Solicitor Ashley Hurst fined £50k for ‘without prejudice’ threat to silence Zahawi critic

Ashley Hurst fined £50k for misusing legal privilege to stop Dan Neidle from exposing Zahawi claims

Ashley Simon Hurst, a solicitor at Osborne Clarke LLP, has been fined £50,000 after a disciplinary tribunal found he improperly tried to prevent tax commentator Dan Neidle from publishing an email related to former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled that Hurst misused the label “Without Prejudice” in an email sent on 16 July 2022, and falsely implied that publishing it would have serious legal consequences. The Tribunal found this conduct breached multiple provisions of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019, as well as Principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

Hurst’s email followed online posts by Neidle, a former Clifford Chance partner who now runs Tax Policy Associates, scrutinising Zahawi’s tax arrangements. On 10 July 2022, Neidle had published an article questioning whether Zahawi had used offshore structures to avoid nearly £4 million in capital gains tax. By 16 July, Neidle publicly alleged Zahawi had lied.

That evening, Hurst, writing on behalf of Zahawi, contacted Neidle via an email marked “Confidential & Without Prejudice”. In it, he stated that Neidle had “overstepped the mark” by accusing Zahawi of lying and insisted that Neidle was not entitled to publish or refer to the message except when seeking legal advice. Hurst warned that any disclosure “would be a serious matter”.

The Tribunal determined that Hurst’s intention was not to resolve a dispute but to suppress the publication of damaging material. His use of the “Without Prejudice” label, combined with the implied threat, was found to be improper. The panel rejected Hurst’s claim that the email qualified as a genuine attempt at settlement.

In contrast, a follow-up letter sent by Hurst on 19 July 2022—marked “Private and Confidential” and “Not For Publication”—was ruled not to have breached the rules. The Tribunal accepted it was framed as a request, not an attempt to impose restrictions.

Hurst, under pressure from a high-profile client and working remotely on a Saturday after a family outing, argued that his intention was to de-escalate the situation and obtain a retraction of the dishonesty allegation. He denied trying to mislead Neidle, but admitted he had never used such wording in previous correspondence.

The Tribunal disagreed. It found Hurst’s email sought to mislead Neidle into believing he could not publish it, despite the lack of any legal basis to enforce such a restriction. The panel said this amounted to taking unfair advantage and found his actions undermined public trust in the profession.

While acknowledging Hurst’s previously unblemished career and the short duration of the misconduct, the Tribunal rejected leniency. It ruled that a reprimand or no order would be disproportionate. Instead, it imposed a fine of £50,000—placing the misconduct at the upper end of seriousness, although stopping short of suspension.

In addition, the Tribunal ordered Hurst to pay £260,000 in costs, a reduction from the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s original claim of nearly £300,000. The reduction reflected the failure of one of the two allegations brought.

Though widely portrayed as a landmark SLAPP case, the Tribunal was clear in its conclusion: this was not a SLAPP. It stated that the case should be judged solely on the evidence before it—not broader media narratives or public debates.

Still, the ruling has sent shockwaves through the legal community. It underscores the growing scrutiny over the misuse of legal privilege and confidentiality claims by lawyers representing powerful figures. And it serves as a warning: “Without Prejudice” is not a shield for censorship