The Respondent’s position had been that certain measures taken by the government in relation to the immunisation of school age children against Covid-19 were harmful, and that information about this harm was being withheld from the public. It was her case that she had been entitled as a solicitor to oppose the policy, based on a body of scientific evidence and her deeply held views.

The Applicant’s case was that the Respondent, as a solicitor, was bound by rules of professional conduct which she should have observed and followed. In promoting her views in this manner she had crossed the line from personal activism into professional misconduct.

The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent sent letters containing implied legal threats to between 244-247 schools and more than 400 recipients. She relied on her position as a solicitor to tell recipients they could be at risk of criminal/civil liability if they required face masks to be worn in schools, carried out routine lateral flow tests or facilitated Covid vaccinations for children aged 12-17.

The Tribunal did not find proved that the Respondent had encouraged others to send the letters or that the threats in themselves were misleading.

The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities:

Allegation 1.1 proved in part
Allegation 1.2 not proved
Allegation 1.3 proved in full

Collectively, the Tribunal found proved breaches of Principles 2 and 5 of the Principles, and a breach of Paragraph 1.2 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct.