Bar Standards Board Declines to Investigate UKLFI Patrons: PILC and ELSC to Request Review

PILC and ELSC confirm that we intend to pursue further action and request a review of the BSB’s decision. We reiterate our clients’ concerns around the use of distinguished barristers’ names and professional status on UKLFI correspondence, which lends authority to legal threats and contributes to the suppression of lawful Palestine solidarity activity. Campaigners deserve to trust that legal regulators will adequately scrutinise harmful deployments of the law; we will persist in our efforts to ensure accountability for our clients as well as the broader Palestine movement.  

The Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) and the European Legal Support Center have received a decision from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) declining to investigate complaints made against three senior King's Counsel who act as patrons of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI). Those barristers are Lord David Pannick KC, Lord Anthony Grabiner KC and Stephen Hockman KC.

Our joint complaints on behalf of charities and solidarity groups arose from concerns that the continued use of these distinguished barristers' names and professional status on UKLFI correspondence lends authority to legal threats. In our view and that of many of our clients, that role has contributed to the suppression of lawful Palestine solidarity activity across the United Kingdom.

BSB decision

The BSB has decided not to open a formal investigation into any of the three complaints. Its position is that, although each barrister is a named patron of UKLFI, there is insufficient evidence that they authored, approved or had knowledge of the specific correspondence issued by the organisation. The regulator also concluded that it is not unusual for organisations to highlight the professional standing of their patrons and that it found no evidence of unauthorised litigation or other breaches of the BSB Handbook. We have been notified that the complaints have been closed without any enforcement action.

While we acknowledge the BSB's decision, our clients are deeply disappointed by this outcome.

The original complaints to the BSB

Our complaints were never based solely upon authorship of individual letters. They raised broader regulatory questions: can senior members of the Bar permit their names, titles and professional standing to be repeatedly deployed by an organisation engaged in aggressive legal correspondence? Given that the UKLFI makes repeated and vacuous claims which are designed to deter campaign groups, charities, and community organisations from expressing solidarity with Palestine, how does that not attract any professional responsibility?

Over recent years, UKLFI has become a significant source of legal threats directed towards those organising Palestine-related events. Many recipients are small charities, volunteer organisations or campaign groups with limited access to legal advice. Even where no proceedings ultimately follow, such correspondence has a significant chilling effect. Events have been cancelled, venues have withdrawn support and organisations have diverted considerable time and resources to responding to legal threats.

Our concern was that the prominence given to eminent King's Counsel as patrons strengthens the perceived authority of those letters. The repeated reference to "our patrons and members include some of the most distinguished members of the legal profession" is not incidental. It conveys to recipients that the correspondence carries the endorsement or support of some of the country's most senior barristers. The BSB has taken the view that such references are commonplace and do not, without more evidence, amount to professional misconduct.

BSB – an unconvincing response

PILC and ELSC remain unconvinced that the regulatory issues begin and end with authorship. Professional reputation carries influence. Where that reputation is repeatedly invoked in legal correspondence capable of discouraging lawful political expression, it is legitimate to ask responsible regulators to examine closely the responsibilities that accompany such public associations.

This case also raises wider questions about confidence in legal regulation. Our complaints were not seeking to prevent barristers from holding political views or supporting particular causes; barristers, like everyone else, are entitled to participate in public debate. Rather, they concerned the use of professional prestige in circumstances where it contributes to restricting lawful democratic activity through a form of ‘lawfare’, one that we say is being carried out by UKLFI.

For many of our clients, this issue extends well beyond these individual complaints. Can campaigners opposing powerful interests have confidence that legal regulators will scrutinise the deployment of professional status where there is evidence of a wider pattern of conduct affecting freedom of expression and political participation?

The BSB's decision makes clear that a review may be sought where there is new evidence, where the original decision was incorrect or where there has been a procedural error. PILC and ELSC are therefore carefully considering available legal and regulatory avenues to pursue further action. We believe we have sufficient grounds to seek a review of the decision and intend to place further evidence before the regulator.

The issues raised by these complaints are too important to simply dismiss. They concern the proper boundaries of professional responsibility, the accountability of those whose status carries exceptional influence within the legal profession, and the ability of civil society organisations to engage in lawful advocacy on one of the defining human rights issues of our time.

Our clients deserve clear answers.