Legal groups submit complaint over UK Lawyers for Israel

The European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) and the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) have submitted a formal complaint to the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the regulator of barristers in England and Wales.

It concerns senior barristers David Pannick KC, Anthony Grabiner KC, and Stephen Hockman KC in their role as patrons of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).

The complaint raises concerns that repeated references to the barristers’ professional status in UKLFI correspondence may have amplified the authority and perceived seriousness of legal threats and allegations directed at individuals and organisations engaged in lawful advocacy, cultural work, education, and public expression relating to Palestine.

It argues that this dynamic has increased pressure on recipients, often non-lawyers, required to respond to complex legal claims without equivalent resources or representation.

ELSC and PILC ask the BSB to determine whether this use of professional status engages the Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct, including the duties of integrity and independence, and the requirement to maintain public confidence in the profession.

The complaint focuses on whether senior legal standing has been invoked in a way that materially strengthens pressure on recipients engaged in protected expression.

UKLFI, founded in 2011, describes its mission as opposing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and what it calls the “delegitimisation of Israel”. It has described its patrons as:

some of the most distinguished members of the legal profession in the United Kingdom.

Complaint suggests UKLFI is exerting undue pressure

The complaint argues that the repeated foregrounding of senior barristers in correspondence may elevate the perceived legal weight of UKLFI’s communications.

The complaint comes on behalf of a cross-sector coalition including teachers, migrant organisations, student unions, NGOs, healthcare professionals, and cultural practitioners, all of whom have submitted impact statements.

It situates these concerns within a wider pattern documented by ELSC across education, healthcare, culture, workplaces, and grassroots organisations, with UKLFI appearing 128 times in the ELSC Britain Index of Repression, a database recording the systematic repression of Palestine solidarity in Britain.

Across these sectors, teachers, students, healthcare workers, cultural practitioners, and activists are among those most frequently affected. As outlined in the complaint, the cumulative effect is a chilling environment in which individuals and organisations adjust or withdraw lawful Palestine-related activity in anticipation of legal or institutional escalation.

ELSC and PILC have asked the BSB to:

• Investigate the involvement of the named barristers in relevant correspondence.
• Assess compliance with the Bar Standards Code of Conduct.
• Issue guidance on the use of professional titles in communications with non-lawyers and civil society organisations.

An ELSC spokesperson said:

This complaint points to a pattern of legal intimidation through the use of senior legal status in correspondence targeting individuals and organisations engaged in Palestine advocacy, escalating pressure on non-legal actors and amplifying perceived legal risk.

The effect is a chilling environment that deters lawful public support for Palestine, particularly amid a mass global movement in response to the situation in Gaza. As our report On All Fronts sets out, these mechanisms are deliberate attempts to erase Palestinian from public consciousness.

This narrows democratic space, threatens freedom of expression, and must be examined by the regulator to protect public confidence in the legal profession.

A spokesperson for PILC added:

The legal profession carries real authority, and that authority should never be used, or appear to be used, to intimidate people or organisations engaged in lawful campaigning and public debate.

For small charities and grassroots campaign groups showing solidarity with Palestine, receiving legal correspondence that appears to carry the backing of some of the most senior figures at the Bar can be deeply intimidating, particularly where they do not have access to legal advice of their own.

This complaint asks the Bar Standards Board to consider whether the prestige and professional status associated with King’s Counsel has been used in a way that falls short of the standards expected.

At the heart of this complaint is the public interest, that is protecting democratic participation, safeguarding freedom of expression, and ensuring that people are not discouraged from speaking out or organising lawfully because of the fear of legal intimidation.

Featured image via Chris J Ratcliffe / Getty Images