Solicitor Ashley Hurst a Partner at Osborne Clarke has been fined £50,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after a referral from the SRA. The SDT found that he sent misleading communications to tax lawyer Dan Neidle, which were initially considered be a SLAPP.
Hurst was not only fined £50,000 but ordered to pay the SRA’s costs of £260,000.
The SDT found that Ashley Hurst’s conduct did not amount to a SLAPP, but his communications with Dan Neidle were erroneous. Seemingly, this related to the emails marked as “Confidential & Without Prejudice” – but the SDT made no finding of misconduct in relation to letters marked “private and confidential” and “not for publication”.
Ashley Hurst was found to have breached principle 2, to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the legal profession, and principle 5, to act with integrity, of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraphs 1.2, 1.4 and 2.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.
Opinion
The SDT’s findings are yet to be published, and subject to that Judgement it is difficult to appreciate the exact reasons for the SDT’s findings. However there are two parts of the Tribunal’s outcome which are interesting on the face of it;
Firstly, the SDT said that Hurst’s conduct was not repetitive. Of course one awaits the Judgement to see what additional investigations the SRA took (and if they went beyond Neidle’s complaint), but if one is written a letter which states “private and confidential”, there is the likelihood a layman may understand it to mean he or she is not entitled to bring that to the attention of the SRA.
Secondly, this was a hard fought case – apparently Ashley Hurst spent over £900,000 in his defence – which including witness statements from 4 eminent defamation Kings Counsel. Those barristers provided witness evidence that suggested “Without Prejudice” and “Private and Confidential” was commonplace to add to correspondence – an issue which in part the SDT disagreed with. However, there appears to be a line drawn between the emails (where misconduct was found) and letters (where no misconduct was found).
Once the SDT’s Judgement is handed down, it will be interesting to see what findings they have made, and potentially what future guidance will be drawn from that Judgement.
It will also be interesting to if they view Ashley Hurst writing to Dan Neidle on Twitter was an appropiate thing to do.
The Material Complained Of
Direct Messages on Twitter to Dan Neidle from Ashley Hurst of Osbourne Clarke:
Email sent “Without Prejudice” to Dan Neidle from Ashley Hurst of Osbourne Clarke:
Letters sent “Not for Publication” to Dan Neidle from Ashley Hurst of Osbourne Clarke:
One thought on “Osbourne Clarke’s Ashley Hurst fined £50,000 in first SDT SLAPP case”