Carter-Ruck: Difference between revisions

Carter-Ruck
Headquarters	The Bureau, 90 Fetter Lane; London, EC4A; United Kingdom
Major practice areas	Libel, privacy, international law and commercial disputes
Key people	Nigel Tait; (Managing Partner); Cameron Doley; (Senior Partner);
Date founded	1982
Founder	Peter Carter-Ruck
Website	www.carter-ruck.com

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 04:32, 10 December 2024

Carter-Ruck is a British law firm founded by Peter Carter-Ruck.^[1] The firm specialises in libel, privacy, international law and commercial disputes.^[2] The leading legal directories (Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners) rank Carter-Ruck in the top tier of media, defamation and privacy lawyers in the UK.^[3]^[4]

Carter-Ruck has been criticised for using intimidating and threatening tactics against journalists, government officials, and citizens to support the interests of their clients.^[5]^[6]^[7] In 2022, a U.S. Congressman from Tennessee recommended that six Carter-Ruck lawyers be banned from entering the United States because of their ongoing work on behalf of Russian oligarchs.^[8]

Background

The firm was founded by Peter Carter-Ruck in 1982 after his former partners in Oswald Hickson told him to retire.^[9]

Notable clients and cases

Recent or current clients include the State of Qatar, Cubby Broccoli, Tesco, Rached Ghannouchi, Sir Elton John, Simon Cowell, Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), Liam Gallagher, Jude Law, Prince Radu of Romania, Frank Bruno and Chelsea Football Club. The firm represents numerous MPs (including government ministers), MEPs and other political figures including a number of national governments and heads of state.^[10]

Russian oligarchs

Carter-Ruck acted for the Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky in a number of libel and other actions, including in the House of Lords against Forbes magazine,^[11] The Guardian^[12] and Russian broadcaster VGTRK.^[13]

Carter-Ruck was involved in legal action against Financial Times journalist Catherine Belton and her publisher HarperCollins over her book Putin's People.^[14]

After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Carter-Ruck said it condemned the invasion and that the firm would not represent individuals associated with the Vladimir Putin regime.^[14]

Madeleine McCann

The firm has been involved in several libel cases related to the missing child Madeleine McCann. Complaints were brought on behalf of the child's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, against the Daily Express, the Daily Star and their sister Sunday newspapers over stories that suggested that the parents might have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance. The complaints led to the publication of unprecedented front-page apologies to Kate and Gerry McCann, in addition to a payment of £550,000 in damages, which was donated to the fund to find Madeleine.^[15]^[16]

Carter-Ruck also advised the so-called 'Tapas Seven',^[17] the friends who were dining with the child's parents when she went missing. The complaints again led to the publication of an apology and a payment of £375,000 in damages, donated to the fundraising group Madeleine's Fund.^[18]

Church of Scientology

In late 2008, John Duignan, a former Scientologist, published The Complex: An Insider Exposes the Covert World of the Church of Scientology, a book critical of Scientology. Carter-Ruck, citing defamation laws, stopped Amazon from publishing the book in Britain.^[19]

In 2010, Carter-Ruck represented the Church of Scientology regarding 28 September 2010 broadcast on "Secrets of Scientology" aired by BBC's Panorama, claiming the journalist involved was biased.^[20]

In 2016, Carter-Ruck were again found to be representing Scientology in the UK when they sent several letters to Louis Theroux and his producers during the making of My Scientology Movie threatening, amongst other things, legal action and an injunction against its release.^{[citation needed]} The film was released in 2015.

Trafigura

Carter-Ruck was instructed by commodities trader Trafigura over press coverage relating to the discharge of oil 'slops' from a Trafigura-chartered tanker in Ivory Coast in 2006. Libel proceedings were brought against the BBC in 2009 after a broadcast of the current affairs programme Newsnight suggested that Trafigura's actions had caused a number of deaths, miscarriages and serious injuries. The BBC went on to broadcast an apology as the opening item on Newsnight.^[21] The BBC also apologised in a Statement in Open Court.^[22]

Corrections concerning Trafigura were also published by The Times,^[23]^[24] The Independent,^[25] and The Guardian.^[26]

In September 2009, The Guardian reported that Carter-Ruck demanded it delete published articles relating to the Trafigura toxic oil disaster, saying it was "gravely defamatory" and "untrue" to say that Trafigura's waste had been dumped cheaply and could have caused deaths and serious injuries. The Guardian later reported that Trafigura agreed to pay compensation to 31,000 West African victims. The Guardian also alleged that other media outlets in the Netherlands and Norway were also threatened with gagging orders.^[27] These turned out to be NRK in Norway, and De Volkskrant and Greenpeace in the Netherlands.

