---

Solicitor before SDT over schools correspondence

An England-and-Wales solicitor sent 240 legal letters to schools making misleading threats over the use of COVID-19 face masks, lateral flow tests and vaccinations, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has heard.  

The letters on headed paper from solicitor Lois Yvonne Bayliss’s firm, made threats about civil and criminal liability, the Solicitors Regulation Authority said.

They were sent to 247 schools and academies and Bayliss is also alleged to have encouraged 48 other people to send similar letters, the England and Wales Law Society Gazette has reported.

Bayliss, of Sheffield-based Broad Yorkshire Law, said that the letters were not legally threatening and that she had no intention of issuing any legal claim.

The SDT panel heard that Bayliss accepted she had sent the letters or made them available to others to send - but had not written them.

Counsel Benjamin Tankel said though Bayliss maintained she was not trying to threaten anyone, the letters were at least passive-aggressive about saying ‘we will continue to await your response to this polite letter’.

“By [Bayliss’] own evidence she had no subjective intention to bring a legal claim and yet the letters give the distinct impression that a legal claim is in contemplation because the recipients will have received this unsolicited lawyer’s letter, the terms are legalistic, there are references to legal liability,” he said.

Tankel told the tribunal that lawyers could "publish on their website or Twitter feed or LinkedIn saying 'This is my view, teachers may wish to be aware that there are these legal risks' as long as that is done in a proper way".

Point of law

He added: “It is entirely legitimate to publish a blogpost on a point of law, or write to her MP, go to a protest…there are a number of other options that were available to Miss Bayliss rather than bringing these challenges in the way that she did,” he said.

Avoidable harm

Conceding that Miss Bayliss “meant well”, he continued: “She was trying to prevent what she saw was avoidable harm to many children and I do not think there would be many people that would say that is not an objectively morally good aim but, however strong her moral convictions were, that did not justify her going about making misleading and improper statements with a view to putting her own views and beliefs above government policy.”

The four-day hearing continues, the England and Wales Law Society Gazette has reported.