Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dismisses SRA allegation over alleged improper threat letter
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has summarily dismissed a misconduct allegation brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, concluding that the case was legally unsustainable and should not proceed to a full hearing.
In a decision dated 12 December 2025, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal granted an application to dismiss a single allegation that a solicitor had sent an improper threat of litigation in correspondence dating back to April 2017. The Tribunal’s order remains in force pending an appeal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority to the High Court.
The allegation arose from a letter sent to whistleblower Jennifer McAdam during the period in which the law firm Carter-Ruck acted for Dr Ruja Ignatova and One Network Services Ltd, known as OneCoin. The SRA alleged that the letter contained an improper threat of defamation proceedings and was sent for an improper public relations purpose, in breach of professional principles relating to integrity, public trust, and taking unfair advantage of third parties.
The Respondent applied for summary dismissal, arguing that the allegation was fundamentally misconceived in law, lacked evidential foundation, and was bound to fail. It was submitted that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings at an early stage where allegations were incapable of meeting the threshold for professional misconduct.
In response, the SRA argued that summary dismissal should be exercised sparingly in regulatory proceedings and that the case turned on issues of knowledge, intention, and improper purpose which required a substantive hearing. The regulator contended that the letter was sent for the dominant purpose of conveying a misleading public relations message that the client was ready and willing to vindicate its reputation in court, despite an alleged lack of evidence to do so.
The Tribunal rejected that position. It held that the allegation depended on establishing that the Respondent knew, at the time the letter was sent, that litigation would not be pursued and that the threatened proceedings were being used for an improper purpose. Assessing the matter by reference to what was known in April 2017, the Tribunal found that this knowledge could not be established.
The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence demonstrated measured and professional conduct. The letter itself was described as moderate in tone, conventional in form, and consistent with standard pre-action correspondence in defamation matters. It acknowledged the existence of a criminal investigation and stated that it was not intended to stifle legitimate debate.
Central to the decision was the Tribunal’s rejection of the SRA’s “false PR message” theory. The Tribunal found this approach speculative and legally unsustainable, noting that no proceedings were ever issued and that the Respondent was continuing to investigate the factual position at the time. Suspicion, the Tribunal held, was not equivalent to knowledge.
The Tribunal also took account of the prolonged investigation, which began in 2020 and had initially been recommended for closure in 2023. It concluded that the continued pursuit of the allegation was disproportionate.
The application for summary dismissal was therefore granted, and the proceedings were dismissed in full.