Who are we?

I run a sole practice law firm that specialises in libel and media related law. I will occasionally take on other High Court civil litigation work that has a human, community or civil rights dimension - increasingly my interest is also diversifying into ethics, compliance, and regulatory work in the health sciences. 

My office "admin base" is in the heart of legal London (opposite the Royal Courts of Justice) at 218 Strand; known as "218 lawyers club". This is a dedicated office space reserved exclusivley for lawyers, with shared secure facilites and reception - though I work independently and am flexible about meeting up outside London if needed.   

Founded 28 years ago (1991) my practice has represented and achieved some notable settlements and courtroom successes for private individuals as well as media corporate clients and charitable institutions.   

Though I only undertake private paid work my fee structure is always discussed and mutually agreed in advance. I am happy to undertake work on a fixed fee arrangement regardless of time taken so clients are reassured as to their outlay at the outset. Occasionally I will take on work on a no win no fee basis.

NEW INTEREST: Health sciences and medical research: consultancy on compliance, governance and regulation.

Increasingly over the past few years my interests have turned to the health sciences and legal issues involving ethics, governance and regulation in this field. I currently serve as a member of a HRA (NHS) ethics committee and attend many health related events worldwide.

About Mr Sahota

I am a solicitor-advocate with a background in journalism (amongst other things!). My small but busy practice (est. 1991) acts for claimants and defendants alike and range from private individuals to media corporate clients.  

My "solicitor-advocate" title allows me to appear in all civil courts at all levels in England and Wales. I graduated from Warwick University (BA Hons 1975-78) where I read Politics with International Studies; then I won a post-graduate bursary to study journalism at City University, London (1978-79); and, after working as a journalist and civil servant (Commission for Racial Equality) changed career to study law (CPE & LSF at Wolverhampton University in 1986-88).

This broad breadth of experience has proved useful in getting the right result whether it be by mutual compromise or occasionally, but only if necessary, by courtroom battle at trial. 

My choice in law has always been dictated by my personal interests and passion - at any given time.  Soon after admission as a solicitor I set up my own practice to specialise in libel law which of course had direct relevance to my interest and former career in journalism. 

I will continue to take on libel cases but am increaslngly expanding my interest in health and life science related legal work.

My interests include all matters scientific, space and travel.



Our firm's policy in representing claimants and defendants

We do not favour claimants (often individuals) or defendants (often the press). Both have equally important but competing rights. The right to protect good reputation and respect for private and family life is critcal, but so is, the right to publish and free expression. The balance between these rights is what the the courts regularly have to determine often on a case by case basis tempered by precedent, statute, and factual context.  At a philosophical level both competing interests must be allowed to co-exist, as equitably as possible, if we are to maintain a free and democratic society. 

Private Individuals:

We aim to get those whose reputation has been tarnished an early apology, correction, and in some instances damages for the harm caused. However we recognise that some cases will not settle and individuals have little option but to fight in court.

The Press:

For our media clients we understand the pressures of a busy newsroom, tight deadlines and other pitfalls. Genuine mistakes need to be corrected quickly. In other cases if settlement is not possible, despite good will and the desire to do so, then the only solution may be a courtroom battle. There are, however, a few exceptional cases where to expose serious wrongdoing, or even to deter spurious 'golddiggers', the court is often the final arbiter.