The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal today summarily dismissed an alleged SLAPP prosecution against a partner at a renowned defamation firm.
Carter-Ruck partner Claire Frances Gill, admitted in 1996, was alleged to have sent or arranged to have sent, the ‘improper threat’ in April 2017. At the time, Carter-Ruck was acting for now-disappeared ‘crypto queen’ Dr Ruja Ignatova, whose OneCoin cryptocurrency scheme was later discovered to be be a Ponzi-style fraud. Gill denied the allegation in full.
She brought the application for summary dismissal which was heard by a three-person panel over two days.
This afternoon the SDT returned to deliver its decision after just under an hour of deliberation. Panel chair Alison Kellett said in a short oral decision that, although it was ‘unusual’ for such an application to be made, in this circumstance it was ‘wholly appropriate’.
She described the case as one ‘based on hindsight rather than evidence of professional misconduct’. It would not be in the interests of justice or proportionality for Gill’s case to proceed further, she said. ‘While it is now known OneCoin was a fraudulent enterprise it was not apparent at the relevant time. Such circumstances do not prevent companies or individuals from seeking to protect their reputation,’ she added. ‘Suspicion is not equivalent to knowledge.’
Read more
The chair told the remote hearing that contemporaneous correspondence showed that Gill’s advice ‘was measured, professional and conscientious’. She noted Gill was ‘acting on explicit client instructions and had no evidence to believe the instructions were not genuine’. As soon as Gill knew necessary information was not forthcoming from the client, the chair said, she advised that litigation should not proceed.
‘Nothing’ in the tone of Gill's letter could characterise it ‘as misleading or improper’, the SDT said. ‘While we acknowledge and respect the efforts of those who ultimately exposed the fraud, it does not alter the conduct of those acting at the time. The letter was sent in pursuit of a legitimate attempt to protect client’s reputation.’ The chair described Gill as a ‘solicitor acting on good faith and on instructions’.
Following the SDT’s decision, Richard Coleman KC, for Gill, indicated that he would be seeking an application for costs. The panel agreed to a costs hearing in January. Earlier, the SDT heard costs for the case had reached ‘close to £1m’. The substantive hearing had been due to be heard over six days in June next year.
The decision is the second setback in a week for the SRA's clampdown on so-called 'strategic litigation against public partificpation'. On Monday, a partner at London firm Hamlins was cleared by the tribunal of any misconduct in relation to a SLAPP allegation.
