SLAPPs are an alleged misuse of the legal system by the wealthy to intimidate critics into silence. They stifle journalistic enquiries, academic research, whistleblowing and campaigning with the threat that the person speaking out will be forced to defend an expensive lawsuit—usually defamation or invasion of privacy. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which is already investigating 29 cases where firms might be involved in SLAPPs, issued a warning soon after the invasion of Ukraine and refreshed its guidance in March. It issued a further warning notice this week, outlining activities that it would view as abusive litigation.
The notice reiterates the government’s proposed three-part test for a SLAPP that it relates to a public interest issue, has some features of an abuse of process, and has insufficient evidence of merit to warrant further judicial consideration. However, the SRA warns it will investigate complaints and take action regardless of whether or not all three limbs of the test are fulfilled.
The SRA highlights red flags such as the client requesting the firm target individuals instead of organisations, or do so in an unconnected jurisdiction. Examples of misuse given by the SRA include making unduly aggressive or intimidating threats, sending an excessive number of letters, pursuing unnecessary procedural applications and claiming misleading outcomes such as exaggerated cost consequences or imprisonment in a civil claim.
It also warns against incorrect or misleading labelling of correspondence, for example as ‘private and confidential’, or ‘without prejudice’—advising that this particularly important where the recipient is vulnerable or unrepresented. Moreover, unless prevented by a specific legal reason, recipients of legal letters should be able to disclose they have received them.
Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: ‘SLAPPs pose a significant threat to the rule of law, free speech and a free press.
‘The right for clients to bring legitimate claims and for solicitors to act fearlessly in their interest is important. Yet representing your client’s interests does not override public interest obligations, so when solicitors cross the line into SLAPPS, we will take action.’
