Lawyers Covered - April 2025

It can be tough for busy lawyers to find enough time to service clients, make it safely through the regulation obstacle course, win new work and keep up-to-date with developments, but we've got you covered! Welcome to our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we highlight the last month's key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.

Does it SLAPP? - and other shameless attempts to engage Gen Z

The SRA has recently explained its reasoning for not taking action in the Wagner case, which has been described as a "textbook SLAPP". 

What is a SLAPP?

Forget Gen Z, the SRA defines a SLAPP as follows "Strategic lawsuits against public participation are a misuse of the legal system, through bringing or threatening claims that are unmeritorious or characterised by abusive tactics, in order to stifle lawful scrutiny and publication, including on matters of corruption or wrongdoing."

What happened?

Discreet Law acted for Yevgeny Prigozhin (a Russian oligarch) in pursuing a libel claim against the investigative journalist Eliot Higgins – who had reported that Mr Prigozhin was a key figure in the mercenary Wagner Group. Mr Prigozhin denied this claim.

Discreet Law ceased acting in 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The claim was struck out in May 2022 following Mr Prigozhin's failure to comply with Court directions. Mr Higgin's solicitors then complained to the SRA alleging that Discreet Law had inappropriately progressed defamation proceedings.

Subsequently, in September 2022, Mr Prigozhin admitted his links to the Wagner Group. It is understood he was both the founder and leader of the group. He later died in an air crash in 2024.

What did the SRA say?

The SRA investigation found that Discreet Law had taken steps to verify the information provided by its client and also carried out independent research. Whilst there was public speculation over Mr Prigozhin's connection to the Wagner Group, the SRA found no evidence to suggest Discreet Law were aware of this or should have been aware that the instructions received were false.

Further, the merits of the claim were tested with Specialist Counsel and the Particulars of Claim appropriately set out the basis for the claim.

Discreet Law were also said to have gone further than was necessary on the AML checks carried out, given the AML regulations do not apply to litigation.

The SRA concluded that Discreet Law did not act improperly but made no conclusion or statement as to whether the claim amounted to a SLAPP. (So we do not know whether this claim SLAPPS or not).

What is the lesson?

The key concern is to avoid pursuing unmeritorious claims, in which solicitors have not tested their client's evidence or applied independent analysis to the instructions received. To do so could well be seen as abusive, particularly if done for a collateral purpose – such as preventing publication of information that is in the public interest.  

That said, the SRA highlights that where there is a proper argument capable of being advanced, then solicitors must advance their client's case in accordance with their instructions.

Further reading

The SRA's letter containing a full explanation can be found here.

SDT: Solicitor gave undertaking even if he did not call it one

A solicitor has been fined £17,500 and restricted from practising as a sole practitioner for 18 months by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), after they found that the assurance he gave acting for a seller in a conveyancing transaction was an undertaking.

Robin Edward Stubbings, who qualified as a solicitor in 1975, agreed to provide the buyers' solicitors, Crofts, with forms needed to remove a restriction on the title to the property. The sale of the property was completed in October 2021, but Mr Stubbings did not send Crofts the completed forms until January 2023. This delay resulted in the Land Registry cancelling the buyers' application to remove the restriction and when the forms were eventually resubmitted, the fees had increased.

Mr Stubbings argued that the statement he made to Crofts was not an undertaking as he did not specifically use the word "undertaking" but accepted that the delay in providing the forms was "somewhat discourteous".

The SRA Glossary defines an undertaking as "a statement, given orally or in writing, whether or not it includes the word 'undertake' or 'undertaking', to someone who reasonably places reliance on it, that you or a third party will do something or cause something to be done, or refrain from doing something".

By this definition, it was not necessary for Mr Stubbings to have used the word undertaking in his statement for him to be bound by it. In Briggs & Another v The Law Society [2005] EWHC 1830, Lady Justice Smith said that the breach of conveyancing undertakings "damages public confidence in the profession and in the system of undertakings upon which property transactions depend." Solicitors and firms should take care when making assurances that could be considered undertakings, as breaches of duties that arise from them could lead to serious disciplinary action.

Tackling the tax gap: Lawyers could be named for giving non-compliant tax advice

The government has published a consultation paper requesting views on whether HMRC’s current powers and sanctions are effective in dealing with non-compliance facilitated by tax advisers. The paper proposes a new set of powers for HMRC "to more effectively review and sanction professional tax advisers whose actions contribute to the tax gap or otherwise harms the tax system".

The proposals include increased financial penalties for those who are found to have engaged in dishonest conduct from £50,000 to a system based on the potential loss of tax revenue. In cases of serious harm this could result in a penalty of millions of pounds. The government has further proposed enhanced powers for HMRC to investigate and request information from tax advisers suspected of facilitating inaccuracies in its client's tax documents. For those who are found to be non-compliant, there may be a broadened scope for disclosures to their relevant professional bodies regarding concerns about the members’ activities. Further, the list of professionals subject to a HMRC sanction could be published to allow taxpayers to make "informed choices".

If implemented, the proposals would introduce a much tougher approach to tax avoidance. Legal professionals who advise on tax schemes which are found to be non-compliant could find themselves subject to HMRC's broadened powers, reported to the SRA or Bar Standards Board and published publicly. 

Hong Kong – Update on Technology in the Courts

On 28 March 2025 the Courts (Remote Hearing) Ordinance became law and took effect. The Ordinance puts the practice of using remote hearings on a statutory footing.  This practice was used during the pandemic when Hong Kong, like several other jurisdictions, had been in various states of "partial lockdown" between January 2020 and December 2022.

Some estimates suggest that approximately 25% of court cases had to be adjourned during the pandemic and that backlog has now been cleared. A Judiciary press release on the same day noted that over 2100 remote hearings were conducted in various courts and tribunals in Hong Kong since 2020. 

Prior to the Ordinance some first instance judges decided that the court rules and case management powers allowed them to conduct remote hearings. However, the Judiciary and interested stakeholders were keen to see this put on a statutory footing. The Ordinance will be generally welcomed by legal practitioners and their clients and should lead to more efficiencies and saving of time. 

The Ordinance allows courts and some tribunals to direct that a hearing be conducted remotely – considering certain statutory criteria – and they can invite parties to make submissions as regards such a direction.  Parties have a right to apply to challenge the direction within a specified time. In practice, remote hearings are more likely to be used for less complex civil hearings that cannot be disposed of by paper submissions. The Ordinance does not apply to criminal trials nor hearings before the Juvenile Court.

When a remote hearing is "open to the public" the court must usually allow public access to the proceeding e.g., by making suitable arrangements for broadcast. The Ordinance also provides for various criminal offences relating to the unlawful recording or publication of a remote hearing or its broadcast.

The Ordinance comes on the back of other important technology developments for the courts, including: the roll out of the courts' iCMS (integrated case management system; "e-filing"/file searches/payments) for parties who are legally represented in District Court cases (2022-26); the Judiciary's guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence by judges, judicial officers and support staff (July, 2024); and a two-year pilot scheme for live webcast of Court of Final Appeal hearings (starting April 2025).  Legal Practitioners must keep up to date with these developments. For example, with respect to remote hearings, the judiciary will issue practice directions in phases to provide for operational details.