Retreat from Moscow

Last weekend the City of London Law Society broke cover on the backlash against alleged ‘enablers’ of Putin’s inner circle. In the profession’s most strident defence to date of law firms representing Russian clients, chair Edward Sparrow declared: ‘The fact that Putin ignores the rule of law does not mean that we should follow his example… the rule of law demands that those facing sanctions should have access to legal advice and the courts to test their legality.’

Oligarchs are people, too.

This was highly significant – but oddly ignored by the media. The CLLS is no desiccated talking shop. It has nearly two dozen very influential committees packed with some of the ‘Square Mile’s’ most eminent practitioners. Three magic circle lawyers sit on the committee which covers ‘professional rules and regulation’.

I point this out to highlight the seeming disconnect between word and deed here. Notwithstanding the defiant stance of their ‘local’ law society, magic circle and other City giants are washing their hands of Russia as swiftly as reasonably practicable. Linklaters speaks for many: ‘We will not act for individuals or entities that are controlled by, or under the influence of, the Russian state, or connected with the current Russian regime, wherever they are in the world,’ a spokesperson said.

That is a category that can (and most assuredly will) be very widely drawn. A different kind of ‘reputation management’ is going on here. One that has nothing to do with facilitating oligarchy.

So what now? As the Pandora Papers revealed, not every oligarch, sanctioned company and accused fraudster alleged to have been ‘served’ by a prominent law firm is Russian. I incline to the view of Kingsley Napley compliance expert Iain Miller (who also sits on the CLLS regulation committee and, indeed, forthright anti-corruption professor Robert Barrington. Client selection is going to be the next big ethical conundrum for the profession to address. And the profession needs to get a move on.

I also point you towards today’s letters page: the ‘right to representation is not unqualified’, a reader points out.

Quite so. How could it be, when only a minority can afford it.