Lawyer’s Anti-Semitic Tweets Cost Him Everything: Shocking Court Ruling

In a landmark ruling, the High Court dismissed an appeal by solicitor Farrukh Najeeb Husain, upholding his striking off from the legal profession for a series of antisemitic tweets posted on the platform then known as Twitter (now X). Husain, admitted as a solicitor in 2014, was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in February 2024 following a detailed investigation into his social media activity. The High Court’s judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Chamberlain in *Farrukh Najeeb Husain v Solicitors Regulation Authority*, reaffirmed the SDT’s findings that Husain’s tweets were not merely political criticism of Israel but constituted anti-Semitic hate speech, breaching principles 2 (acting with integrity), 5 (upholding public trust), and 6 (behaving in a way that maintains public confidence) of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) code.

Husain admitted to authoring the tweets but argued they were posted in a personal capacity and should not warrant professional discipline. The SDT’s March 2024 judgment, described as “detailed and comprehensive,” rejected this defense, identifying specific posts as “instances of antisemitism.” The tribunal highlighted the “frequency, sustained intensity, and cumulative impact” of Husain’s tweets over several months, concluding they were “founded on hatred or hostility towards Jews.” Examples included posts that perpetuated antisemitic tropes, such as portraying Jews as inherently oppressive or denying their right to self-determination, which the SDT deemed “grossly offensive.” While the High Court noted that the SDT may have erred in suggesting all criticism of Israel’s existence as a state is inherently anti-Semitic, Justice Chamberlain clarified that this error was immaterial given the overwhelming evidence of Husain’s hateful rhetoric.

The High Court emphasized that the SDT’s decision to strike off Husain was “plainly correct,” as no lesser sanction could address the severity of his breaches. Justice Chamberlain stated, “In my judgment, the tribunal explained adequately why it had concluded that no lesser sanction than striking off would suffice. I cannot say that this conclusion was wrong in the sense of being ‘clearly inappropriate’ or ‘outside the bounds of what the tribunal could properly and reasonably decide’.” He also urged legal representatives to focus on legal issues and “lower, rather than raise, the temperature of debate” in such polarizing cases, noting that they “understandably evoke strong reactions on both sides.”

Husain’s tweets, which surfaced on X in 2022 and 2023, included inflammatory language targeting Jews, often conflating criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitic stereotypes. Posts on X at the time condemned Husain for statements that echoed classic anti-Semitic tropes, such as alleging Jewish control over global affairs or portraying Israel’s existence as a “racist endeavour.” The case underscores the legal profession’s commitment to upholding public trust and the severe consequences for solicitors who engage in hate speech, even outside professional settings. The ruling sends a clear message that antisemitism, particularly when expressed with such “sustained intensity,” has no place in the legal community.