Defamation and harassment against a solicitor

• Case study: defamed after misgendering – when social media destroys reputations
• Defamation against a business
• Defamation on Facebook – low cost identification

Solicitor defamed online: how false reviews and Facebook posts damaged a legal practice and what we did to stop it

Running a legal practice carries immense responsibility and public scrutiny. When a former client’s relative began spreading false fraud claims on Facebook, Trustpilot and local forums, the impact on Emily’s firm was immediate as clients cancelled, partnerships paused and staff morale dropped. Emily turned to us to protect her reputation and stop the escalating damage.

The problem: how an unresolved family dispute led to defamatory attacks online

Legal strategy to halt defamation, harassment and reputational damage against a solicitor

Legal explanation: how UK law protects solicitors and professionals from online smear campaigns

The outcome: business safeguarded and false allegations removed

Lawyers’ thoughts on the case

The problem: how an unresolved family dispute led to defamatory attacks online

This is the story of Emily Dawson (name changed), a qualified solicitor and director of a legal services company specialising in wills and estate planning. After more than a decade building a trusted practice and serving over 80,000 clients, Emily found herself the subject of a vicious, untrue, and coordinated smear campaign by a member of the public.

Emily’s firm had helped an elderly couple create new wills, after they disclosed serious concerns about their son’s conduct. There was documented evidence that the couple felt coerced into a previous will and had reported their son’s behaviour to social services. Emily’s team followed legal protocol and acted with full transparency.

When the son discovered that his parents had updated their estate plans and changed executors, he began publishing false allegations online. He claimed Emily was not really a solicitor and accused her of exploiting vulnerable people. And he painted her firm as a scam operation entirely without evidence.

The posts appeared across social media, including Facebook aliases like “Civic Lion” and “Milo Craft,” as well as other male names believed to be created or used by the son. He even shared her photograph and details of her firm. Some posts were published in local community groups, while others were shared more widely.

The implication was that Emily and her firm were dishonest and those implications were spreading. Then came the fallout. Clients cancelled appointments. Prospective clients who had seen the posts didn’t proceed. A local hospice with whom Emily’s firm had a long-standing referral relationship paused their collaboration. The posts were causing direct commercial harm to her legal business.

Despite multiple attempts to report the content to platforms, little was done. Emily feared the impact on her firm, her staff, and her personal reputation. She had worked hard to build something reputable and ethical and now it was being chipped away by a single person with a grudge.

Legal strategy to halt defamation, harassment and reputational damage against a solicitor

We acted swiftly. With defamation claims restricted to a 12-month window, our first task was to preserve all relevant evidence. We captured screenshots, post URLs, aliases used, and timestamps documenting more than 50 defamatory publications across various platforms.

We then drafted a formal letter before action, addressed to the individual responsible. This was no generic cease and desist, it was tailored, forceful, and backed by solid legal argument. The letter detailed defamation, harassment, breaches of privacy, and breaches of data protection law. We served it via a professional process server to ensure it was received in person.

At the same time, we reported the posts directly to platforms like Facebook and Trustpilot, using legal language to demand removal of the posts under platform policies and UK law. We also contacted administrators of Facebook groups where posts had been shared, encouraging them to take them down before they became liable too.

One critical step was engaging with the local hospice that had distanced itself from Emily’s firm. They had made this decision based on the online posts, without ever notifying Emily or allowing her to respond.

 We highlighted this unfairness and explained the legal background. Our intervention helped them understand that they had acted prematurely. Emily’s goal wasn’t revenge she simply wanted the abuse to stop, her business to recover, and her peace of mind restored. We made that our goal too.

Legal explanation: how UK law protects solicitors and professionals from online smear campaigns

Solicitors and regulated legal businesses face unique vulnerabilities when targeted by online defamation. Unlike most professions, legal practitioners are bound by strict duties of client confidentiality, meaning they often cannot publicly respond to false accusations- even when those accusations relate to the very work they’ve been instructed to carry out.

This makes them an easy target for one-sided attacks, especially when grievances arise from emotionally charged family disputes. In this case, Emily’s inability to publish her side of the story due to her obligations as a solicitor, meant the defamatory narrative gained traction unchecked.

