When Eliot Higgins, the founder of investigative journalism group Bellingcat, published posts on social media linking to a Bellingcat investigation connecting the Wagner mercenary group to its late founder and owner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, he likely anticipated an angry response from Prigozhin and a strong denial of his claims. Instead, he was met with a libel suit and the prospect of a lengthy, expensive and exhausting court battle. Despite being sanctioned by the UK at the time, Prigozhin was given permission to retain solicitors to bring the claim and targeted Higgins personally, rather than Bellingcat or any of the other outlets that had also published the investigation. While the suit was dropped following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Higgins was left with over £70,000 in legal costs and no ability to obtain damages.
The claim against Higgins has become one of the most well-known examples of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), the abusive use of litigation to deter a person or publication from publishing content. The use of SLAPPs to dissuade and punish journalists has surged in recent years—according to the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), which tracks over 800 SLAPPs across Europe, a record 161 new SLAPPs were filed in 2022.
This concerning trend has caught the attention of governments and regulators. The UK government is currently supporting the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, which aims to empower independent judges to dismiss baseless claims before they reach trial, shielding defendants from the burden of crippling legal costs. Mirroring the UK’s efforts, the European Union introduced in May 2024 Directive 2024/1069 “on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings.” The Directive notably seeks to impose penalties on claimants bringing SLAPPs and enable individuals and media outlets to request the early dismissal of a SLAPP.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has also taken action, issuing a warning notice in 2022 which drew attention to the troubling trend of solicitors and law firms engaging in SLAPPs on behalf of their clients. The SRA then followed up with a thematic review, published in April 2024, which examined “law firm understanding of best practice to avoid getting involved in SLAPPs.” The thematic review aimed to assess law firms’ knowledge and understanding of SLAPPs, as well as their compliance with the SRA’s guidance. Crucially, the review also looked at how firms are using public relations and investigations firms, addressing concerns that some firms instructed by law firms “might be engaging in unethical and/or unlawful activity,” including “hacking, trespassing, illegal surveillance or publishing false statements.” Although no illegal or unethical activities were detected on the part of these third parties, the review brought to light deficiencies in due diligence and oversight practices at law firms.
One discovery was the lack of written policies or template letters of instruction and terms of engagement with third parties which the firms engaged. This absence suggests a deficiency in establishing clear guidelines and expectations when engaging external parties, potentially leaving room for ambiguity or misinterpretation of roles and responsibilities. These findings underscore the urgent need for law firms to bolster their processes and controls surrounding the engagement of third-party entities.
The SRA also urged firms to ensure that they have “systems and controls in place so that any third parties instructed by a PR company or a private investigator do not cause or substantially contribute to a breach of our regulatory arrangements.” It expressed concern that not all law firms reviewed arrangements between PR companies and any third parties they instructed, and that third parties were not always prevented from being instructed without appropriate consent. It provided a checklist of suggested due diligence checks and issues to include in written policies and letters of instruction.
For reputation managers, the SRA’s efforts to guide and better supervise law firms’ use of, and collaboration with, PR companies carry significant implications since they can apply to all engagements with law firms, not just those pertaining to defamation suits. Reputation managers working with lawyers should therefore familiarise themselves with the latest regulation and guidance and take these into consideration when devising strategies to protect their clients’ reputation and support a legal strategy.
For the legal industry, greater regulation and punishment of SLAPPs might encourage a shift towards more nuanced strategies in crafting multifaceted approaches to reputation management. Indeed, the Society of Media Lawyers recently warned the UK government that the proposed anti-SLAPP bill would “entirely tilt the balance so that any misconduct on the part of claimants can lead to draconian outcomes but equal or even worse conduct on the part of media defendants has no equal consequence.” It expressed strong concerns that lawyers and clients might be discouraged from pursuing legitimate defamation claims.
In this context, lawyers and their clients may become more inclined to work more closely with reputation managers and other third parties to consider strategies that extend beyond traditional legal pathways, such as engaging directly with the media—clarifying facts, providing counter-narratives and fostering positive relationships with journalists to manage and protect their reputations more effectively. This approach not only addresses immediate concerns but also builds a more resilient and accurate public representation over time, aligning legal strategies with proactive reputation management.
