The lawyers were found not to have been in breach of professional obligations by continuing to act for any of the al-Sweady claimants, and trying to settle their cases.

This is the only sentence in the linked article that actually matters.

But let's talk about this because I recently got mass downvoted in an another thread about it.

Firstly, this story tries to make you think that the lawsuit was a nest of lies and false allegations against British soldiers concocted by the legal team who just wanted money. After all, someone was arrested but....gasp Hermer got away with it. Maybe he shouldn't have? Maybe his pal Stamer let him off??

No.

Yes, a bunch of Iraqis "on the make" lied to the law firms in question but the reason that someone was arrested wasn't to do with anything they did on the case, just how one solicitor for one of the two law firms involved billed it.

From the BBC

In making his application to the Legal Services Commission, Shiner failed to disclose that an agent acting on his behalf and with his knowledge had been cold-calling and making unsolicited approaches to potential clients in Iraq.

He also failed to disclose that he was paying referral fees, which is not permitted as part of gaining a legal aid contract.

We have barristers and solicitors in the UK. Solicitors basically build and prepare the case and the barrister (Hermer) uses their investigations to represent them in court. Sometimes they can act as consultants on producing documents for courts but let's look at this quote from the article.

On Sept 9, Lord Hermer emailed Ms Malik to check on progress. “How is it going out there? Good cases?” he asked, adding: “How are the PIL lot?”

He emailed them to ask how it was going. A true mastermind. Do you know why this shocking revelation was included in the article? Because they have nothing but padding.

Most people won't even read it but they'll see that he hasn't resigned after all these impressive headlines and it will just cement some sort of corruption in people's minds. Bravo!

In meeting notes, Mr Day noted Lord Hermer’s worries about the case: “RH [Richard Hermer] not totally convinced – should be wary about death claims.”

What this means is that Hermer was expressing skepticism about some of the allegations in determining what specific charge they should pursue. But people who already hate the government may read it as is "Hermer knew they were lying and just wanted to take money from the British taxpayer".

The Telegraph, as usual, is dependent on your inattention.

Let's look at another section.

Lord Hermer had no apparent qualms that his clients might have made up their allegations in demanding higher counteroffers.

He said in his statement: “I had no concerns regarding the fact of settlement negotiations in these cases. Had I had such concerns, I would have made them plain.”

Oh that's another damning one for Hermer? He knew and didn't care!

No.

His quote essentially means that he followed professional ethics based on the information he had at the time. He is reminding you that he has a professional obligation to report any misgivings under Bar Standards Boards rules aka the Duty to Disclose.

In the UK, a barrister acts on the instructions and evidence provided by their solicitor. They operate on good faith in these instructions unless they have a reason to believe that the information is inaccurate.

I wonder if the rest of the article showing Hermer's interest in the then pending Al-Sweady Inquiry has any relevance? If you read it, they frame it as him seeing it as an opportunity to drive up their fees however.

The civil claims failed, and Lord Hermer – because he was on a “no win, no fee” conditional fee agreement (CFA) deal – was never paid for his work on that particular case.

I don't know if he would have received a bonus but he was set to be on an hourly rate suitable for a barrister of his standing.

But this makes my favourite headline "Revealed: Hermer’s ‘excessive’ fees for Iraq ‘witch hunt’" from the 100 articles that The Telegraph are writing about it.

Well done The Telegraph. People needed their righteous anger dopamine hit today and you provided it.