Lois Bayliss says she sent letters out of concern for children’s welfare in February 2022
Sheffield solicitor Lois Bayliss has been fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £30,000 in costs after a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found her guilty of misconduct for sending letters to school leaders opposing Covid vaccinations for children.
Bayliss, who raised over £60,000 through GoFundMe for her defence, claimed her letters were meant as a “friendly warning” and expressed concern over potential liability from vaccinations and other Covid safety measures, such as mask-wearing and lateral flow testing.
Allegations of “threatening” letters against Lois Bayliss
Bayliss, who owns Broad Yorkshire Law, was alleged to have sent “threatening” letters to 450 school leaders across Yorkshire. In these letters, Bayliss warned school officials that they might face civil and criminal liability if they proceeded with Covid safety measures, such as vaccinations, mask-wearing, and lateral flow testing.
In her defence, Bayliss maintained that her communications – which bore her firm’s letterhead – were intended as “polite” and “a friendly warning” to school officials.
At the time of sending the letters, there was some ongoing public debate around the effectiveness of the vaccines and other public health measures. In the judgement, which Bayliss has publicly shared, the SDT noted that Bayliss took action as she felt that important information about the harm of Covid-19 vaccines on children was being withheld from the public.
Tribunal finds professional misconduct in Bayliss’s actions
The SDT determined that while it was based on a “genuine belief that the [Covid-19] measures were harmful to children”, Bayliss’s conduct constituted an abuse of her position as a solicitor, and that she had “crossed the line from personal activism into professional misconduct.”
They concluded that Bayliss had breached professional principles by using implied legal threats to discourage schools from participating in public health measures.
Other allegations against Bayliss, including claims of misleading statements and that she encouraged others to send similar letters, were dismissed.
SDT balances free expression with professional standards
The Tribunal raised an interesting debate around a solicitor’s ability to follow their conscience on matters of public concern.
Posting on her GoFundMe account on 6 September 2024, Bayliss stated, “The SRA agreed that they were restricting my human right to freedom of expression … This means that, after this judgement, as a solicitor, even if you identify government policy that is proven to harm people, you cannot protest about it unless you hide the fact that you are a solicitor.”
However, while the Tribunal recognised Bayliss’ right to free expression, to take on unpopular causes, it also noted solicitors are bound by the rules and standards of a regulated profession. As such, they cannot pursue certain aims in the same manner as private individuals. Rather, the SDT suggested that solicitor with integrity would have other options to protest, such as taking part in peaceful protests or accepting client instructions to submit a Judicial Review of government policy.
A mark on a clean record
Bayliss’s lawyer argued that her conduct, while out of character, stemmed from a genuine desire to protect children, highlighting her 18-year unblemished career prior to this case. Ultimately, it still appears that Bayliss believes her actions were reasonable:
“The fact that the SRA could not prove [my letters] were misleading, proves to me that I was justified,” commented Bayliss. “If my actions prevented harm to even one child, it would have been worth it.”
Image: © dragana991 via Canva
Josie Geistfeld
Josie Geistfeld is Editor of Yorkshire Legal News. She welcomes comments and questions.