In October 2009, The Guardian published an article stating that it had been prevented from reporting on a parliamentary matter, being "forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret. The only fact The Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck." The paper further claimed that this case appears "to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights".^[28]

The question subject to the gagging order was from Paul Farrelly, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.^[29]

The following day the firm agreed to discharge the order preventing the reporting of the events, which concerned Trafigura and a draft chemistry report into the oil slops incident in Ivory Coast.^[30]^[31] Trafigura maintained that the report was a superseded draft report which was legally privileged and confidential, and that it had been obtained illegally and passed to The Guardian.^[32]^{[full citation needed]}

According to a press release on Carter-Ruck's website, the reason that The Guardian could not report the question asked by Paul Farrelly was because a gagging order had been in place since 11 September 2009, before the MP asked the question. They also stated that it had never been their intention to prevent the press reporting on parliament and that they had since agreed on changes with The Guardian to the gagging order so that they could report on the issue.^[33] The firm also pointed out that The Guardian had in fact consented to the order preventing the newspaper from publishing any article about the chemistry report.

Subsequently, lawyers advising the Speaker of the House of Commons are reported to have agreed with Carter-Ruck's interpretation that the injunction as initially granted did prevent the press from reporting the Parliamentary question.^[34]

The Conservative MP Peter Bottomley reported the firm to the Law Society due to their actions which prevented The Guardian covering parliamentary proceedings,^[35] but the Law Society did not uphold any complaint.

Craig Ames and Robert McGee

In 2014, Carter-Ruck unsuccessfully sued cyber security company Spamhaus on behalf of California-based entrepreneurs Craig Ames and Rob McGee, who were involved with a bulk email marketing services business, initially through a US corporation called Blackstar Media LLC, and latterly as employees of Blackstar Marketing, a subsidiary of the English company Adconion Media Group Limited, which bought Blackstar Media in April 2011. Although an initial motion by Spamhaus to strike out the claims failed,^[36] they ultimately prevailed when the claimants dropped their case and paid Spamhaus' legal costs.^[37]

OneCoin

In September 2016 Carter-Ruck threatened legal action against Andrew Penman's exposé of the purported cryptocurrency OneCoin. In May 2017, police and financial actions in several countries revealed that Carter-Ruck's client did indeed appear to be operating a Ponzi scheme.^[38]^[39]^[40]

Labour Party

In July 2019, it was revealed that Carter-Ruck had written to Sam Matthews, the Labour Party's former head of disputes, warning he could face legal action for breaking his non-disclosure agreement for blowing the whistle on the party's handling of antisemitism allegations.^[41]^[42]

Criticism

Sir Christopher Meyer, former chairman of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) said that the PCC was the firm's "sworn enemy" and accused the firm of using a Commons select committee hearing to attack the PCC. He suggested that Carter-Ruck and other media law firms probably saw the PCC as their enemy because "we can do the job for free and can provide a degree of discretion". Cameron Doley, then managing partner with Carter-Ruck, denied the accusations made against them.^[43]

The firm is frequently referred to as 'Carter-Fuck' by the satirical magazine Private Eye. Despite their antagonistic relationship, Carter-Ruck publicly sided with Private Eye when the magazine lost a £600,000 libel case in 1989 against Sonia Sutcliffe, the wife of the Yorkshire Ripper. Founder Peter Carter-Ruck was subsequently invited to attend a Private Eye lunch, and soon afterwards he asked whether the magazine could stop misprinting the first letter of 'Ruck' as an 'F'. Private Eye's response was to print the first letter of 'Carter' with an 'F' as well.^[44]

The Libel Reform Campaign

The Libel Reform Campaign cite many instances where the application of the libel laws by law firms like Carter-Ruck is effectively gagging the freedom of expression and free speech in England and Wales, leaving only the wealthy anywhere in the world able to seek justice in the UK where it would be denied in their own country^[45]^[vague] (see Libel tourism). However, these criticisms have been challenged by leading media law academics Alastair Mullis and Andrew Scott.^[46]

An example of Carter-Ruck acting on behalf of a client to stifle criticism was reported in The Guardian newspaper on 19 January 2011. Carter-Ruck on behalf of Midland Pig Producers (MPP) issued a warning letter to the Soil Association (SA) threatening libel proceedings after the SA objected to a MPP planning application.^[47] Threatening such proceedings, which are rarely followed through, is a typical modus operandi of Carter-Ruck (and other law firms) to minimise scrutiny of, and adverse publicity toward, their clients – a practice known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, abbreviated SLAPP.^{[original research?]}

Competitors

Other firms involved in the same field as Carter-Ruck include Olswang and Reynolds Porter Chamberlain.^[48]

References

^ The man who invented the London libel industry, Nigel Horne, The First Post, 13 October 2009
^ www.carter-ruck.com Retrieved 13 October 2009.
^ [1] Archived 2 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine, chambersandpartners.com. Accessed 13 March 2015.
^ [2] Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Legal500.com. Accessed 13 March 2015.
^ "Oligarchs use London law firms to intimidate journalists, MPs say". The Guardian. 21 January 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2022.
^ "Lawyers intimidating journalists to protect oligarchs say MPS". Association of European Journalists. 16 March 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2022.
^ Segal, David (29 March 2022). "Do Russian Oligarchs Have a Secret Weapon in London's Libel Lawyers?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 9 May 2022.
^ "US congressman urges Biden to ban six UK lawyers for 'enabling' oligarchs". The Guardian. 19 April 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2022.
^ "Peter Carter-Ruck. Eminent libel lawyer with a reputation for aggressive tactics". The Independent. London. 22 December 2003. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 21 May 2014.
^ [3] Archived 26 October 2010 at the Wayback Machine, Accessed 16 September 2010
^ "House of Lords Judgment: Berezovsky v Michaels and Others". parliament.uk.
^ "Guardian libel payout to Russian billionaire". Press Gazette. 10 March 2006. Archived from the original on 16 June 2011.
^ "Boris Berezovsky wins Litvinenko poison spy libel case". BBC News. 10 March 2010.
^ ^a ^b "US congressman urges Biden to ban six UK lawyers for 'enabling' oligarchs". The Guardian. 19 April 2022. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
^ "Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry". Daily Express. 23 March 2008.
^ "Kate & Gerry McCann: Sorry". Daily Star. 23 March 2008.
^ "Who are the McCann tapas seven?". BBC News. 16 October 2008.
^ "THE TAPAS 7 – AN APOLOGY". Sunday Express. 19 October 2008.
^ Barrett, D.V. (2008): How Scientologists pressurise publishers. The Guardian, Thursday 4 December 2008. article online
^ "John Sweeney revisits the Church of Scientology". BBC's Panorama series. September 2010. Retrieved 25 September 2010.
^ "BBC Newsnight apology to Trafigura - high quality". 19 December 2009. Retrieved 6 January 2023 – via www.youtube.com.
^ "Trafigura v BBC: Statement in open court". 17 December 2009. Retrieved 6 January 2023 – via news.bbc.co.uk.
^ "Trafigura – Correction". The Times. 4 September 2009.
^ "Trafigura – Correction". The Times. 29 April 2010.
