.

This truth, over time, becomes perpetuating – so that the sort of people who want to leave poor quality comments tend not to even bother with this site.

A very high standard of comments below a blogpost does not happen by accident.

But.

I would be kidding myself that this was primarily because of my policy – so again thank you for leaving – and reading – the high quality comments on this site.

*

My Comments Policy now has its own page.

 

The fake Twitter account of “Marina Ovsyannikova” – and how to spot such fakes

15th March 2022

Being an experienced Twitter user is like being what comedian Jasper Carrott once said of Ed Doolan: “world-famous in Birmingham”.

You have a great deal of knowledge about a relatively small thing, but one advantage that experience and knowledge give you is an ability to spot fakes.

And earlier today many mainstream media journalists fell for a fake account in the name of Marina Ovsyannikova, the Moscow television editor who bravely interrupted a live broadcast to protest against the invasion of Ukraine.

This what she did:

And this is a video that was circulated afterwards:

She was then – unfortunately but unsurprisingly – detained.

And then – this morning – it seemed somehow she was tweeting.

 

As you can see, the tweets were heavily RTd and favourited.

And the tweets were RTd and favourited by many mainstream media figures.

One even told us, earnestly, that we should take such tweets “at face value”.

But.

The account was fake.

But not only was it fake, it was self-evidently fake.

From the profile alone, it could be seen it was a recent account.

The bio says ‘former editor’ – as if she would have been in a position to change the bio.

The profile pic was a screen-grab from the video circulated after the incident – and one would think there would be better pics available to an authentic account.

The tweets were in English – from a Russian-Ukrainian who was warning Russians about Russian war policy.

Twitter, of course, is blocked in Russia – and although she could be using a VPN, there would be no point in her doing that if she was tweeting under her own name.

And she was being detained anyway.

Scrolling down to before the incident you would see (1) anti-war tweets (2) tagged with the ‘#Anonymous’ tag – both of which would be implausible for someone in her role planning to make a surprise intervention in live news:

All this took a few seconds to check and assess.

(Others clicked into the earlier tweets and could ascertain they were with a different Twitter handle – but I was already satisfied they were fake without this further due diligence.)

Some might say that – notwithstanding all these indications to the contrary – the account could still be authentic – or the tweets were being tweeted on her behalf.

Perhaps – but even taking this at its highest, the numerous indications were such that the account should not have been taken at ‘face value’.

It probably was a frolic of an opportunist rather than anything more sinister, and when mainstream media people RTd the account, others (understandably) thought the account was legitimate.

(And the account has now been suspended. was temporarily deleted – but it has returned with older tweets removed.)

But one should always be critical – some things are true, some things are false, and the job is to work out the difference.

And this critical faculty is maybe required nowadays more than before.

******

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

How you can be sued for libel for reporting things said in Parliament

10th March 2022

On 9 March 2022 the following was stated by Bob Seely MP in the House of Commons:

What Seely said is set out on the ‘They Work For You’ website:

And it has been published in Hansard:

What has struck many about what Seely said is that reporting parliamentary debates could be actionable under the law of defamation.

Surely, some thought, reporting what is said in parliament has absolute privilege – that is legal protection – from any law suit.

Well.

The legal position is not straightforward – though you may think it should be.

And the unsettling answer is that you can be sued for reporting things said in parliament.

*

First there needs to be a distinction.

What MPs and peers themselves say in parliament does have absolute privilege.

This protection is provided by the Bill of Rights:

“`That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

From time to time, (ahem) spirited lawyers do threaten parliamentarians in respect of things said in parliament (here is a 2010 example) – but the lawyers should not do so, `and any legal claim would fail.

(The position is less clear-cut for witnesses at select committee hearings – but that is a topic for another time.)

This means there is nothing that a law firm can do with a legal threat to Seely or any other parliamentarian about what they say in parliamentary proceedings.

The MP or peer has absolute privilege – though there are rules in both houses of parliament about what can and cannot be said about certain matters – and those rules are not justiciable in court.

*

But.

