There were unprecedented scenes this week at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as the high-profile prosecution of lawyer Christopher Hutchings by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was moved into private session.
One day into the trial, members of the public and press were dramatically excluded from the Tribunal hearing while evidence of an alleged blackmail threat made by the Hamlins LLP solicitor against a journalist was heard behind closed doors.
As the second case pursued by the SRA in response to complaints about “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (SLAPPs), this misguided move into secret proceedings is a serious blow to public confidence in regulatory efforts to hold lawyers to account for abusive legal tactics.
This lack of transparency is deeply damaging to the Tribunal’s credibility and seriously diminishes the deterrent effect of disciplinary action taken by the SRA. Shutting out public scrutiny of the proceedings is also profoundly troubling in a case that, at its heart, is about attempts to stifle public interest journalism.
Alarming allegations of attempted “blackmail”
Christopher Hutchings, a partner specialising in reputation management at Hamlins LLP, has been taken to task by his regulator for allegedly threatening a journalist with contempt of court proceedings – carrying a possible jail term – if the journalist refused to grant a copyright licence. The copyright licence was intended to be used by Hutchings’ client as a “take down” remedy so that re-publications of the journalist’s material could be removed from US websites.
The SRA contends that this improper threat of litigation was made in the course of a telephone call in which Hutchings made “untruthful” and “dishonest” statements to the journalist’s own solicitor. These false statements were that Hutchings had been advised by a barrister that his client had a “strong case” for bringing contempt proceedings and had “only learned yesterday” that he was named in a certain publication.
With shocking allegations of attempted blackmail, this case is yet another high-profile prosecution by the SRA that shows the lengths some lawyers are prepared to go to stop journalists and others who scrutinise their client’s dealings.
A cloak of secrecy, and a closed hearing
There can be no doubt that there is significant public interest in this case. The underlying facts pertain to the conduct of a lawyer in relation to an “extremely high-profile scandal” about “widespread corruption” and a “very significant fraud, involving the theft of billions of dollars” which has “spawned criminal and civil proceedings in jurisdictions around the world”. Yet despite its significance and the widespread publicity of the underlying corruption scandal, the Tribunal in June 2025 ordered the extensive anonymisation of 20 key individuals, organisations and publications as well as 81 dates, and directed private hearings for the evidence of certain witnesses.
Notwithstanding such secrecy, the identities of the parties could be discerned from information already in the public domain – including previous court proceedings. Shortly after the public hearing kicked off, a report published by The Times identified the journalist and the underlying corruption scandal. While The Times subsequently removed the article on a ‘without prejudice’ basis, the coverage prompted the Tribunal to declare that the previous measures put in place were “now no longer sufficient to protect legal professional privilege” and directed that the whole hearing be moved to private session.
To its credit, the SRA resisted the Tribunal’s order for a private hearing, stating the imposition of a wholly private hearing was “unprecedented” and that the case had already received “substantial and largely appropriate publicity”. The SRA maintained that the restrictive anonymisation regime already in place was adequate to protect privilege, making further incursions into open justice unwarranted. The regulator’s counsel warned that “the switch to a wholly private hearing halfway through the proceedings has the appearance of a hearing becoming inappropriately wholly secret”.
The SRA briefly considered whether to challenge the Tribunal’s decision to shift proceedings to a wholly private hearing, but subsequently indicated they did not wish to “destabilise proceedings” while they were underway. While the SRA opted not to launch a challenge mid-way through proceedings, it “reserved its position as to the legal consequences that may follow from the Tribunal’s decision”.
The limited evidence revealed to the public
Before the hearing was moved into private session, the SRA told the Tribunal on Monday of Hutchings’ “aggressive strategy” designed to “exert maximum pressure” on the journalist to give up the copyright licence. The SRA contends that Hutchings’ client never intended to actually pursue contempt proceedings, but used the threat as “leverage” to secure a collateral advantage – namely, getting the journalist to relinquish their copyright.
The SRA pointed to evidence that Hutchings floated the plan past external legal counsel who “repeatedly emphasised the danger of using the threat of contempt proceedings” to achieve the copyright licence, because that would “look like blackmail or a collateral gain”. Despite these warnings from counsel, the SRA contends that Hutchings not only persisted with the threat, but in doing so dishonestly claimed that he had obtained legal advice that there was a “strong case for bringing contempt proceedings”.
The SRA’s case is that in using such threats, Hutchings breached SRA Principles and the Code of Conduct, including the obligation on a solicitor to “act with integrity”, “behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in solicitors and the provision of legal services”, that he failed in his obligation not to “take unfair advantage of third parties”, and that he did so dishonestly.
Hutchings denies allegations that he acted dishonestly or made an improper threat of contempt proceedings. In particular, he denies telling the journalist’s lawyer that counsel advised that his client had “a strong case for bringing contempt proceedings”. He states that while his client “may well have been reluctant to issue contempt proceedings”, he “was prepared to do so as a last resort”. Hutchings also complains that the SRA’s delay in bringing its case has been detrimental to his defence.
The perverse consequences of secrecy in a SLAPP case
The Tribunal’s extensive anonymisation scheme and its drastic decision to entirely shut out the public and press from the proceedings is deeply ironic in a case brought in response to a complaint about SLAPPs. In a case exposing how legal tactics can be deployed to shield important matters from public view, the Tribunal’s proceedings have effectively perpetuated the problem by protecting the identities of individuals accused of seeking to stifle publication through abusive legal tactics.
Far from fostering public confidence in regulatory processes to hold solicitors to account for their role in complaints about SLAPPs, the perception is of a secret case in which lawyers argue behind closed doors about the conduct of other lawyers. This is deeply damaging to the credibility of the Tribunal’s processes and undermines any deterrent effect of regulatory proceedings for others in the legal profession.
Accountability deferred
Given the unexpected delays caused by the arguments to move to a closed hearing, the trial was not wrapped up within the time scheduled for the case. On 17 October, the hearing adjourned part-heard and the Tribunal has advised two further hearing dates on 20 November and 8 December when the case will resume out of the public view. In the meantime, the cloak of secrecy which has been drawn over this case continues to threaten public confidence in accountability for SLAPPs.
Tribunal documents
In the interests of promoting transparency as far as this is possible in a case that has derogated so extensively from the principle of open justice, we are republishing the materials that the Tribunal disclosed to the public on their website during the course of the proceedings:
SRA’s redacted Rule 12 statement
Hutchings’ redacted answer to the Rule 12 statement
SRA’s redacted reply to Hutchings’ answer
The SRA’s redacted skeleton argument
This is deeply damaging to the credibility of the Tribunal’s processes and undermines any deterrent effect of regulatory proceedings for others in the legal profession.
