Reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority

So people set up a Twitter account for Galloway’s victims.

A Twitter account has been set up to offer free legal advice to those apparently being sued by George Galloway.

A number of people reported being sent a letter written by lawyers acting on behalf of the Respect MP, informing them that they need to pay over £6,000 each, according to The Times.

In response the @SuedByGalloway account has sprung up purporting to put people in touch with solicitors and lawyers who can offer them free legal advice on the issue.

Those behind the account – who wish to remain anonymous – told the Huffington Post UK: “We are doing this because we are disgusted with the way Galloway is threatening and intimidating people on Twitter thus attempting to stifle free speech and free expression.”

There has been a lot of response.

One of the lawyers helping those behind the account is Mark Lewis of Seddons Solicitors who has past form helping people defend against libel claims who normally wouldn’t be able to pay the legal costs.

He confirmed his involvement to the Huffington Post and said: “It must have been very frightening for individuals to get demands for £5000 plus VAT for the legal costs for sending one letter.

“Someone has to stand up to this type of demand. I have advised that a report be made to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority in respect of such action.”

Quite right. And the next day, so it came about.

A legal firm acting for Respect MP George Galloway will be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), it has emerged.

Lewis, who was a leading figure in the News of the World hacking scandal confirmed to the Huffington Post UK that he would be making a complaint to the SRA on behalf of three clients on Wednesday.

Informing Legal Cheek the costs demanded in the letters “could never be justified”, he said: “A lawyer’s duty is to stand up for people who cannot otherwise defend themselves from very threatening demands. Mr Galloway’s solicitors claimed £5,000 plus VAT for standard letters on top of damages. That is horrific and brings the solicitor’s profession into disrepute.

“Mr Galloway’s spokesman says that the letters weren’t shown to the client before they were sent. This is a matter of practice and the SRA must investigate.”

Dreadful man. I hope he is humiliated and baffled.


  1. Blanche Quizno says

    Now THAT’s encouraging!! Lawyers should not be allowed to behave as organized-crime thugs for hire, essentially threatening to break people’s kneecaps unless they pay protection money.

  2. karmacat says

    If he were really smart he would sending letters saying Obama will be sending people to FEMA camps unless they send him money. It seems to work for the GOP in the US

  3. says

    How much more of this bullshit will have to happen before British MPs decide to get off their asses and change their libel laws already? The fact that this wasn’t done YEARS ago, when a Holocaust-denier sued people who called him a Holocaust-denier, says a lot about UK lawmakers.

  4. RJW says

    Lawyers have a long tradition of sending threatening letters, as many citizens who have objected to a proposed development in their neighbourhood will confirm.
    The issue might have been referred to the SRA, however the outcome is another matter entirely, let’s hope.

  5. machintelligence says

    For those who are not aware of it. I recommend the response in Arkell vs Pressdram.

    Arkell v. Pressdram is an otherwise obscure libel action initiated against the British satirical magazine Private Eye. The substance of the alleged libel was that Arkell was accepting bribes. What made the action famous, and a point of reference years later, was the following exchange of letters:

    Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.)

    We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell’s first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

    Private Eye

    We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: f*ck off.

    From an answer on Snopes

  6. says

    I love Private Eye, its the only print source I really trust on domestic news.

    I don’t often wish to win millions on the lottery but this time it would be worth the money just to be able to open a twitter account and tweet “George Galloway is an antisemite” (and a rape denier and and odious prick) everyday, until I could reply to one of his letters “please direct your correspondence to my extremely well resourced, extremely expensive lawyer”

  7. says

    oh crap “Holocaust” should have read”rape”.

    To be fair on George the holocaust is one area that he is unequivocal on, although I do get the feeling that he’s only agin it because it was a right wing policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *