About 20 years ago, I acted for a company owned by someone who could be called a Russian ‘oligarch’. I never met the oligarch in question, but he was an established client of my firm, which I believed (as I still do as a retired partner) had a very careful client selection process. On 22 March, I read in an editorial in The Times that my behaviour in acting for this man (or at least the company he controlled) was morally tainted.

The Times’ editorial really only mentioned my moral taint in passing, and could, if that newspaper’s editorial team had the foresight that its magisterial tone implies, have been written at the time of my moral error, or even in 2014 when Russia ‘recovered’ the Crimea, but The Times held on until the (disgraceful) Russian invasion of Ukraine to tell me of my sin. Is there a hint of hindsight in this? But I had far worse abuse when I was in practice, and I like to think of myself as a grown-up, so I will cope with the abuse of journalists.

I really want to focus on the attacks on defamation lawsuits, especially as some who act for Russians in this way have been named by some hysterical MP in parliament. I knew and respected one of them, until we both left our major English firm, and I can see nothing that she has done since which would change my respectful view. Suddenly it has become unacceptable for English lawyers to act for Russian companies or individuals. The Solicitors Regulation Authority, with its ever politically attuned approach to what Whitehall might want has chimed in to say that firms may cease to act for Russian clients for no good reason, contrary to the normal rule and without distinction between Russians who are the subject of sanctions and those who are not. I might add that, if defamation claims are being used in an abusive way, surely there are ways of dealing with this without explicit anti-Russian laws? Are Russians and the companies they control the only offenders? Why should Russians be unable to put journalists to the test of showing the truth of their claims? Are all Russians to be deprived of the normal remedies available in our courts?

I recently read an article which said that during the first world war, some people in England threw stones at dachshunds to show a hatred of ‘the Hun’. I feel that The Times, the SRA and a very large number of MPs are doing much the same now. The Equalities Act does not, for what I think are obvious reasons, confer protected status on national groups. But that is no reason for these elites to behave in such an abusive way to the whole population of a great European nation, whatever one might think of its rulers.

Finally, thanks to our president, I. Stephanie Boyce, for being the voice of reason, no matter what The Times in its ignorance says about her views. I have met her on a few occasions and I am sure that she does not throw stones at dachshunds.

 

*Editor's note: the SRA has contested the author's assertions concerning its position on ceasing to act for Russian clients. It has asked the Gazette to note that its position is accurately described here.

 

This article is now closed for comment.

Topics