Right-to-reply letter threatening a journalist with remedies unavailable in a civil claim (SLAPPs)

The SRA's SLAPPs warning notice says solicitors must not bring or threaten unmeritorious claims or use intimidatory or oppressive tactics. It lists 'claiming consequences or remedies which are exaggerated, or which would not be available on the facts, such as fines or imprisonment upon a civil claim' as conduct likely to lead to regulatory action. Defamation is a civil wrong, so threatening the journalist with imprisonment and a criminal fine would mislead her (Code para 1.4) and take unfair advantage of her (para 1.2). The notice also warns against labels that give the appearance of court or legal authority where this is not warranted, such as 'Legal Notice'. The firm can still act for Mr Grant. A client is entitled to protect their reputation, and the firm may respond to the right-to-reply request, deny allegations on instructions and set out properly arguable legal positions. It must decline to act in the abusive way he proposes and advise him why.

Why A is wrong: Where they conflict, the duties to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice take precedence over the client's interests.

Why B is wrong: 'Without prejudice' should be used only for a genuine attempt to settle a dispute, and the label would not cure exaggerated or misleading threats.

Why C is wrong: The SRA recognises clients' legitimate right to protect their reputation; not every letter to a journalist is a SLAPP, and the firm may act by proper means.

Why D is wrong: Not every claim is properly arguable, and the threatened remedies here would not be available on a civil claim at all.