Lawyers

For Russian oligarchs in search of to silence opponents, the English authorized system has been likened to “the largest, hardest bat you’ll be able to choose up and swing”.

For prime London legal professionals and their companies, circumstances introduced by Russian billionaires, typically coping with points equivalent to alleged libel or information safety, have translated into fats income.

However the equation has modified within the wake of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

The imposition of sanctions on dozens of rich Russians by the UK has made it far harder for them to pursue authorized actions in British courts or to make use of UK regulation companies, which now require a particular authorities licence to symbolize such shoppers.

In current months, there has additionally been a authorities shift away from welcoming court docket motion by oligarchs to denouncing “Lawfare” — the abuse of authorized proceedings to grind down opponents.

For the reason that warfare began, the work finished by companies equivalent to CMS, Harbottle & Lewis and Carter-Ruck for Russian billionaires has come beneath rising scrutiny by legislators, each within the US and the UK. And the companies themselves have gotten extra circumspect about taking up new shoppers, in some circumstances closing down enterprise with Russia.

Invoice Browder, a number one investor in Russia turned Kremlin critic, has been fierce and constant in his feedback on previous authorized actions in London that he says amounted to undue strain by the Russian state — a view the UK authorities itself now endorses.

“For the oligarchs and the super-rich who can afford these sky-high prices, the specter of authorized motion has develop into a brand new sort of Lawfare,” British prime minister Boris Johnson declared in March. “We should put a cease to its chilling impact.”

Johnson’s phrases marked a dramatic distinction with feedback he made in 2012, when he wooed Russia’s super-rich, saying: “If one oligarch feels defamed by one other oligarch — it’s London’s legal professionals who apply the mandatory balm to the ego.” 

Silencing Kremlin critics

Over the previous decade, London has drawn in rich Russians and Kremlin allies to launch authorized motion towards critics of Vladimir Putin — notably Browder, as soon as the largest international investor in Russia. In 2013, he was sued for libel by Pavel Karpov, a former Russian policeman, represented by the regulation agency Olswang, now a part of CMS.

Browder had fallen foul of Moscow after his auditor, Sergei Magnitsky, uncovered a large tax fraud by Russian officers — solely to be arrested and die in a Russian jail in 2009.

Karpov claimed that Browder’s web site recommended he was complicit within the “torture and dying” of Magnitsky, however Mr Justice Peregrine Simon threw out the lawsuit in 2013 after ruling that Karpov didn’t have a popularity in Britain to defend.

Browder depicted the authorized motion as a part of a broader push by the Kremlin to discredit him and human rights laws handed in Magnitsky’s identify within the US and finally many different jurisdictions. “I’ve little question this was a Russian intelligence operation to assault me and the Magnitsky act,” he stated.

In 2017, Browder confronted a second civil lawsuit in London, with CMS performing for Nogotkov Kirill Olegovich, a Russian liquidator who sued him over the insolvency of a Russian firm as soon as related to him.

Browder’s legal professionals claimed that this was “a part of a concerted retaliatory marketing campaign by the Russian state”. Sir Geoffrey Vos threw out the case saying it was “inexcusable” that the liquidator had didn’t “alert the court docket to . . . the political background”.

One other Kremlin critic, former British spy Christopher Steele, was sued within the Excessive Courtroom in 2020 by Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman and his associates Petr Aven and German Khan.

The case centred round allegations in regards to the males in a 2016 file that detailed Donald Trump’s purported ties to Russia and was produced by Steele’s firm, Orbis Enterprise Intelligence.

Once more, CMS had a central function within the proceedings. The three males, who had been suggested by Geraldine Proudler of CMS and barrister Hugh Tomlinson QC, gained the case after the Excessive Courtroom discovered that the file contained inaccurate private information.

Silencing journalists

Russia’s billionaires have additionally sought to make use of Britain’s libel, privateness and information safety legal guidelines to forestall journalists from shedding mild on their actions. Critics say their claims typically quantity to what are termed “strategic lawsuits towards public participation” or SLAPPs — makes an attempt to intimidate critics by means of costly litigation.

A flurry of lawsuits adopted final 12 months’s publication of Putin’s Individuals, an investigation by former Monetary Instances journalist Catherine Belton of the Russian president’s regime and rise to energy.

Fridman and Aven turned to CMS, which launched a libel and information safety declare towards the ebook’s writer HarperCollins. Roman Abramovich, the billionaire who would even be hit with sanctions this 12 months, lodged a libel lawsuit of his personal towards the writer and Belton, hiring Tomlinson and Harbottle & Lewis.

Russian state oil firm Rosneft, represented by regulation agency Carter-Ruck, introduced a separate libel lawsuit towards Belton and HarperCollins. Belton advised a parliamentary committee in March that there had been a “prolonged stand-off” with Carter-Ruck over mentions of Gennady Timchenko, a Putin ally now positioned beneath sanctions, that delayed the ebook’s publication by six months.