Those reporting – or indeed repeating – what is said in parliament do not have this same absolute protection.

The protection is instead ‘qualified’ – and so is subject to a condition.

This condition is (in general terms) that the report – or other repetition – is not malicious.

(This condition is the general effect of the august Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 and the Defamation Act 1996.)

This therefore means a person can be sued for defamation (and perhaps for other things) for reporting or repeating what is said in parliament when in doing so they acting maliciously.

The onus is on the claimant to show this malice.

So this means that a potential claimant can sue – and thereby threaten to sue – a person who is reporting or repeating what is said in parliament.

The potential claimant and their lawyers would have to meet a high threshold if there were to issue such a claim and demonstrate malice – and it may be that they will fail to do so.

But nothing at law stops them issuing the threats.

*

How this all should work in an internet age where footage from parliament TV can be captured and circulated instantly is not clear.

For example I would not publish the footage of Seely above until and unless I saw it reported in Hansard, as I would want the protection of the 1840 Act.

*

There is the eternal question of what constitutes ‘malice’.

 

*

And there is also a question about whether lawyers for potential claimants can make over-stated libel threats when they have no evidence of malice.

As Professor Richard Moorhead explains there are general professional conduct rules about what can and cannot be in a threatening letter from a law firm:

The Solicitors Regulatory Authority states the following about solicitors’ professional duties in respect of disputes:

In essence – libel claimant lawyers cannot (and should not) threaten legal proceedings lightly – and if they do, there can be professional repercussions for those lawyers.

*

Perhaps there should be further protections.

For example: in respect of infringements to registered intellectual property rights (eg trade marks and patents), the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 prevents lawyers from making baseless threats.

Perhaps this should be extended to defamation threats.

And barristers and solicitors are under general professional obligations not to allege fraud without satisfactory evidence.

Presumably it would not be impossible for a similar rule to prevent baseless defamation threats, especially where there is no evidence of malice.

*

None of the above suggests – or is intended to suggest – that any particular claimant firm is making such baseless threats.

Instead the above points to the protections that those receiving the threats have (or should have) so as to be confident that such threats are not baseless.

And it also points to the high hurdle that any claimant firm needs to meet so as to allege malice when making such a threat.

*

We do have the gap in the law between absolute privilege for parliamentarians and only qualified privilege for those outside who report and repeat what those parliamentarians say.

It is a gap which in my view should be filled, and one which is not sensible (or sustainable) in the internet age.

But it is gap that has not yet been filled.

And so yes – as Seely said, it is possible for a law firm to threaten newspapers and others for what is said in parliament.

*

For completeness, this is not a new problem either for parliamentarians or for those reporting on what they say.

Those with good memories will recall the Trafigura matter – which was not about defamation but confidentiality – where a member of parliament said something which seemed to be subject to (and thereby in breach of) a court injunction.

(And to demonstrate my own personal lack of malice – this is a link to how Trafigura’s lawyer saw what happened.)

So none of this is a new issue – and it is one that goes to the very essence of a separation of powers.

**

Disclosure: I happen to be a qualified solicitor, and I still help clients facing libel and other claims, and so this post is informed by that experience.

*****

Thank you for reading – these free-to-read law and policy posts take time and opportunity cost to put together.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

 

 

 

A libel defeat for the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation

8th March 2022

Today’s post will be just a short one, so as to link and draw attention to this judgment.

Paragraphs 38 and 39 are beautiful and quietly lethal.

By way of background, the corporate claimant – the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation – sued in respect of the outstanding book Kleptopia.

(Buy it here – EDIT This is now an Amazon link, as the previous Bookseller link says they are out of stock.)

The judge held that the book did not hold the defamatory meanings pleaded:

“In short, the Book does not bear the defamatory meaning contended for by the Claimant because, read in their proper context, the allegations complained of by the Claimant do not refer to any ENRC corporation” (paragraph 36).

But.

The judge goes on and says, in effect: hang on, this book does make serious allegations about the claimant, so why is the claimant not suing on those serious allegations?

