A partner at one of the country’s leading defamation firms who is being prosecuted by the regulator for an alleged misuse of litigation will seek to get the case thrown out, it emerged today.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority revealed this month that it had decided to prosecute Claire Frances Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck, for allegedly sending or arranging to be sent correspondence which contained an improper threat of litigation in 2017.
Richard Coleman KC, for Gill, told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal during a case management hearing today that an application for summary dismissal will be made on the grounds that the SRA's case does not raise a proper issue of professional misconduct and has no real prospect of success.
Should the summary dismissal application - which will be heard in December - be refused, a six-day in-person substantive hearing will take place next summer.
Dealing with other applications today, the tribunal refused to grant an interim anonymity order to treat the identity of Gill’s former client as confidential.
Coleman said the application was being made to ensure all parties could discharge their duties to protect the former client’s legal professional privilege. ‘There has already been some publicity in relation to the client so, to some extent, its identity is in the public domain. But that’s a different thing from further publishing the name of the client to the world at large and aggravating a problem that may already exist,’ Coleman said.
David Price KC, for the SRA, told the tribunal the matter was the subject of ‘huge’ media coverage and ‘the underlying subject matter is one of considerable public interest’.
The tribunal will decide the anonymity application at the next case management hearing in order to allow all parties, including third parties such as the media, to make submissions.
Returning to the anonymity matter later in the hearing, Coleman said that if the tribunal took the view that the 'horse has bolted' on anonymity, Gill's legal team may request for those parts of the hearing dealing with legal professional privilege to be heard in private.
The tribunal refused to grant an application sought by Gill’s legal team concerning the composition of the tribunal panel.
Coleman said it would be ‘highly desirable’ for the case to be heard by one, and ideally two solicitor-members of the tribunal with knowledge and experience of litigation. 'This case is a novel application by the SRA in terms of the propositions advanced and would benefit from tribunal members who understand the rules and legal principles that apply to litigation and have experience of the realities of conducting litigation,' Coleman added.
However, tribunal chair Usman Sheikh said it was not normal practice for the tribunal to select panels with expertise in particular areas.
