Illegally Hiding (or Demanding Secrecy Around) Illegal Requests or Attempts at Extortion
Of course "without prejudice” is not the superpower by which to hide unlawful communications like threats; but few recipients dare talk about this (Brett Wilson LLP did it to us this year; their client was from Microsoft)
"Nadhim Zahawi’s lawyer at risk of sanction over alleged use of ‘Slapp’," an article in the Financial Times said last year. Months later it was reported that "SRA’s main case relates to the email. The SRA submits the letter implicitly retained the threat of adverse consequences to Mr Neidle. The threat in the email had not been withdrawn."
"Case marks first referral of such an allegation to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal," it said of Zahawi and his lawyer (remember Mr Neidle had also been targeted by a de facto scammer who was represented by Brett Wilson LLP when he first picked on a critic, using the same lawyer only who months later picked on me and on my wife).
The SRA seems to be showing better awareness of how secrecy in E-mails and demand thereof (gag orders of sorts) get misused. It therefore wants to see what's being hidden. In the above case, "without prejudice" was looked rather closely upon. The SRA did not like what it saw. It deemed/ruled that unlawful later on.
To quote the Financial Times:
The Solicitors Regulation Authority this week decided to refer Zahawi’s lawyer to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for allegedly telling tax expert Dan Neidle that Neidle could not reveal that he had received a demand to retract an allegation he had published about the MP, according to two people briefed on the move.The partner at law firm Osborne Clarke wrote to Neidle in 2022 telling Neidle that the demand he had received from the lawyer — on behalf of Zahawi — was “without prejudice” and confidential, and warned him against publishing or even referring to it, saying it would be a “serious matter”.
The SRA considered the lawyer’s conduct could amount to a Slapp — an approach employed by lawyers to try to intimidate and shut down reporting.
The practice has come under greater scrutiny in recent years over concerns that particularly Russian oligarchs and other powerful individuals weaponised litigation to shield themselves from scrutiny.
The SRA has investigated several instances of alleged Slapps, but the case involving Zahawi’s lawyer is the first time the regulator has referred the alleged use of such conduct to the SDT.
We shall write about related issues in years to come. Both the Serial Strangler from Microsoft and Garrett [1, 2] sent us "without prejudice” E-mails. After the cases are finished we can show and explain some of these communications.
We can then pursue the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, not just the SRA. This days-old article about the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal says: "It is alleged that in July 2019, McKeeve responded to a search order issued to his clients to preserve evidence by giving an instruction to ‘burn it’ (or words similar). This instruction was allegedly given to another individual relating to electronic material held by one of his clients."
Destruction of evidence is still nowhere as bad as assaults against women. Microsoft also needs to explain what happened to Nat Friedman and why Miguel de Icaza "left" shortly after him. █
