We investigated London's libel lawyers - here’s what happened next
Our revelations prompted a promise today from David Lammy to "bring forward legislation" to tackle SLAPPs… and legal letters from unhappy media lawyers for the super-rich
Last Friday, we published a major investigation into how libel lawyers who have acted for oligarchs and the super-rich lobbied the government against reforms to stop Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, better known as Slapps.
Today (Tuesday) in Parliament, justice secretary David Lammy announced that the Labour government will be “bringing forward legislation” to tackle Slapps.
The justice secretary’s announcement came in response to a question from Labour MP Brian Leishman, prompted by our investigation.
“I have concerns about the recent reports that the Society of Media Lawyers, who are against Slapp reform, has had significant access to Ministers and civil servants while lobbying against stronger protections for journalists, whistleblowers and campaigners,” Leishman said.
“Slapps continue to be used by the super wealthy and super powerful to silence investigative reporting and public-interest speech; will the Government bring forward meaningful and undiluted anti-Slapp legislation,” he added.
Our investigation, based on hundreds of pages of documents released under Freedom of Information law and numerous interviews, revealed how the Society of Media Lawyers had opposed Slapp legislation. The lobbying appeared to be having an effect, with anti-Slapp measures being shelved from a civil justice and courts bill in February.
The calls for Slapps reform extended to the House of Lords. On Monday, Baroness Stowell said she was disappointed that Slapps did not appear in the King’s Speech last week and announced that she would bring forward a Slapps Private Members’ Bill.
Stowell’s proposed bill would include measures such as an early dismissal mechanism to prevent cases from moving forward if the claim is not likely to succeed and if the public interest expression outweighs the alleged harm to the claimant, as well as measures to protect defendants from adverse cost orders in Slapp cases.
“To be clear, this mechanism would not prevent claims from being brought, but would prevent claims without realistic merit consuming disproportionate resources and doing so much harm,” Stowell said.
The lawyers write back
The parliamentary response was not the only reaction to our investigation. A few hours after publication on Friday afternoon, an email landed from the Society of Media Lawyers itself.
The letter - signed only “TSML” - said the Society was unhappy with how we had reported its position (you can judge for yourself) and was “proposing to publish online an article correcting inaccuracies and omissions in your article and setting out properly the position of TSML”.
The Society also demanded to know “whether you support or oppose the question of legislative reform concerning SLAPPs to be referred to the Law Commission for proper analysis and if so why”.
Between us, in two decades of journalism, we can’t recall the subject of an investigation demanding that we declare our position on a policy question. We replied asking the Society to point to any errors in our work.
A significantly longer letter followed. Again there were no concrete examples of inaccuracy - but plenty of disquiet about our describing the lawyers’ lobbying as, well, lobbying.
The Society also decried us as campaigners for Slapps reform and noted that “you have signed several letters prepared by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition” - something we mentioned in the investigation itself.
Given the Society’s stated intention to publish “an article correcting inaccuracies and omissions”, we expect a piece “exposing” Democracy for Sale to appear shortly. (You can read some of our correspondence on the TSML’s website….)
We will continue to expose any system in which the rich and powerful can use the courts to silence not just journalists, but experts, campaigners and even victims of sexual violence. That is what the original investigation was about. The parliamentary response this week suggests we are not the only ones who think it matters.
The rich and powerful have lawyers. We have readers. If you’re not already a paying member of Democracy for Sale, please consider joining us - it’s the only reason we can keep doing this work.
A subscription costs £50 a year. Paid subscribers can add comments and access other exclusive content. You can unsubscribe at any time and receive a refund of your unused subscription.
Keep rattling their cage…..”they don’t like it up ‘em”
Excellent work, keep fighting. We are sick and tired of these gangsters. 👏