^ "Trafigura no link identified between toxic dumping incident and serious injuries", The Independent, 22 February 2010
^ "Corrections and Clarifications" column, The Guardian, 6 May 2010 (hard copy newspaper only)
^ Leigh, David (17 September 2009). "Papers prove Trafigura ship dumped toxic waste in Ivory Coast". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 May 2009.
^ "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament", The Guardian, 12 October 2009
^ David Leigh (13 October 2009). "Gag on Guardian reporting MP's Trafigura question lifted". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 13 October 2009.
^ "Parliamentary question gag lifted", '"BBC News, 13 October 2009
^ David Leigh, "Trafigura gag attempt unites house in protest", The Guardian, 13 October 2009
^ . Carter-Ruck https://web.archive.org/web/20120402201242/http://www.trafigura.com/PDF/Carter%20Ruck%20press%20release,%2016%20October%202009.pdf. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 10 November 2011. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Press Release by Carter-Ruck on behalf of Trafigura Limited and Trafigura Beheer BV" (PDF). 13 October 2009. Retrieved 13 October 2009.^{[dead link‍]}
^ "Enemies eye chance to dethrone John Bercow", 6 December 2009 Archived 2015-05-27 at the Wayback Machine (subscription required)
^ Summers, Deborah (14 October 2009). "MP to report Carter-Ruck to Law Society over attempt to gag Guardian". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 14 October 2009.
^ "Ames & anor v The Spamhaus Project Ltd & anor, Reference [2015] EWHC 127 (QB)" (PDF). 5rb.com. 27 January 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2016.
^ Linford, Steve (12 June 2015). "Case Dismissed: Ames & McGee v The Spamhaus Project". The Spamhaus Project website. Retrieved 25 October 2016.
^ Penman, Andrew (17 May 2017). "Seven months after I expose crypto-currency OneCoin, police move in". Mirror.
^ "OneCoin serve cease and desist to journalist over Ponzi claims". Behind BLM. 29 September 2016.
^ Byrne, Todd (2 May 2017). "Onecoin Threatens Critics as Chinese Authorities Shut Down Event". Bitsonline. Archived from the original on 11 June 2017. Retrieved 18 June 2017.
^ "Labour 'sinks to deeper low' amid claims it gagged anti-Semitism whistleblowers". ITV News. 7 July 2019. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
^ "Labour anger at BBC over Panorama antisemitism documentary". The Times. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
^ Luft, Oliver (25 March 2009). "PCC chairman Sir Christopher Meyer criticises media law firms". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 13 October 2009.
^ "Peter Carter-Ruck (Telegraph obituary)". The Daily Telegraph. London. 22 December 2003. Retrieved 9 February 2010. In 1989 Carter-Ruck publicly attacked the £600,000 damages awarded to Sonia Sutcliffe against the magazine and was invited to an Eye lunch, an occasion he attended with some trepidation. Not long afterwards, he asked if, in the new spirit of friendship, they would now stop printing the first letter of Ruck as an F. Their response, not unpredictably, was to print the first letter of Carter as an F as well. 'I think my relationship with Private Eve [sic] is now definitely hate,' he said later.
^ "The Libel Reform Campaign". Archived from the original on 2 March 2021. Retrieved 26 February 2021.
^ "Something Rotten in the State of English Libel Law? A Rejoinder to the Clamour for Reform of Defamation" (PDF). January 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 7 November 2011.
^ Lawrence, Felicity (19 January 2011). "Soil Association given libel warning after objection to huge pig farm". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 19 January 2011.
^ "How to get a shred in law". The Lawyer. 11 February 2008. Retrieved 13 October 2009.