Why, asked the judge in effect, is the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation not suing for being called “[a] corporate front – “a charade” [ ] used [ ] for criminal activities including corruption, money laundering, theft and embezzlement. “

Well, why indeed.

This, of course, is not an express admission by the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation that it is such a front.

But one suspects these judicial comments in a legally privileged, public judgment were not those sought by the claimant in bringing this case.

Less SLAPP – and more of a slap-down.

****

Disclosure and disclaimer: the journalist defendant also works for the Financial Times, where I am a freelance ‘contributing editor’ but nothing in this post refers (or is intended to refer) to any case brought by Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation against any other FT entities and/or individuals; and I also long ago happened to work for the claimant’s law firm.

******

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

Oligarchs in London – what lawyers are to blame for and what they are not

1st March 2022

There is a negotiation tactic when a party wants to be robust or unreasonable but wants to appear to be nice and approachable.

The tactic is to blame the lawyers: “I would agree, you see, but I have been told by my lawyers that I cannot”.

And nobody minds – the party gets to save their face, and the lawyers shrug off the misplaced blame and charge their fees.

There is a similar move in politics and media.

The politician or pundit gets to blame the lawyers – and to get easy nods and cheers.

“It is the lawyers to blame.”

In turn the less alert of those listening will roar and demand that the lawyers be named and shamed.

And nobody minds – the politician and pundit gets to save their face, and the lawyers shrug off the misplaced blame and charge their fees.

*

This political and media dance routine obscures what lawyers cannot be blamed for – and what they can be.

Individual lawyers at any one time can only work with the law as it stands.

If the law does not permit or enable a thing, then a lawyer cannot make a difference.

If you want to stop a person from having or exercising certain rights then legislative change can often make the difference wanted.

Take for example, sanctions on oligarchs.

Oligarchs will have rights and can exercise their rights.

That lawyers advise and assist so as to make those rights effective is not – ultimately – the fault of the lawyer.

If the government really wants to sanction an individual then there is little that lawyers can do to prevent it.

There are certain limited exceptions – obviously in respect of life and liberty – but almost anything else is possible if the government is determined and goes about it in the right way.

Take, for another example, defaming oligarchs.

Again, oligarchs have a right to defend their reputations.

And lawyers will be there to advise and assist so as to make that right effective.

But such lawyers can only work with the law of defamation as it stands – and it is entirely open to the government to seek to reform the law of defamation.

There are reforms that could be made – for example to make SLAPP legal cases far more difficult to threaten or to make.

Determined efforts and reforms, however, would take time and effort by the government – and so it is easier to blame the lawyers instead.

There will always be those who will clap and cheer.

*

But.

The defence above does not absolve lawyers in England and Wales from personal responsibility.

*

That said, barristers – those lawyers who tend to do advocacy in court – are (supposedly) bound by a cab-rank rule which means they are (supposed) to take case in their area, regardless of who are instructing them.

As such barristers can be instructed in a matter contrary to their own views.

*

Solicitors, on the other hand, are not bound by a cab-rank rule.

And it is solicitors who will be sending the letters on behalf of oligarchs in respect of sanctions and defamation.

Solicitors do get to choose who they act for.

Indeed, the business models of certain solicitor practices are based on there being numerous foreign corporations and high net-worth individuals wanting to enforce rights in London.

(And for what it is worth, I choose not to act for oligarchs or foreign states, and do not act against newspapers, even though I am a media and commercial lawyer.)

But.

If one a solicitor does not want to act for such clients in such cases, then there will be other solicitors who will.

Solicitors may be able to choose who they act for, but they cannot choose to change the law.

And so here – even without denying the personal responsibility of lawyers who choose to act for such clients – we again have the ultimate problem being the law, rather than lawyers.

The hard truth is that, although it is satisfying to blame – and name and shame – lawyers, it is the law that is at fault.

What lawyers do is a function of that law.

But that would require difficult questions of how the law came to be in the state that it is.

And that is why law-makers and their political and media supporters choose to blame lawyers instead.

******

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.