Tweets: Solicitor’s understanding evolved over time
A law firm owner who sent antisemitic messages on social media was attention seeking, rather than antisemitic, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has decided.
It gave Jonathan Lea a suspension of 12 months, itself suspended for two years, which “reflected a conclusion that Mr Lea’s conduct while objectively wrong and professionally inadequate represented an error in judgment rather than a failing deserving of the most severe sanctions available to the tribunal”.
He was also banned from publishing or reposting content on any social media platform relating to race, religion or other protected characteristics “without first taking reasonable steps to ensure that such content complies with his professional obligations”.
Mr Lea, who qualified in 2006, is managing director of Sussex firm The Jonathan Lea Network. Between 2015 and 2023 he posted various messages on X/Twitter that were antisemitic, transphobic and anti-vaccination, while in one tweet encouraged people in Canterbury to break the law by destroying number plate recognition cameras.
He admitted to sending six antisemitic tweets, suggesting among other things that the Holocaust did not happen and embracing conspiracy tropes about Jewish financial control.
He pushed back in abusive terms about the Covid vaccine on four occasions; in one, he said the firm would not act for clients arriving at the firm’s office wearing “Covid muzzles”.
He went on: “We act for discerning clients, not those belonging in a lunatic asylum who are perpetuating serious scientific and medical fraud to our great detriment.”
Mr Lea described transgender women as “mentally unstable men”.
In his initial response to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s investigation in 2023, the solicitor contended that he had “the human right to free expression and free speech which can only be limited when prescribed by law and that any such restriction should only take place where the regulator has a particular expertise in the subject matter at hand”.
However, in 2024, he said this response had been defensive and by 2025 he accepted, “following careful reflection, that the content in question, fell below the professional standards expected of a solicitor”.
In his defence, he said the discriminatory nature of some of his tweets were “things that came to his mind in the heat of the moment”.
Recording his evidence, the SDT said: “He was totally committed to the development of the firm he had spent years building. He did not want to compromise the firm anymore. This is why he had tried to keep the case against him confidential.
“Mr Lea confirmed that one person handed in their notice when details of the hearing were published on the tribunal’s website.” But his office manager and a solicitor at the firm gave supportive evidence.
The SDT concluded: “Mr Lea was motivated to post offensive and inappropriate material on the Twitter/X account by his strong appetite to attract attention.
“The tribunal found that no malice was intended when Mr Lea posted on the Twitter/X account, rather there was a disregard professionally and personally as to the consequences of his actions. There was no intention to cause harm.
“The tribunal found that Mr Lea’s antisemitic posts were not motivated by antisemitism on his part. His posts relating to gender critical issues were transphobic.
“The tribunal carefully considered Mr Lea’s submissions and determined that he did not hold the viewpoints aired in the posts he made on the Twitter/X account between 5 July 2015 and 16 March 2023.”
Rather, he “reacted instantly to material he read on the Twitter/X account, rather than engaging in calculated wrongdoing”.
The tribunal said it “acknowledged the potential, if not actual harm to the public and the sections of society offended by the material posted by Mr Lea” – but also that the complainant who first raised his activity with the SRA “was seriously affected by his actions”.
It found as well that Mr Lea “caused great harm to the groups of society referred to in his posts. Some of his comments were deeply offensive”.
But the SDT said Mr Lea’s understanding of the seriousness of his conduct had “evolved” during the proceedings “and he now demonstrated significant insight”.
Mr Lea submitted that, to protect the public and the legal profession, “a solicitor should restrict engagement with social media to professional platforms such as LinkedIn”.
The SDT decided that a suspended suspension and the restriction order “represented the most appropriate and proportionate sanction it could impose to mark the undoubted seriousness of the misconduct, protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession”.
This allowed for rehabilitation, permitting Mr Lea to continue practising while taking steps to “recalibrate his professional objectivity and observance” of the professional rules.
“The tribunal considered that this case presented a warning that even experienced professionals could make serious errors in judgment when acting hastily. Solicitors as legal professionals should retain professional objectivity.”
He was also ordered to pay costs of £25,000.
Leave a Comment