Solicitor Struck Off for Calling Jewish Journalist 'Zionist Pig' Loses Appeal

Farrukh Najeeb Husain was removed from the legal profession for antisemitic posts and has lost his appeal. His lawyer is Franck Magennis, a barrister campaigning to delist Hamas.

The British High Court has confirmed the removal of solicitor Farrukh Najeeb Husain from the profession after finding his posts amounted to “unvarnished antisemitic racism.” Mr. Justice Chamberlain ruled that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) was not only justified in striking him off but “could not rationally have reached any other conclusion.” Husain, who practiced immigration and employment law, was found to have made repeated, offensive posts over time that went far beyond the bounds of political speech.

Nature of the Posts

The tribunal focused on Husain’s posts targeting Jewish individuals, notably barrister Simon Myerson KC and Times columnist Hugo Rifkind. He referred to Rifkind, who is Jewish, as a “Zionist pig,” accused Myerson of being part of a “Zionist lynch mob,” and claimed The Times employed “Zionists” like David Aaronovitch and Daniel Finkelstein. He also described Israel as a product of European Jewish displacement of Palestinians. The SDT found these posts not only offensive but rooted in antisemitic conspiracy theories and classic tropes about media control and dual loyalty.

Justice Chamberlain said that the language used would, in any other racial context, be clearly understood as bigoted. He concluded that these were clear examples of antisemitism and that the SDT was right to view the conduct as incompatible with the standards expected of solicitors.

Upholding of IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

Husain argued that his posts were protected political speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The High Court disagreed, finding that while political views are protected, the profession also has to maintain public trust. Speech that is seriously offensive or abusive can fall outside those protections in a disciplinary context. The judge concluded that Husain’s posts, taken individually and collectively, expressed hostility toward Jews rather than a legitimate political critique.

The SDT’s use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism was upheld, and its interpretation was found to be consistent with legal protections around free expression.

Husain & Hamas Share a Lawyer

Husain’s lawyer is Franck Magennis, a barrister who is also actively campaigning to have Hamas removed from the UK’s list of terrorist organizations. The two have framed Husain’s conduct as political expression, but the tribunal and the court found that many of his posts veered into outright antisemitism.

The case draws a clear line between political advocacy and professional misconduct, especially when public trust in the legal system is at stake. Husain’s removal from the profession stands as a warning that bigotry masked as political opinion will still face consequences under professional regulation.