Introduction
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority have indicated they intend to refer dodgy solicitor Gary Anderson, of A Shade Greener to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, following a number of complaints.
Ostensibly, this proposed referral is in relation to SLAPPs, which the SRA have placed a clear warning notice about.
What Happened?
I wrote last year that Gary Anderson and Brian Fowler of A Shade Greener (ASG) had been threatening customers who complained about ASG. Many of the letters were threatening, threatened meritless claims, were misconceived in law – and when 3 claims did make it to the High Court, they were abandoned after the Defendants hired a top defamation KC.
Here is what I wrote in 2024:
Gary Anderson worked for A Shade Greener as its in-house solicitor, until seemingly, a Solicitors Regulatory Authority investigation into him. He is also apparently “General Counsel” for Indigo Lighthouse, whatever that is.
What did Gary do to get on the radar of the SRA you may be wondering?
Writing some of the most outrageous correspondence you have ever seen, is the short answer!
Back in November 2022 the SRA issued a warning about SLAPPs, which was updated in May 2024. It’s almost as if Anderson had read the warning as a guide on how to conduct litigation, as opposed to how not!
Having seen a large number of letters written by Anderson on behalf of A Shade Greener, the outrageous conduct includes;
- Suggesting that customers “guilty of both civil and criminal activity” (quote)
- Threatening proceedings where there is no merit in the claim
- Writing letters claiming customers are personally liable for “criminal acts” (his emphasis, not mine!)
- Making claims and assertions without merit
- Many many many other outrageous, but quite amusing things!
There are also some comedic quotes in his letters. For example, the opening line:
“This is a formal Letter Before Action written in accordance of with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols….”
Another great (but absurd) quote being:
“On the criminal aspect of your behavior, we have reported your actions to other regulatory and enforcement bodies, including the Police.”
Ahhaahahahahaha ahhaahahahaha, I thought. The letters Anderson wrote are some of the most hilarious and outrageously comedically incompetent letters I have ever seen, they are comic gold. They are in total breach of any Pre-Action Protocol, fail to explain the legal basis on which “damages” are being sought, fail to identify any words complained of and/or their meanings, fail to explain or give an appreciation of the recipient of the letters any explanation of A Shade Greener’s position, and ….. so it goes on, and on, and on!
The letters are a textbook case of “how not to behave as a solicitor”, and how to entirely abuse the fact you may have once got a qualification in law, and are still blagging renewing a practicing certificate.
Then I realised two things;
Firstly, these were letters being sent to people with little or no legal knowledge or experience. They are extremely threatening letters, making threats of costs, damages and criminal liability – despite the fact they have no basis in law….but…despite the comic incompetence…..people could interpret the letters literally and believe they were true, and thus “guilty” of the criminal offence.
Secondly, for people without the ability to afford qualified legal advice/representation – this could have a profound affect on their mental health, resulting in depression or worse.
All of this outrageous behavior because some customers gave their honest opinions and experiences on A Shade Greener, who seem to be more dodgy by the minute….
All of Anderson’s conduct amounts to a SLAPP.
What is a referral to the SDT?
When the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) investigate a complaint and believe there is sufficient misconduct to ‘secure a conviction’ (as it were), they will refer a solicitor to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Essentially what happens here is there is a Final Hearing (similar to a Trial) where evidence is heard from both sides and the SDT decide if there has been misconduct. If misconduct is found, the SDT will then decide what the outcome should be (ie Sanction, Penalty, Strike Off, etc), and who pays the costs (and how much).
SDT Proceedings are expensive, and the SRA will instruct solicitors to represent them (usually Capsticks), and Capsticks will often hire specialist external Counsel.
In the case of Ashley Hurst, it was rumored his defence costs we around £900,000 – and he lost, so will have to pay the SRA’s costs too. However, as I have covered in the case of Ryan Hermann – it can go the other way, and SRA can be faced to pay costs.
What happens next?
The SRA, so far, have indicated they going to put their reasons for an SDT referral to Gary Anderson and he will then respond.
This, I believe would be a draft of a document called a Rule 12 Statement (see example here). From here, Anderson has a few options available to him;
- He can deny all the allegations and the matter will go ‘to trial’ with the SDT.
- He can admit the allegations, at which point he can then agree (or not) an outcome with the SRA. If the outcome cannot be agreed, it will be remitted to the SDT.
- He can admit the allegations and agree the sanction/penalty with the SRA – which produces an Agreed Outcome (example here).
There are of course many other things that can happen – such as applications, part admissions, not being able to agree costs, etc – which also may be referred to the SDT for to resolve.
Conclusion
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) has indicated it intends to refer Gary Anderson to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Whether Anderson admits everything, denies everything, or somewhere inbetween, remains to be seen. However whatever the outcome is – we’ll be reporting it!
