When a bad review becomes a defamation issue: CJ Jones Solicitors LLP (t/a CJJ Law) v Sapsford [2026] EWHC 142 (KB)
Public reviews are now part of day-to-day legal practice. Most negative comments are legally low-risk because they are recognisable as consumer opinion about service (“slow replies”, “too expensive”, “wouldn’t recommend”). The difficulty begins when a reviewer moves from service criticism into allegations of dishonesty or criminality. Words like “fraud”, “scam”, “bogus invoice”, or “stole my money”. For regulated professionals, those accusations can cause disproportionate reputational damage.
CJ Jones Solicitors LLP (t/a CJJ Law) v Sapsford [2026] EWHC 142 (KB) is a useful new signpost on where the line sits, because the High Court analysed repeated allegations that a firm’s fees were “fraudulent” and treated much of that language as conveying dishonesty (and therefore defamatory at common law).
What the case adds for solicitors dealing with hostile reviews
The key practical value of this authority is that it reinforces a point firms often have to argue in takedown letters and pre-action correspondence. Describing professional fees as “fraudulent” commonly reads as an allegation of deliberate dishonesty, not merely “I dispute the bill” or “I think the invoice is excessive”. That matters because dishonesty allegations usually clear the common-law seriousness threshold for defamation, making them more likely to be actionable (subject to the separate statutory “serious harm” test for claims brought under the Defamation Act 2013).
The decision also highlights that courts will examine the overall context and may distinguish between different statements in the same dispute, some may be treated as factual assertions, others as opinion, and some as non-defamatory grumbling. That type of granular analysis is directly relevant to review disputes, where posts often mix factual claims with emotive criticism.
“Fraudulent/bogus fees” versus ordinary fee disputes
In most review scenarios, a complaint that “the bill was too high” is not the same as “the firm knowingly billed me without entitlement”. The first is typically an evaluative judgement; the second alleges misconduct. In CJJ Law v Sapsford, the court’s treatment of repeated “fraudulent charges” wording shows why that distinction matters. Allegations framed as “fraud” are likely to be read as saying the solicitor/firm acted dishonestly, with knowledge that there was no proper basis for charging.
That analysis translates cleanly to reviews. A platform reader is not conducting a costs assessment; they are deciding whether the firm is trustworthy. Accusations of fraud go to integrity, not service quality.
Fact vs opinion: why classification matters so much
Many reviewers try to protect themselves by writing “in my opinion” or “I feel”. Courts do not stop there. The question is how the words would strike the ordinary reasonable reader, including whether the reviewer indicates the basis for what is being said. Where a post makes a bald allegation (“they’re fraudsters”), it is more likely to be treated as an allegation of fact, and a defendant may need to prove it is substantially true or rely on another defence.
Where a post is clearly presented as comment and explains the factual basis (“I believe the invoice is unjustified because the retainer ended on X date”), it is more likely to engage the statutory honest opinion defence under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Why early “meaning” decisions can be strategically useful
Defamation disputes often turn on “meaning” (the sting). The report of the case notes that preliminary determinations on meaning are commonly used so parties know where they stand. In practical terms, that can be valuable for solicitors because it forces clarity early. Is this really an accusation of dishonesty, or is it a messy but non-actionable expression of dissatisfaction? That clarity affects negotiations, the seriousness of the remedial steps you demand, and whether you escalate.
A practical framework for dealing with damaging reviews
Start by triaging the review into (a) service criticism and (b) reputational allegations. Service criticism is often best managed via client care processes and careful public replies. Reputational allegations especially those alleging dishonesty, criminality, or regulatory breaches are where legal tools become more relevant.
Preserve evidence immediately (screenshots, URL, date/time, profile details, any edits or replies). This is important because online content changes and because a firm will often later need to evidence publication, reach, and impact.
Respond publicly only with extreme care. Solicitors must avoid breaching confidentiality or inadvertently escalating the dispute. A short, neutral response inviting offline contact is usually safer than a detailed rebuttal.
