Three of Britain’s most senior barristers have been accused of lending the weight of their professional status to a pro-Israel lawfare campaign targeting Palestine solidarity activists, charities, student groups, teachers and cultural workers.
The allegation forms part of a formal complaint submitted to the Bar Standards Board (BSB) by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) and the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC). The complaint names Lord David Pannick KC, Lord Anthony Grabiner KC and Stephen Hockman KC in their roles as patrons of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).
The BSB regulates barristers in England and Wales. The complaint asks the regulator to examine whether the three barristers’ names and senior legal status were used in UKLFI correspondence in a way that made legal threats and allegations appear more serious to recipients.
UKLFI, founded in 2011, says its mission is to oppose 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”.
ELSC and PILC argue that repeated references to the barristers’ senior status may have added weight to UKLFI letters sent to individuals and organisations involved in lawful advocacy, education, cultural work and public expression relating to Palestine.
The complaint says many of those targeted are not lawyers and often do not have the money or legal support needed to respond to complex legal claims. Campaigners argue that this creates pressure on people to cancel events, withdraw statements or avoid public support for Palestine because they fear legal consequences.
The complaint has been brought on behalf of a broad coalition including teachers, migrant organisations, student unions, NGOs, healthcare professionals and cultural workers. Those involved have submitted statements describing the impact of legal pressure and institutional complaints on their work.
According to ELSC, UKLFI appears 128 times in its Britain Index of Repression, a database which records incidents of pressure and repression directed at Palestine solidarity in Britain. The complaint says this forms part of a wider pattern across education, healthcare, culture, workplaces and grassroots 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 PILC spokesperson said: “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.”
