Nick Timothy has formally referred Lord Hermer, the UK’s Attorney General and chief legal adviser to the government appointed by Keir Starmer, to the Bar Standards Board, alleging potential serious professional misconduct linked to historic litigation over claims against British troops in Iraq.
In a letter dated 23 April 2026, Timothy, writing in his capacity as Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, called for an investigation into Hermer’s conduct during his time as lead counsel in the Al-Sweady litigation. The case centred on allegations of murder and mistreatment by British soldiers following the Battle of Danny Boy in 2004.
Timothy’s intervention follows the publication by The Telegraph of more than 25,000 pages of emails and legal documents on 22 April 2026. The documents relate to Hermer’s role representing Iraqi claimants in proceedings against the Ministry of Defence.
The original Al-Sweady Inquiry, which reported in December 2014, found the central allegations to be “wholly without foundation” and “entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility”, with all British soldiers exonerated.
In a post on social media platform X, Timothy wrote:
“I’ve referred Lord Hermer to the Bar Standards Board. He went after British soldiers despite warnings murder allegations were false. He knew what he was doing: he sought ‘wriggle room if the killings did not happen.’ It says everything that Starmer made him Attorney General.”
His criticism also extended to Keir Starmer, whose decision to appoint Hermer as Attorney General he described as deeply questionable.
The referral letter sets out four areas of concern. First, Timothy claims Hermer accepted the case under a conditional fee arrangement, rather than being obliged to do so under the cab rank rule, and “stood to earn a substantial fee” if the claims succeeded.
Second, Timothy cites a 2008 email in which Hermer advised on a press release alleging murder and torture by British soldiers. In that correspondence, Hermer wrote the wording “works in getting the balance between making sure that the big story is out there whilst giving us some wriggle room if the killings did not in fact happen”, and suggested making allegations “slightly more explicit” to “generate sufficient interest”.
The letter continues that this advice was followed by others involved in the case, including solicitors at Leigh Day and Phil Shiner, who later faced disciplinary action in unrelated proceedings.
Third, Timothy alleges that by 2013, correspondence indicated the claims were likely to be discredited. Despite this, he says Hermer advised that settlement offers would be “low risk” and approved communications suggesting it would be “foolish to reject” them.
Fourth, the letter references Hermer’s later statements, including evidence in 2017, in which he maintained the claims were legally viable “regardless of credibility issues”, adding that it made no difference whether a client was “a saint or a member of al-Qaeda”.
Timothy argues that this conduct may breach multiple professional duties, including those relating to integrity and honesty, and raises the possibility that Hermer “knowingly or recklessly misled third parties and the court”.
He writes: “Put simply, the case was not properly pleadable and should never have been advanced.”
The letter acknowledges the Bar Standards Board’s usual 12-month reporting limit but argues that the release of the documents constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying an investigation.
The case has drawn renewed attention from campaigners and those involved in the original allegations. Brian Wood, a decorated soldier who was accused during the inquiry, has called publicly for Hermer’s resignation. Hilary Meredith, who represented several soldiers, has also called for regulatory scrutiny.
The Bar Standards Board has not yet publicly responded to the referral.
The controversy places further pressure on Starmer, whose appointment of Hermer is now under intense political scrutiny. Critics argue the situation reflects poor judgment at the highest level, raising broader concerns about accountability within the government’s legal leadership.