While the son of former clients was free to post whatever he liked, Emily was legally restrained from correcting the record, a reality faced by many lawyers under similar pressure. Moreover, Emily’s legal business, like many modern small firms relied heavily on its online presence and reputation. Clients found the firm via search engines, social media, and reviews.

This made the business especially susceptible to reputational damage from online posts, even when those posts were false. For businesses of this size, a handful of defamatory reviews on Google can have immediate commercial consequences, as potential clients quickly move on if they see allegations of fraud, dishonesty, or misconduct. In terms of legal routes, several overlapping protections applied in this case:

Defamation:

To succeed in a defamation claim, individuals (like Emily) must show the false publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to their reputation. For companies, including law firms, the test is stricter- the business must prove the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss.

 In this case, both thresholds were arguably met. Emily’s personal reputation was under direct attack, and her firm had suffered commercial harm including client cancellations and reputational fallout.

Harassment:

 Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, it is unlawful to pursue a course of conduct which causes alarm or distress. While harassment claims are typically personal, a company may bring an online harassment claim in certain circumstances, particularly where the director or principal is being targeted in their official capacity, and the company has a duty to protect them. This is especially relevant for small firms where the identity of the solicitor and the brand are closely linked.

Breach of privacy:

Posting Emily’s photograph, name, and professional background online, without her consent and in a context designed to humiliate or damage her, constituted a misuse of private information and breach of her right to privacy.

Breach of data protection:

Where personal data, including identity, role, and images, are processed (i.e., published online) without a lawful basis, and in a way that causes harm, this can breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). For regulated professionals, the reputational and emotional harm can be significant and legally actionable.

Malicious falsehood:

This tort offers protection where false statements have been made maliciously and caused financial loss. It can be useful in cases where defamatory wording might be difficult to prove but where the intent to cause harm is clear. It also does not require proof that the words are defamatory- only that they were untrue, malicious, and damaging.

Our legal strategy included elements of each of these areas, ensuring Emily and her firm were protected on every front. This multi-faceted approach is often vital in cases involving professionals, where both personal and corporate reputations are at stake, and where professional obligations limit the ability to fight fire with fire in the public arena.

The outcome: business safeguarded and false allegations removed

Following service of the legal warning, the impact was swift. Several Facebook threads were deleted. The defamatory Trustpilot review that falsely accused Emily’s firm of being fraudulent was removed. No further posts were made. We kept full documentation of all removals and preserved every piece of evidence in case enforcement was needed.

 Although the local hospice decided to stop referring clients to any will writing firms as a neutral policy change, our advocacy ensured Emily’s firm was no longer being singled out or judged unfairly. This wasn't just about taking content offline. It was about protecting Emily’s identity, her legal career, and her company’s reputation in the community.

 Our client told us she finally felt at peace, after months of anxiety. Her business stabilised, and she was able to enjoy a long-delayed honeymoon without fear of what might appear on social media while she was away.

Lawyers’ thoughts on the case

This case illustrates how false online claims can spiral into real-world damage and how quickly reputations can be undermined, even in highly regulated professions like law.

For solicitors, the damage is compounded by their inability to respond publicly. Professional conduct rules, particularly those governed by the SRA Code of Conduct, place strict obligations on solicitors to maintain client confidentiality, uphold the integrity of the profession, and avoid public commentary on sensitive matters. This means that even when serious and false allegations are made online, a solicitor may be ethically barred from issuing a public rebuttal.

To those unfamiliar with these professional duties, the lack of response can appear as silence or even guilt, which only exacerbates the harm. Many solicitors and legal professionals wrongly believe that because they follow strict professional rules, they are automatically protected.

Online platforms do not fact-check accusations. Community groups rarely seek the other side of the story. That’s why legal action is sometimes essential, not just for the sake of your name, but for the sake of your business. One of the most effective moves in this case was serving the legal letter in person. It sent a clear signal that this matter was not going away, and that accountability would follow.

We believe more professionals should feel empowered to take action when their integrity is being challenged unfairly. We were proud to stand beside Emily and even more proud to help her silence the lies and get her life back on track.