Osborne Clarke partner spent £900k defending 'without prejudice' misconduct case

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has published its full ruling against Osborne Clarke litigation partner Ashley Hurst from December's high-profile case accusing Hurst of professional misconduct over his attempts to silence tax campaigner Dan Neidle.

Background

Hurst, head of client strategy at Osborne Clarke, was found to have acted improperly in July 2022 when he sent an email to tax campaigner (and former Clifford Chance tax partner) Dan Neidle, aiming to shut down reporting on his client Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs - at the time a sitting chancellor and Conservative leadership hopeful.

The email, sent on a Saturday evening and marked "Confidential & Without Prejudice", warned Neidle he wasn’t entitled to publish or refer to it "other than for the purposes of seeking legal advice". It added that doing so would be "a serious matter".

Findings

While the tribunal stopped short of labelling the email a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), it made clear the attempt to block publication was improper. The use of labels like "without prejudice" wasn’t backed by a genuine attempt at settlement, the tribunal said, but a "desire to suppress publication".

The panel found Hurst had "either ignored or dismissed his regulatory responsibilities" in favour of stopping disclosure, concluding that he misled Neidle about his rights with his conduct amounting to taking unfair advantage of him. It called out the lack of integrity in his approach and said public trust had been undermined.

A second allegation over a follow-up letter three days later was rejected. That one, the tribunal said, read more like a request than a restriction couched in legal terms and didn’t amount to a conduct breach.

Hurst’s legal team argued he was acting under pressure and trying to contain a fast-moving defamation risk. The tribunal accepted the conduct was isolated and that Hurst had an otherwise clean disciplinary record.

Fine and costs

Hurst was fined £50,000 by the tribunal.

The costs order was no small matter either. Hurst was told to pay £260,000 in SRA costs - down from £298,000 after the second allegation fell away - but spent £908,000 defending the case himself.