Disentangling London's Complicated Relationship with Russia's Elite​

By Beatrice Kang​

What do you need to know this week?

In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, many City law firms have chosen to exit or cease their operations in Russia. The sudden exodus of law firms out of Russia highlighted just how lucrative Russian business has been to City firms.

However, “Russian work” is not only confined to Russian soil. According to the Financial Times, the English legal system’s tendency to be “the biggest, hardest bat you can pick up and swing” has long attracted Russian billionaires and oligarchs to bring their actions to the English courts. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (then Major of London) once wooed Russia’s super-rich, saying “If one oligarch feels defamed by another oligarch - it is London’s lawyers who will apply the necessary balm to the ego.”

Why is this important for your interviews?

Over the past 10 years, London has drawn in wealthy Russians and pro-Moscow supporters to launch legal action against critics of Vladimir Putin by using a series of indirect civil claims, ranging from libel, insolvency proceedings and actions alleging breaches of privacy and data protection laws. This tactic has been dubbed “Lawfare” by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who now urges regulators to “put a stop to its chilling effect.”

Critics have long claimed that these claims are “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPPS) designed to intimidate and wear down critics’ “pockets” through a long, courtroom war of attrition.

For example, a series of lawsuits followed last year’s publication of “Putin’s People”, a book written by Cathernie Belton, investigating President Putin’s regime and rise to power. Russian banking tycoons, Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, launched a libel and data protection claim against the book’s publisher, HarperCollins. Roman Abramovich, Russian oligarch and former owner of Chelsea FC, also launched a libel lawsuit against the publisher and Belton. Fridman and Aven were represented by CMS and Abramovich was represented by Harbottle & Lewis.

How is this topic relevant to law firms?

Prominent City law firms and barristers have drawn negative scrutiny for their involvement in London’s “Lawfare” or role in SLAPPS. For instance, CMS’ role in Bill Browder’s libel case and former British spy, Christopher Steele’s dossier case, has not gone unnoticed. In addition to CMS, lawyers from law firms such as Harbottle & Lewis and Carter-Ruck have been named by UK Conservative MP Bob Seely’s parliamentary privileged speech as ‘helping’ Kremlin allies.

In response, law firms and leading legal professionals have cried “j’accuse!” - contending that that law firms themselves are already heavily regulated and the courts have adequate safeguards to throw out claims that lack substance. Nevertheless, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned against the practice of helping clients make “excessive or meritless claims, aggressive and intimidating threats” or in any way that “fails to meet the wider public interest principles.” Meanwhile, Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab, has overseen a consultation on reform of England’s libel laws which have been long-accused of being too plaintiff-friendly.

As the legal community has decades worth of Russian ties to disentangle, it is fair to say this sudden change of tide will present a political quagmire. The reality is a difficult one: there seems to be no “balm” to soothe the sting of defection.