Platform removal routes and the “website operator” position
If removal is the priority, the fastest route is often the platform’s own reporting process, but it helps to understand the legal backdrop. Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides a defence for operators of websites in certain circumstances, and the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 set out the notice framework associated with that regime. In practice, a clear notice explaining the complained-of meaning, why it is defamatory and false, and why the poster cannot be adequately identified can strengthen takedown requests even where the platform is applying internal policy rather than running the statutory notice process.
Don’t forget the “serious harm” test for firms
Even where words are defamatory at common law, a claimant must satisfy section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. For bodies trading for profit, serious harm requires serious financial loss (or likelihood of it). This means firms should keep practical records that may evidence loss. Enquiries that did not convert, clients mentioning the review, referral sources drying up, or measurable drops in leads following publication.
Where this leaves solicitors in practice
Most negative reviews are best handled with calm reputation management and client-care discipline. However, where a reviewer alleges dishonesty particularly around fees CJJ Law v Sapsford supports the proposition that “fraudulent charges/bogus fees” can carry a serious defamatory sting, and that courts will scrutinise meaning and fact/opinion carefully.
Example
So what happens if a review is left claiming without any foundation is truth, dishonesty on the part of the firm. Here is how you should respond:
‘Thank you for your review. We are concerned by the comments made. We can not comment on or discuss individual conveyancing matters in a public forum because of our professional duty of confidentiality.
We do take concerns about fees and service very seriously. If you contact our Client Care Partner at*, marked “Complaint”, with your name and any reference details, we will review the issues raised and respond through our formal complaints process.
Without that information, we are unable to engage meaningfully with the points raised’.
If the reviewer appears anonymous or unidentifiable you might wish to say:
‘Thank you for your review. We’re unable to identify a matter matching the details provided and cannot comment publicly due to confidentiality obligations.
If you have instructed us, please contact [email/phone] with your full name and property address (or matter reference) so we can look into this. If we do not hear from you, we will be unable to take the matter further’.
Why this response works (legally and practically)
- Does not admit fault
- Does not repeat defamatory wording
- Does not breach confidentiality
- Demonstrates a reasonable, professional approach
- Positions the firm well if takedown, regulatory, or legal steps follow
If the allegation is later relied on in a defamation or malicious falsehood claim, this type of response helps show the firm acted responsibly and proportionately, rather than aggressively or defensively.
What not to say
Avoid:
- “These allegations are false/untrue” (can escalate)
- “This review is defamatory” (sounds threatening)
- “We will take legal action” (often backfires)
- Any factual detail about the transaction or fees
Then consider sending to the review platform a take down request along these lines:
Dear Sir or Madam,
We write to request the review and removal of a user-generated review published on your platform, details of which are set out below.
Content complained of
- Platform: [e.g. Google Reviews]
- Business name: [Firm name]
- Reviewer username: [Username / “Anonymous”]
- Date posted: [Date]
- URL/link to review: [Link]
Nature of the complaint
The review contains statements alleging dishonest and improper charging by our firm, including references to “fraudulent” or “bogus” fees. These statements are presented as assertions of fact rather than expressions of opinion.
Legal context
In CJ Jones Solicitors LLP (t/a CJJ Law) v Sapsford [2026] EWHC 142 (KB), the High Court confirmed that allegations describing a solicitor’s fees as “fraudulent” or “bogus” are capable of conveying an allegation of deliberate dishonesty, rather than a mere dispute about billing. The Court held that such statements may be defamatory where they imply knowing wrongdoing rather than dissatisfaction with service.
The wording used in this review is materially similar and carries the same meaning to the ordinary reader.
Why this content is inappropriate
- The statements allege serious professional misconduct without supporting facts
- They are misleading and damaging to the reputation of a regulated legal practice
- The reviewer has not engaged with our formal complaints process
- We are unable to respond substantively in public due to professional confidentiality obligations
We have invited the reviewer to raise any genuine concerns through appropriate private channels, but no identifying information has been provided that would allow us to investigate the matter.
Request
We respectfully request that you assess this review under your policies concerning accuracy, harmful or misleading content, and allegations of serious wrongdoing, and that the review be removed or disabled.
If you require any further information to assist your review, please let us know.
Yours faithfully’,
Comments
Post a Comment