UK Decision on SLAPP Lawsuits Ignites Debate and Concern

Tom Borman

The recent decision by the UK Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in the UK over Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin’s lawsuit has set off a fierce debate within legal and media circles about the efficacy of current measures to combat Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).

This case, involving Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins and the late Russian warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin, demonstrates the challenges faced by lawyers in navigating the fine line between legitimate defamation claims and abusive litigation tactics.

The SRA’s ruling, which found “no evidence” of wrongdoing by law firm Discreet Law in representing Prigozhin, has raised eyebrows among press freedom advocates and legal experts alike.

The decision comes despite Prigozhin’s status as a sanctioned individual at the time of the lawsuit and his subsequent admission to founding the Wagner Group – the very connection Higgins had reported on.

Due Diligence in Client Representation

The SRA’s stance that Discreet Law “acted appropriately” and went beyond due diligence requirements raises questions about the standards of client vetting in high-profile, politically sensitive cases.

Lawyers need to investigate clients with controversial backgrounds or those subject to international sanctions.

The Prigozhin case demonstrates the tension between zealous advocacy for clients by well paid law firms and the professional responsibility to prevent the abuse of legal processes.

Law firms may need to reassess their internal guidelines for accepting cases that could potentially be perceived as SLAPPs.

The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition’s description of the SRA’s decision as “baffling” points to a potential gap in regulatory frameworks designed to deter vexatious litigation.

The case may serve as a catalyst for discussions about strengthening the role of legal regulators in identifying and addressing SLAPP suits.

Legislative Action

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s promise to tackle SLAPPs and protect investigative journalism, the legal community may soon face new legislative measures.

Lawyers need to prepare for potential legal changes that could affect how they approach cases involving public figures and media organizations.

The Higgins-Prigozhin case serves as a reminder of the financial and reputational risks faced by journalists and media outlets when confronted with SLAPP suits.

The case and the issues around it also occur in other countries. In Australia there have been calls for effective anti-SLAPP legislation and even in New Zealand, LawFuel has had to defend itself against the deceased Russian oligarch Sergey Grishin, who used one of the country’s largest law firms, Simpson Grierson, to sue the publisher, John Bowie. The New Zealand High Court supported the oligarch claim which was subsequently settled.

However smaller, independent media outlets are particularly vulnerable to SLAPP suits due to limited resources and the vulnerability can lead to a less diverse media landscape, with only well-funded organizations able to withstand the pressure of potential litigation.

The case underscores the need for heightened awareness of the broader implications of their work, particularly in cases involving public interest journalism and contentious political figures.

As the debate continues, law firms may need to develop more robust internal mechanisms for evaluating potential SLAPP cases and consider the long-term consequences of their client representation decisions.