Solicitor’s tweets found to be antisemitic by tribunal in case where CAA provided expert opinion
A solicitor’s tweets were found to be antisemitic and offensive today by a tribunal.
The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has found a number of social media posts by the solicitor Farrukh Najeeb Husain to be antisemitic and offensive.
The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) investigated Mr Husain, an immigration and employment solicitor, following complaints regarding his conduct on X, which was reported to the regulator by Bevan Brittan, a law firm that employed him at the time.
The SRA claimed that Mr Hussain’s conduct online was “offensive” and, in some cases, antisemitic. Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, gave expert witness testimony to assist the SRA in its case.
Mr Husain represented himself over the course of the hearings, which began in September last year.
The tweets in question were directed at Simon Myerson KC, a barrister, and Hugo Rifkind, a journalist. Among the tweets were characterisations of Mr Rifkind as a “Zionist pig”, references to Mr Rifkind’s “eastern European kin” and the claim that Mr Myerson “wreaks of white privilege”.
Throughout the case, Mr Husain made several accusations against the SRA and Capsticks, a law firm that was representing the SRA at the tribunal. He claimed that the SRA was “weaponising new antisemitism” and subverting the International Definition of Antisemitism, and even accused the regulator of being “in bed” with Campaign Against Antisemitism. He also claimed that the barrister acting on behalf of the SRA was an “imperialist” and asserted that she “bang[ed] on about the Holocaust because [she] wants to hide [her] country’s own crimes,” apparently referring to her British heritage.
During her cross-examination of Mr Husain, he said: “Mr Myerson is a fascist.”
Mr Husain extended his accusations also towards Mr Silverman during cross-examination and said: “It is you who are engaging in the antisemitic trope that there is a collection of Jews who are self-haters, who have turned against their nation and who are spouting conspiracy theories.”
Mr Silverman then asked the defendant if he was calling him an antisemite, to which Mr Husain responded: “Yes.”
Mr Husain also baselessly and conspiratorially accused Campaign Against Antisemitism of being set up and funded by a former Israeli diplomat.
Throughout the proceedings, Mr Husain was repeatedly reminded by the chairperson to conduct himself in an appropriate manner. In one instance, the tribunal panel addressed the defendant directly and accused him of “bordering on being abusive to Mr Silverman at times.”
The SDT is expected to issue a more substantial judgment in due course, with any sanctions or penalties expected to be announced by the tribunal on Friday.
A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We welcome this judgment. Farrukh Najeeb Husain’s rhetoric online was vile, and there was no evidence of any regard or remorse for the hurt and disgust that he caused. The SRA was right to bring this case to restore confidence in the legal profession, and we were pleased to be able to contribute expert opinion at the hearing in order to inform the panel and bring about today’s decision. We expect the SDT to apply the appropriate penalties on Mr Husain to show that there is no place for antisemitism in English law.”
To contact Campaign Against Antisemitism in relation to providing expert opinion or training, please e-mail [email protected].
