header-logo header-logo

29 July 2026
Issue: 8172 / Categories: Legal News , Privilege , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Sting operation on solicitor backfires

The Court of Appeal has issued a stern warning to lawyers engaging in the practice of ‘privilege hunting’—obtaining an opponent’s legally privileged information through dishonest means

In Pliego and another v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd and others [2026] EWCA Civ 940, Ricardo Salinas Pliego, a Mexican billionaire, was suing the defendants over a stock-lending scheme. Pliego hired Black Cube, a private investigation firm staffed by former intelligence officers, to target in a covert sting the solicitor in charge of the defendants’ case.

A Black Cube operative posed as a potential major client to induce the solicitor to reveal sensitive information about the defendants’ litigation and settlement strategy, perceived weaknesses, and the impact of freezing orders obtained by the claimants.

The sting operation was done without the knowledge of the claimants’ then solicitors, Enyo Law. The claimants, represented by new solicitors, exhibited secret recordings of the meetings in support of their application for summary judgment. The defendants successfully argued the sting operation was an abuse of process.

Dismissing the claimant’s appeal but ordering the claim continue to trial, Lord Justice Males said: ‘A “privilege hunting” operation such as occurred in this case should have no place in litigation in the courts of England and Wales.

‘Such litigation may be hard fought, but it must be fought fairly in accordance with the substantive and procedural rules which are designed to ensure a just result. Although I have reached no final decision whether the conduct of Black Cube amounted to the commission of a criminal offence under English law... it is clear that this conduct was a serious abuse of the process of the court for which the claimants are responsible.

‘Solicitors in other cases who are presented by clients with the fruits of such “privilege hunting” operations will need to consider carefully, not only their professional responsibilities, but also the possibility that by making use of such material they may be encouraging, or assisting their clients to benefit from, the commission of criminal offences.’

Males LJ noted the operation was ‘disastrous’ for the solicitor targeted, who ‘now faces disciplinary proceedings... and professional ruin’. 

Issue: 8172 / Categories: Legal News , Privilege , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

mfg Solicitors—Deborah Bufton

mfg Solicitors—Deborah Bufton

Law firm boosts residential property team with new associate appointment

Flint Bishop—Russell Bainbridge

Flint Bishop—Russell Bainbridge

Flint Bishop lands corporate partner from Knights amid Sheffield growth drive

Bird & Bird—Huw Edwards

Bird & Bird—Huw Edwards

Bird Bird appoints expert tech patent litigator as new partner in London

NEWS
The Law Society RFC Festival of Sport returns next month, bringing together legal and financial services professionals for one of the sector’s largest annual sporting events
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

back-to-top-scroll