Eliot Higgins was sued by Yevgeny Prigozhin for saying Prigozhin ran the Wagner mercenary group. Which was obviously true. So it's deeply disappointing that the Solicitors Regulation Authority are taking no action against Prigozhin's law firm for bringing a meritless claim. - ThreadSky

danneidle.bsky.social • 29 days ago

Eliot Higgins was sued by Yevgeny Prigozhin for saying Prigozhin ran the Wagner mercenary group. Which was obviously true.

So it's deeply disappointing that the Solicitors Regulation Authority are taking no action against Prigozhin's law firm for bringing a meritless claim.

1 / 2

Comments

whoneedstoknow.bsky.social•29 days ago

The SRA isn't independent, though. It's primarily funded by the people they purport to regulate, so it is not in their interest to rock the boat.

thesportsaudit.bsky.social•29 days ago

Didn't Labour include in their manifesto that they would back legislation to ban SLAPPs? Surely, with Kier Starmers' legal background he is well place to get this issue resolved? Especially as it will help free up a portion of resources these drain from public courts.

danneidle.bsky.social•29 days ago

This was a SLAPP - a "strategic lawsuit against public participation". The purpose was not to win - Prigozhin knew he'd lose. But to intimidate and stifle criticism.

danneidle.bsky.social•29 days ago

The firm that acted for Prigozhin has shut down. The lawyers behind the firm, Roger Gerson and Joe Levtov, face no consequences.

danneidle.bsky.social•29 days ago

Gerson and Levtov could have done literally one Google search and found clear evidence Prigozhin ran Wagner.

So why isn't the SRA prosecuting them?

danneidle.bsky.social•29 days ago

Peter Geoghegan has looked into it. It seems the SRA said there was "no evidence" Prigozhin's law firm knew he ran Wagner.

I think I know why.

https://democracyforsale.substack.com/p/uk-law-firm-that-acted-for-putin-warlord-prigozhin-sra-slapps

danneidle.bsky.social•29 days ago

The SRA isn't stupid. The likely reason is that the SRA feels it has to apply a very generous standard, and only penalise law firms if the SRA is *certain* the firm knew their client was lying. Which will almost never happen.

If that's right, it's important the SRA says so.

anowlcalledsage.bsky.social•29 days ago

The SRA took 6 years from "indefinite suspension" to "struck off" for Edward William Ellis. It was only when a magistrate complained that he was presenting himself in court as a lawyer that they finally got their arse in gear!

mwhoyle96.bsky.social•29 days ago

But that is the necessary standard. If your client's instructions and witness evidence is that "X is true", it is not proper for a lawyer to do their own research on google and conclude "X is probably untrue so I won't advance it".

danneidle.bsky.social•29 days ago

Both lawyers and the public need to know the standard by which lawyers are judged.

And if lawyers can turn a blind eye to lying clients, and launch meritless SLAPPs, without any sanction, we absolutely need to know. And the Government needs to know, so it can change the law.

trickydicky71.bsky.social•29 days ago

« Discreet Law ». What a joke.

itsfrenchy.bsky.social•27 days ago

I’ll be taking that open source intel with me. Many thank you’s to the truthtellers doing the work and leaving crumbs. If I win the lotto which I don’t play I’d fund journalists worldwide to feed me knowledge from my chaise lounge all day. And live music to soothe my soul at night. That’s my dream.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply