The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has been considering case management directions in the matter of a Carter-Ruck solicitor alleged to have “sent or arranged to be sent correspondence which contained an improper threat of litigation“.
These are my notes from the case management hearing in the matter of the SRA v Claire Frances Gill. As the number of EM dashes might reveal these have been fed into ChatGPT for tidying up. We’d love to hear any feedback on this format and style of reporting.
The resulting output has been checked, corrected, and checked again.
A number of media organisations were watching this remote hearing so I trust they will produce succinct write-ups for those who don’t wish to have this level of detail. For those that do read on…
Reporting by freelance journalist and blogger Daniel Cloake
If you value this content you can buy me a coffee or donate to the Cheese Fund
Hearing details:
Thursday 28 August 2025
Before Mr U Sheikh, Mr G Sydenham, Mrs L McMahon-Hathway
Chair Mr U Sheikh
11.30am. Case Management Hearing – 12775 / 2025
Respondent: Claire Frances Gill represented by Richard Coleman KC
Applicant: Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd represented by David Price KC
A statement issued on the SRA website says:
“The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that, on or around 26 April 2017, Ms Gill sent or arranged to be sent correspondence which contained an improper threat of litigation.”
28/08/2025 12.13 – Hearing started
Chair: Mr Sheikh (Chair of the Panel)
- Administrative matters: Zoom meeting – notify the chair if any technical problems.
- Says a number of papers have been added to Caselines recently.
- Asks for parties to draw his attention to any papers filed in the last day.
- Respondent has filed a number of papers – Coleman KC to address.
- Respondent’s note sets out its position on case management issues.
- Number of issues identified – all raised by the Respondent.
Submissions
Mr Coleman KC (Respondent):
- First Application: Anonymity for the client.
- Application: Tribunal to direct that the identity of the former client(s) be treated as confidential, not disclosed or placed in the public domain. Reliance on Rule 35(9).
- Not an application on behalf of Ms Gill but to allow all parties to discharge their function of protecting legal professional privilege.
- A cipher (e.g. “Client A”) could be used.
- Some publicity already exists relating to the client; this is different to further publication of the client’s name to the world at large.
- Authorities: SRA v Williams.
- Urges tribunal to consider this application now.
- Any third party could apply to set aside any anonymity order later.
Q (Chair): Is the application for anonymity in respect of one client or more than one?
- Coleman: The client is named in the Rule 12 statement – there are three entities, including client representatives. Disclosure of their names would lead to identification of the client.
- Request: No party or third party should place this information in the public domain.
Mr Price (SRA):
- This issue should not be determined at today’s hearing. It is complex and not straightforward.
- Disclosure of the client’s identity has already been very widely reported in the media. Any order would bind the press from stating that Carter-Ruck acted for these clients, not just in these proceedings but more generally.
- References already made in Private Eye, by Mr Neidle, and in national newspapers naming the client.
- Risk of contempt as the identity is already subject to huge media coverage.
- Underlying issue is of considerable public interest.
- Such an application must be considered carefully and properly, not “on the hoof.”
- We were first told in the Letter dated 12th August: no formal application notice provided.
- Says he has has been on holiday, and is on holiday now, and hasn’t had proper time to consider the application or take instructions from the SRA.
- Media must be given an opportunity to be represented – this affects their rights.
- Submission: This is not a usual case; the application cannot properly be dealt with today.
Chair (to Coleman):
- Points out that publicity has already occurred.
- Notes the importance of the right to freedom of expression. Press should not be restricted unnecessarily.
- Questions whether any real purpose would be served by an order at this stage.
Coleman (reply):
- The order would serve a real purpose – publicity so far is limited, not “huge.”
- Any order not made today in due course would be unworkable
- It would not be final; it could be set aside later.
- Usual approach should be adopted (as set out in previous authority)
Mr Sydenham (Panel):
- When was this issue first raised?
- Has Mr Price had sufficient time to prepare?
Coleman:
- First raised 14 August.
- Says “radio silence” from the SRA until yesterday.
- The case management hearing was notified to the parties on 2nd June, with the standard checklist requiring case management issues to be identified. This was done in the usual way, seven days in advance.
- It is not sufficient for SRA to say counsel was on holiday – they should have instructed someone else.
- Notes that he himself is supposed to be on holiday – “my family would confirm that.”
- The order is necessary to protect clients’ underlying professional privilege.
Mr Price:
- States he is “professionally embarrassed” – has no skeleton argument and cannot properly advise his clients.
- Although experienced as a media lawyer, he cannot do the best possible job without proper preparation.
- Submission: “It is wrong to make an order of such a drastic kind on the basis that it can then be set aside.”
12.37 – Tribunal retires to consider the matter.
12.59 – Tribunal returns
Tribunal’s Decision
Chair:
- While the panel was risen, the tribunal was informed that a number of media organisations wish to make submissions.
- Noted also that Mr Price has indicated he is unprepared for today’s hearing.
- For these reasons, the tribunal has decided to invite all parties – and third parties – to make written submissions on the issue of anonymity.
- The issue will then be determined at a further hearing.
- It would be preferable for one media organisation to take the lead in making submissions on behalf of the press.
Mr Coleman KC:
- Supports the tribunal’s direction but submits that, for reasons of fairness and logic, there should be an interim order preventing disclosure of the client’s identity pending resolution of the issue.
- Notes that, absent such an order, many media organisations may publish further material in the meantime.
- Seeks a short-term order.
Chair (response):
- In summary, for the tribunal to make such an interim order, it would need to hear points from all parties – doing so now would undermine the previous decision.
- The press already have been reporting on this matter to date and so it’s not something we can address via an interim order at this stage.
- Accordingly, no interim order will be made.
13.03 – Tribunal adjourns for lunch
14.06 – The hearing continues.
Afternoon Session
Chair:
- Welcome back.
- A number of applications to be made – will go through them one by one.
- First, listing of further hearings.
Mr Coleman KC:
- We’re not making an application, but seeking directions.
- We will also need to return to Chair’s earlier direction on written submissions so that there is a timetable in place.
Chair: We will deal with other matters first.
Coleman: Four matters to raise:
- Disclosure.
- Summary dismissal application.
- Directions for substantive hearing (if there is to be one).
- Composition of the panel – whether it should include solicitors with litigation experience.
Chair: First three overlap and can be dealt with together as listing issues.
Coleman: Agrees.
Disclosure Application
Coleman:
- Application will be for disclosure of information, specifically the recommendation of the SRA investigation officer.
- We infer that the matter was closed without further action, which gives rise to the disclosure application.
- Common ground that this should be the next application before the tribunal.
- Proposes it be listed for half a day, on 6, 7, or 10 October.
- Everyone appears free on those dates. The SRA say after 15th October.
- The SRA say they prefer after 15 October, as 6–10 October clashes with half-term.
- If after 15th October then I’m not available until 10 November.
- This matter has been ongoing for five years – imperative there is no further undue delay.
- SRA propose to provide response to the application two weeks before the hearing.
Chair: Has Mr Price had sufficient time to prepare?
Mr Price (SRA): Yes.
- Not commenting on the substance of the application or the inferences.
- Paragraph 7 of the note seeks a date after 15 October – we say that would allow us proper time.
- We may need to introduce evidence.
- Hearing this application after October 15th should not delay substantive hearing or summary dismissal application.
- Summary dismissal hearing not contemplated until December.
- If this disclosure hearing needs to be in November, so be it.
Chair: Happy with the proposed length of the hearing?
Price: Yes, all agreed.
Chair: Remote hearing?
Price: Acceptable to the SRA.
Coleman: If the hearing were only half a day, remote would be fine, but if substantive points arise, in-person may be preferable. Leaves it to tribunal.
Panel: No questions.
Coleman: If we move it into November, the SRA’s document gathering and privilege review could put pressure on the December hearing.
Chair: In light of today’s earlier decision, the anonymity issue will also be considered at the next hearing. Does that alter submissions on timing/length?
Coleman: Suggests prudent to list for a full day.
Price: One day is sufficient – half a day for open justice, half a day for anonymity.
Summary Dismissal Application
Coleman:
- Application for summary dismissal: argues case does not raise issues of professional misconduct and has no prospect of success.
- We propose two days (11–12 December).
- SRA says half a day.
- Application will involve canvassing the law, reviewing documents, potential consequential matters (e.g. costs).
- If finished in 1.5 days, no harm; risk is under-allocation if only half a day is listed.
Chair: Why hear summary dismissal after disclosure?
Coleman: Disclosure application could produce documents relevant to summary dismissal. Even if disclosure fails, we would still pursue summary dismissal.
Price:
- Not commenting on substance of the application. Only on length.
- Summary judgment applications are unusual in this tribunal.
- If the case meets the test of being “hopeless,” why require two days?
- We already have a generous 6-day substantive hearing.
- Two days for summary dismissal is excessive.
- If they cannot show hopelessness in half a day, the application is misconceived.
- Not opposing the notion of the application itself, only the time estimate.
Chair: And the Hearing dates of 11 and 12 December.
Price: No objection.
Panel: No questions.
Coleman:
- Time estimate depends on tribunal’s need to fully understand the materials.
- Very lengthy Rule 12 statement and substantial response.
- Fundamental issues of professional misconduct.
- Suggests 2 days would be required.
- Substantive hearing only arises if summary dismissal fails.
Substantive Hearing
Chair: Directions for substantive hearing.
Coleman:
- Proposes time estimate of 6 days for the substantive hearing.
- Windows available:
- 21–31 March 2026, or
- 16 June – end July 2026.
- Client anxious for resolution.
- Proposes exchange of evidence 8 weeks after decision on summary judgment.
Chair: In-person hearing?
Coleman: Absolutely essential if evidence is heard.
Chair: Length of hearing reasonable?
Price: We have agreed. May not take the full time.
Chair: Dates?
Price: Not available 31 March, otherwise fine. Second window also acceptable.
- If cross-examination required, in-person hearing is appropriate.
Chair: Understood.
14.31 – Tribunal retires to consider the matter.
15.05 – Tribunal returns
Tribunal’s Decision on Listings
Chair:
- Thank you both for your submissions.
- We have considered all matters and discussed availability with listing staff.
- Dates are set as follows:
- Disclosure and anonymity applications: 6 October 2025, one day, remote hearing.
- Summary dismissal application: 11–12 December 2025, two days, remote hearing.
- Substantive hearing: From 16 June 2026 onwards, six days, in person (regret lack of earlier availability).
Panel Composition
Mr Coleman KC:
- Case concerns the proper conduct of litigation, including pre-litigation correspondence.
- This tribunal is an expert tribunal, and depends on its expertise.
- Desirable that the panel include one or two solicitor members with litigation experience.
- Invites tribunal to direct such an appointment.
Chair: What type of litigation experience do you seek?
Coleman: Ideally defamation litigation, but civil litigation would suffice.
Mr Price (SRA):
- Such directions are not standard practice.
- Tribunal members are fully capable of assessing professional conduct by reference to the rules.
- This is not how the tribunal normally operates.
Chair: Any previous cases where the tribunal has directed specific professional backgrounds for panel members?
Coleman: No.
- But on some occasions tribunals may take expert evidence.
- Submits that this case involves a novel application by the SRA, given the propositions advanced.
- Tribunal members “should have experience of the realities of conducting litgation”
Chair: Would you object to the presence of a lay member?
Coleman: No, saying the panel would benefit from having one.
Mr Sydenham (Panel): Isn’t it ultimately a matter of evidence from both sides as to what is normal practice?
Coleman: My client will give evidence as to what she regards as acceptable.
- However, a solicitor with litigation experience would be best placed to assess that evidence.
- In general, most cases before this tribunal are within the mainstream of solicitors’ experience, but this case is different.
15.12 – Tribunal retires to consider the matter.
15.23 – Tribunal returns
Panel Composition (Ruling)
Chair:
- Before the break, we heard submissions on the composition of the panel.
- In summary, we refuse the application.
- This is an expert tribunal. We do not require specific expertise in any one area.
- The panel benefits from a range of experience, including from lay members.
- This is not a usual application, and for all of those reasons, it is refused.
Anonymity & Written Submissions
Chair: Mr Coleman, please address us on anonymity and the timetable for written submissions.
Mr Coleman KC:
- We propose the following timetable:
- Respondent (us) to file submissions by 4pm, 12 September.
- SRA and others to reply by 19 September.
- Respondent to reply in turn by 4pm, 26 September.
- Third parties can already begin preparing any submissions they may wish to make.
- Tribunal would make the respondent’s application available to interested third parties who may wish to oppose it.
- Notes that, while respecting the tribunal’s earlier decision and reasoning, it may be that – due to publicity today and further reporting – “the horse has bolted” with respect to client identity.
- “If we form the view that it has, we’ll be realistic” and the respondent will not press for an order that has no purpose.
- Usual course would be to keep identity confidential.
- But, if identity is already in the public domain, issues of legal professional privilege (LPP) should be dealt with in private.
- In that event, respondent may advance application on the basis that:
- Identity of the client(s) is public, but
- Matters involving LPP should be heard in private.
- Suggests this should be determined at the September hearing.
SRA Submissions
Mr Price:
- Timetable proposed is acceptable.
- Emphasises importance of clarity as to the orders sought.
- This is a highly unusual case, given the client and the nature of their alleged conduct.
- If any part of the hearing is to be held in private, that should be determined in advance, with supporting documents.
- Entire question of whether the client can assert privilege should be addressed properly at that hearing.
- Respondent should identify the full extent of orders sought.
- Clarity needed on any derogations and the precise terms of the orders being invited.
Mr Coleman KC: Confirms that a draft order will be provided with their application.
Media Participation
Chair: In any event, the primary issue now is the timetable.
- Notes the presence of media representatives.
- Invites submissions from the press.
Mr David Pegg (The Guardian):
- Confirms timetable seems acceptable.
- Will coordinate with other members of the press in making submissions.
15.33 – Tribunal retires to consider the matter.
15.37 – Tribunal returns
Chair:
- Confirms timetable.
- Says an email has been received from a member of the public re anonymity application.
- Says he can simply recommend member of the public can liaise with The Guardian on any submissions.
- Confirms “we do not intend to disclose pleadings at this moment” but an application can be made in the normal way for those.
The hearing ended at 15.39
Mouse in the Court 