The Tribunal’s decision dated 15 August 2025 is subject to an appeal (costs only) by the Respondent to the High Court (Administrative Court). The Order remains in force pending the High Court’s determination of the appeal.

The Respondent, a solicitor and director at Cartwright Solicitors, was sanctioned by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for posting antisemitic and/or offensive and/or inappropriate content on Facebook and Twitter between November 2019 and January 2022. The case involved 21 social media posts that came to the SRA’s attention through public complaints and antisemitic watchdog reports. The Respondent’s ‘s posts exhibited systematic patterns of antisemitic content, including accusations of disloyalty against prominent British Jews, conspiracy theories about Jewish financial influence, religious defamation (claiming “Jews did whack Jesus”), and broader conspiracy theories about Jewish control of the media and involvement in 9/11. The posts targeted specific individuals including the Chief Rabbi, Rachel Riley, and politicians, often using crude and seriously offensive language.

The Respondent admitted to the antisemitic nature of most posts and expressed genuine remorse, undertaking self-education about antisemitism and meeting with Jewish community members. However, the case raised complex questions about the boundaries between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, and antisemitism. The defence argued that anti-Zionist speech was protected political expression, while the prosecution, supported by expert witness Dr Dave Rich, demonstrated how the posts employed traditional antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories. The Tribunal found that while political criticism of Israel is legitimate, the Respondent’s conduct crossed into antisemitism through his deliberate use of inflammatory language designed to cause maximum offence and/or impact.