Judge blasts law firm for ‘unreasonably intimidating’ witness in high-profile race bias employment claim
A London law firm has been accused of intimidating a witness in a high-stakes employment tribunal case, prompting a scathing rebuke from a judge who called the firm’s conduct “unreasonable” and “heavy-handed.”
C Legal, based in the capital, is defending itself against a discrimination and victimisation claim brought by Amir Naghdi, a former LLP member and non-solicitor, who alleges a workplace culture biased in favour of white and/or Jewish individuals. At a preliminary hearing before the London Central Employment Tribunal, Judge Heydon criticised the firm for pressuring a former employee who was expected to testify in support of Naghdi’s claims.
The witness, a former staff member, had clearly asked not to be contacted. Nonetheless, C Legal sent them two letters—one referencing a possible report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) following a data subject request, and another requesting they preserve evidence while suggesting they would provide false testimony. As a result, the witness has now withdrawn from the case.
Judge Heydon said he could understand why the former employee perceived the letters as “unnecessarily aggressive and intimidating.” He found the threat of SRA involvement to be an “overreaction and poorly judged,” adding that while the request to preserve evidence was legally valid, it was delivered with “thinly veiled threats of regulatory action.”
“This did amount to unreasonable conduct,” the judge ruled. “If a party believes a witness might give untrue evidence, the correct approach is to challenge it in cross-examination—not through veiled threats.”
The tribunal also heard that C Legal had failed to properly disclose evidence by submitting an altered version of meeting minutes related to Naghdi’s expulsion from the firm. Entire sections were deleted under claims of legal professional privilege. While the judge acknowledged the right to withhold genuinely privileged material, he flagged that the firm removed an entire document and reassembled a new one made only of non-privileged extracts, which constituted a breach of disclosure obligations.
Despite these findings, Judge Heydon ruled that it would be disproportionate to strike out C Legal’s entire defence, stating that a fair trial remained possible. He also rejected a counter-application from the firm to have Naghdi’s claim thrown out for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Though the hearing was preliminary and the full details of the case are yet to be aired in court, the outline of Naghdi’s claims is striking. He alleges he was subject to direct discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and detriments linked to whistleblowing. C Legal LLP is named as the primary respondent alongside Clintons LLP and six other parties connected to the dispute.
C Legal insists there is no basis to the discrimination allegations and argues that recent evidence undermines key aspects of Naghdi’s claims. The firm maintains that none of the pleadings or disclosed material supports his accusations of racial or religious bias.
However, Judge Heydon concluded that the issues could not be resolved without a full fact-finding hearing. He ordered that the case proceed to trial, where the tribunal will assess the credibility of the parties and witnesses under cross-examination.
The decision sets the stage for a high-profile trial involving claims of workplace discrimination and regulatory threats, with potential reputational fallout for a major London legal player. As proceedings continue, the tribunal’s final judgment could offer rare insight into the internal workings of elite legal firms and their handling of diversity, conduct, and whistleblowing complaints.