All of the claims have now been settled or withdrawn.

Jessica Ni Mhainin, on the Index on Censorship, which campaigns for freedom of speech, says circumstances like Belton’s are “the tip of the iceberg”, with many lawsuits not making it to court docket.

Mhainin stated the specter of infinite litigation and big authorized prices can be utilized by the super-rich to press campaigners, teachers or journalists, who can face monetary spoil in the event that they defend a libel case.

Settling scores

Billionaire oligarchs have additionally used London’s prime regulation companies to settle scores with one another within the capital’s Excessive Courtroom.

In 2011, the late Boris Berezovsky, represented by Addleshaw Goddard — which says it has by no means acted for every other Russian oligarch — unsuccessfully sued Roman Abramovich, represented by regulation agency Skadden Arps, in a $6.5bn Excessive Courtroom trial that shone an unflattering highlight on Russia’s “wild east” capitalism within the Nineties.

Berezovsky alleged that Abramovich had intimidated him into promoting shares in oil and gasoline corporations at under their true price. Abramovich denied the claims and testified that he paid $2.3bn to Berezovsky as political safety cash.

Oleg Deripaska, the Russian metals tycoon positioned beneath sanctions by the UK in March, has additionally been energetic in London’s Excessive Courtroom. In 2018, Rusal, then managed by Deripaska, was embroiled in a court docket battle with billionaire Vladimir Potanin, who just isn’t beneath sanctions by the UK or US, as a part of a wrestle for management of Norilsk Nickel, a nickel and palladium producer.

Rusal sought to dam Abramovich from promoting his stake in Norilsk to Potanin’s firm.

New order?

Some legislators have singled out legal professionals and companies they are saying have helped Kremlin allies. UK Conservative MP Bob Seely used parliamentary privilege in March to call specialist media regulation companies Harbottle & Lewis, Carter-Ruck and CMS, in addition to Tomlinson, the outstanding barrister.

Final month, US senator Steve Cohen urged the Biden administration to position US journey bans on senior British legal professionals he claimed had been “international enablers of Russian oligarchs”. Amongst others, Cohen named Tomlinson, Nigel Tait of Carter Ruck, John Kelly of Harbottle & Lewis and Proudler, head of CMS’s Popularity and Media Litigation apply.

For the reason that Ukraine warfare started, Proudler has resigned from the Scott Belief, which adjudicates editorial complaints at The Guardian newspaper, the board of The Guardian Basis, the media group’s charitable arm, and as chair of the board of governors of Middlesex college.

Many within the authorized occupation argue that they’ve been unfairly criticised, declaring that legal professionals are closely regulated and that the courts have safeguards towards unmeritorious lawsuits.

“We can not have a scenario the place legal professionals are reluctant to present recommendation to people, whether or not or not they’ve finished something fallacious,” stated Jonathan Fisher QC, barrister at Pink Lion Chambers.

CMS says it has decided that its media litigation course of was compliant with all skilled rules in addition to its wider tasks on the time, including: “We strongly reject the current allegations of impropriety which have been made towards CMS and particularly Geraldine Proudler.”

Tomlinson has stated he had at all times acted correctly in accordance with the principles and “by no means acted as Mr Cohen suggests”, whereas Harbottle & Lewis has stated it acted in accordance with its authorized obligations.

Carter-Ruck stated it has acted for only a few Russian shoppers through the years, and doesn’t act for any entity linked to Putin’s regime. It stated it was false to counsel that, by defending shoppers’ countervailing rights, it set out improperly to censor the media or intimidate journalists.

However, the backdrop is altering. CMS, for instance, not accepts directions from Russia-based entities.

“This was a pattern that was already occurring even earlier than the Russian invasion due to adjustments in society,” stated Tony Williams, a former managing companion of Clifford Likelihood, who added that giant companies’ income had been rather more reliant on areas equivalent to actual property and M&A than on Russian litigation.

“Regulation companies had been already coping with the ESG [environmental, social and governance] agenda and the difficulty of popularity administration as they suppose extra in regards to the form of shoppers and the kind of work that they do.”

In the meantime, Dominic Raab, Britain’s deputy prime minister and justice secretary, has launched a session on reform of the nation’s libel regulation, typically criticised as being so plaintiff-friendly that it inhibits free speech. It closed on Might 19.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority, which governs the occupation’s conduct, has already up to date steerage to regulation companies, warning in March towards pursuing litigation for improper functions and making allegations with out benefit — which it says “would possibly come up due to a battle with the solicitor’s personal curiosity in producing payment earnings”.

Trevor Clark, lecturer within the authorized occupation at Leeds college, emphasises that whereas legal professionals ought to act within the pursuits of their shoppers, they “even have an obligation beneath their skilled code to behave with integrity and never reap the benefits of third events”. 

One instance he provides is that if there may be “an inequality of sources” — equivalent to circumstances which pit oligarchs towards folks for whom authorized motion might imply spoil.