Thread by @DanNeidle

Carter-Ruck, the UK’s most notorious libel firm, used abusive litigation to silence criticism of a former Tory donor.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority is investigating - but Carter-Ruck just filed a judicial review. If successful, they'll have total impunity.

Thread:

The donor is Mohamed Amersi.

Former Tory MP @CharlotteLeslie wrote a private note on Amersi's activities. As @DavidDavisMP said, Amersi then "used his wealth and influence to try to bully Charlotte Leslie into silence".

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP Carter-Ruck acted for Amersi suing Ms Leslie for defamation. Carter-Ruck's approach was - in my view, and that of many others - designed to drain Ms Leslie's resources.

The High Court was extremely unimpressed.

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP David Davis said the litigation was a "SLAPP" - strategic litigation against public participation. Abusive litigation intended to silence someone.

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP This is the key paragraph of the High Court judgment. In my view, it backs what David Davis said:

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP Amersi appealed; the Court of Appeal wasn't interested:

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP David Davis then made a series of very serious allegations against Amersi in the House of Commons. It's protected by Parliamentary privilege - so Amersi can't sue Mr Davis.

He's been clear he'll sue anyone repeating them - and is currently suing the BBC (Carter-Ruck again)

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP Abusive litigation is what Carter-Ruck do. In fact Amersi is one of their higher quality clients.

As we reported last month, Carter-Ruck acted for one of the world's largest ever fraudsters in circumstances where Carter-Ruck must have suspected they were helping the fraud.

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP There is no suggestion Amersi is a fraudster; just a bully.

I don't know if the allegations against him are true. I do think we should be able to discuss them.

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP After the collapse of the Amersi litigation, Ms Leslie referred Carter-Ruck to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP At this point a normal firm would explain its position to the SRA.

Carter-Ruck are not a normal firm.

This is their response:

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP It's a judicial review to stop the SRA getting access to privileged documentation.

But the SRA can't possibly investigate a law firm unless it has access (unless the client agrees, which obviously Amersi won't).

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP Why are Carter-Ruck doing this?

I don't know. But I'd speculate: because they have something to hide. There's something in their client correspondence which (for example) proves that the litigation was abusive.

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP But - whatever the motivation - if Carter-Ruck are successful, then the SRA will never be able to investigate a law firm when it acts abusively and unethically.

Carter-Ruck have always acted with complete impunity. They'd like that to continue.

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP And so would Amersi. He threw a Twitter tantrum yesterday when The Lawyer magazine dared publish a report on the JR. Amersi appears to have forgotten that he lost, at the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

(but it's great he has two friends)

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP If I had to guess, I'd say I expect Amersi will lose the BBC litigation too. The public interest defence was intended for cases like this.

@CharlotteLeslie @DavidDavisMP But the problem is that few people would publish a report on Amersi, or anyone like him, when it means years of expensive litigation - even if sure of eventual victory.

We should change the law. And we should reign in rogue firms like Carter-Ruck.