Osborne Clarke lawyer penalized £50,000 for sending a 'without prejudice' email regarding Nadhim Zahawi.
A partner at Osborne Clarke has been penalized with a fine of £50,000 and is required to pay substantial costs amounting to £260,000 after a disciplinary tribunal determined that he violated regulatory guidelines in a "without prejudice" email directed to a former Magic Circle partner who has transitioned into a tax blogger.
This incident traces back to the summer of 2022, during which Ashley Simon Hurst, the head of client strategy at Osborne Clarke, was providing counsel to Nadhim Zahawi, the then-chairman of the Conservative Party, regarding reputational issues amidst intense media scrutiny concerning his tax matters.
The tribunal was informed that Hurst dispatched an email, labeled "without prejudice," to Dan Neidle, a former partner at Clifford Chance and the head of the think tank Tax Policy Associates, in response to Neidle's public assertions that Zahawi was not providing adequate answers. The email further stated that Neidle was "not entitled to publish it or refer to it other than for the purposes of seeking legal advice." Neidle subsequently lodged a complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which initiated charges against Hurst, claiming that he had "improperly attempted to restrict" Neidle's ability to publish or discuss the contents of the email.
After a five-day hearing, the disciplinary tribunal concluded on Friday that Hurst's email was in violation of the SRA code. A separate allegation concerning a letter was deemed not proven. The tribunal imposed a fine of £50,000 on Hurst and mandated that he cover costs of £260,000. While the media initially characterized this case as the first disciplinary action related to a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), the tribunal clarified that it did not regard the email as fitting that definition. It emphasized that Hurst made "no attempt" to hinder scrutiny of Zahawi's tax affairs and that the email "was not seeking to stop Mr. Neidle from asking questions based on facts as he perceived them." A representative for Osborne Clarke stated: "We are extremely surprised and disappointed with this outcome in light of the legal position and evidence presented at the Tribunal. We will await the detailed reasons of the Tribunal before proceeding."
Neidle submitted a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which subsequently initiated charges against Hurst, accusing him of having “improperly attempted to restrict” Neidle’s ability to publish or discuss the contents of the email. After a five-day hearing, the disciplinary tribunal determined on Friday that Hurst’s email constituted a violation of the SRA code. However, a separate allegation concerning a letter was deemed not proven.
The tribunal imposed a fine of £50,000 on Hurst and mandated that he cover costs amounting to £260,000. While the media initially characterized this case as the first disciplinary action related to a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), the tribunal clarified that it did not regard the email as fitting that definition. The tribunal observed that Hurst made “no attempt” to hinder the examination of Zahawi’s tax matters and that the email “was not seeking to stop Mr. Neidle from asking questions based on facts as he perceived them.” A representative from Osborne Clarke stated: “We are profoundly surprised and disappointed with this outcome, considering the legal context and evidence presented at the Tribunal. We will await the Tribunal's detailed reasoning before providing further commentary.” The complete reasoning of the tribunal is expected to be released in the upcoming weeks.
