SRA: Law firm’s work for warlord was not improper

---

Prigozhin: Vehemently denied being Wagner Group leader

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) yesterday took the unusual step of setting out why it cleared the law firm which acted for Yevgeniy Prigozhin, leader of the Wagner Group, of misconduct.

It pointed out that “claimants are able in some circumstances to bring improper claims notwithstanding that their solicitors are acting competently and in good faith”.

The SRA found “no evidence to suggest” that Discreet Law was, or should have been, aware that the instructions it received from Mr Prigozhin – who sued journalist Eliot Higgins for connecting him with the mercenary group – were false.

“Subsequent events show that Mr Prigozhin was a key player in the Wagner Group, as he admitted in September 2022, six months after Discreet Law stopped acting for him,” said SRA chief executive Paul Philip.

“Our detailed investigation, however, found no evidence that the firm was aware of this when representing him. At the time they were acting, Mr Prigozhin vehemently denied his involvement.”

He set out details of the regulator’s investigation in a letter to Baroness Stowell, until recently chair of the House of Lords communications and digital committee.

In that post, she took a close interest in the SRA’s role in combatting SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) and wrote to Mr Philip last month about the Prigozhin case.

The SRA published the letter yesterday in the wake of coming under fire from the UK Anti-SLAPPs Coalition, which argued that “the red flags were there” for Discreet Law.

Earlier this month, meanwhile, MP Lloyd Hatton said it was “astounding [that], despite multiple international sanctions designations, the SRA found no evidence that Discreet Law was aware that Prigozhin ran the Wagner Group”.

Mr Philip said some of the commentary on the case has “misunderstood our role and approach as well as our consideration in this case”.

He said the key was not whether a case was defined as a SLAPP or not – the SRA’s rules did not require this – but whether solicitors have taken steps to satisfy themselves “that cases they bring are properly arguable, that there are facts or arguments to test before the court and the case is not bound to fail”.

“Our investigation looked closely at the steps taken by the Discreet Law to satisfy itself as to the legitimacy of their client’s instructions and the merits of his claim.

“The firm took steps to verify the information provided to them, carried out independent research and gathered material and analysed documents underpinning the sanctions that had been imposed on him.

“While there was public speculation surrounding Mr Prigozhin’s connection with the Wagner Group, there was no evidence to suggest the firm were aware, or should have been aware, that the instructions they received were false.”

Mr Philip added that the merits of the defamation proceedings were tested with specialist counsel who settled the particulars of the claim, and the case progressed until the claim was struck out after Mr Prigozhin failed to comply with the court orders, by which time Discreet Law had stopped acting.

“The particulars of claim set out the reasons why Discreet Law issued against Mr Higgins and selected England as the appropriate jurisdiction; this was the subject of careful consideration and advice from counsel.”

The SRA also looked into media reports that the firm had accepted as an identity check a utility bill in the name of Mr Prigozhin’s mother. “In fact, the firm carried out checks above those required,” Mr Philip said, and raised queries “to satisfy itself in relation to the bill in question”.

Its conclusion was that the firm did not act improperly – it did not reach a conclusion or make any statement about whether the claim was a SLAPP.

Mr Philip stressed that “claimants are able in some circumstances to bring improper claims notwithstanding that their solicitors are acting competently and in good faith” – where there was a proper argument capable of being advanced, “solicitors must advance their client’s case in accordance with their instructions”.

“This is why our guidance highlights the importance for solicitors of obtaining proper instructions and seeking to challenge and scrutinise what their client is telling them.”

Mr Philip said this was also why it was “so important for there to be a robust legislative solution which addresses the wider public interest around whether a claim itself should be permitted to proceed, and to give courts powers in this respect”.

This was, he argued, “the principal way to reduce opportunities and incentives for claimants to abuse the system”.