External links

Official website

[1] The man who invented the London libel industry, Nigel Horne, The First Post, 13 October 2009

[2] www.carter-ruck.com Retrieved 13 October 2009.

[3] [1] Archived 2 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine, chambersandpartners.com. Accessed 13 March 2015.

[legal500-4] [2] Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Legal500.com. Accessed 13 March 2015.

[5] "Oligarchs use London law firms to intimidate journalists, MPs say". The Guardian. 21 January 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2022.

[6] "Lawyers intimidating journalists to protect oligarchs say MPS". Association of European Journalists. 16 March 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2022.

[7] Segal, David (29 March 2022). "Do Russian Oligarchs Have a Secret Weapon in London's Libel Lawyers?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 9 May 2022.

[8] "US congressman urges Biden to ban six UK lawyers for 'enabling' oligarchs". The Guardian. 19 April 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2022.

[9] "Peter Carter-Ruck. Eminent libel lawyer with a reputation for aggressive tactics". The Independent. London. 22 December 2003. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 21 May 2014.

[10] [3] Archived 26 October 2010 at the Wayback Machine, Accessed 16 September 2010

[11] "House of Lords Judgment: Berezovsky v Michaels and Others". parliament.uk.

[12] "Guardian libel payout to Russian billionaire". Press Gazette. 10 March 2006. Archived from the original on 16 June 2011.

[13] "Boris Berezovsky wins Litvinenko poison spy libel case". BBC News. 10 March 2010.

[:0-14] "US congressman urges Biden to ban six UK lawyers for 'enabling' oligarchs". The Guardian. 19 April 2022. Retrieved 4 May 2022.

[15] "Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry". Daily Express. 23 March 2008.

[16] "Kate & Gerry McCann: Sorry". Daily Star. 23 March 2008.

[17] "Who are the McCann tapas seven?". BBC News. 16 October 2008.

[18] "THE TAPAS 7 – AN APOLOGY". Sunday Express. 19 October 2008.

[19] Barrett, D.V. (2008): How Scientologists pressurise publishers. The Guardian, Thursday 4 December 2008. article online

[BBCSecrets-20] "John Sweeney revisits the Church of Scientology". BBC's Panorama series. September 2010. Retrieved 25 September 2010.

[21] "BBC Newsnight apology to Trafigura - high quality". 19 December 2009. Retrieved 6 January 2023 – via www.youtube.com.

[22] "Trafigura v BBC: Statement in open court". 17 December 2009. Retrieved 6 January 2023 – via news.bbc.co.uk.

[23] "Trafigura – Correction". The Times. 4 September 2009.

[24] "Trafigura – Correction". The Times. 29 April 2010.

[25] "Trafigura no link identified between toxic dumping incident and serious injuries", The Independent, 22 February 2010

[26] "Corrections and Clarifications" column, The Guardian, 6 May 2010 (hard copy newspaper only)

[27] Leigh, David (17 September 2009). "Papers prove Trafigura ship dumped toxic waste in Ivory Coast". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 May 2009.

[28] "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament", The Guardian, 12 October 2009

[Leigh-29] David Leigh (13 October 2009). "Gag on Guardian reporting MP's Trafigura question lifted". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 13 October 2009.

[30] "Parliamentary question gag lifted", '"BBC News, 13 October 2009

[31] David Leigh, "Trafigura gag attempt unites house in protest", The Guardian, 13 October 2009

[32] . Carter-Ruck https://web.archive.org/web/20120402201242/http://www.trafigura.com/PDF/Carter%20Ruck%20press%20release,%2016%20October%202009.pdf. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 10 November 2011. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[trafPR-33] "Press Release by Carter-Ruck on behalf of Trafigura Limited and Trafigura Beheer BV" (PDF). 13 October 2009. Retrieved 13 October 2009.^{[dead link‍]}

[34] "Enemies eye chance to dethrone John Bercow", 6 December 2009 Archived 2015-05-27 at the Wayback Machine (subscription required)

[35] Summers, Deborah (14 October 2009). "MP to report Carter-Ruck to Law Society over attempt to gag Guardian". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 14 October 2009.

[36] "Ames & anor v The Spamhaus Project Ltd & anor, Reference [2015] EWHC 127 (QB)" (PDF). 5rb.com. 27 January 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2016.

[37] Linford, Steve (12 June 2015). "Case Dismissed: Ames & McGee v The Spamhaus Project". The Spamhaus Project website. Retrieved 25 October 2016.

[38] Penman, Andrew (17 May 2017). "Seven months after I expose crypto-currency OneCoin, police move in". Mirror.

[39] "OneCoin serve cease and desist to journalist over Ponzi claims". Behind BLM. 29 September 2016.

[40] Byrne, Todd (2 May 2017). "Onecoin Threatens Critics as Chinese Authorities Shut Down Event". Bitsonline. Archived from the original on 11 June 2017. Retrieved 18 June 2017.

[41] "Labour 'sinks to deeper low' amid claims it gagged anti-Semitism whistleblowers". ITV News. 7 July 2019. Retrieved 8 July 2019.

[42] "Labour anger at BBC over Panorama antisemitism documentary". The Times. Retrieved 8 July 2019.

[43] Luft, Oliver (25 March 2009). "PCC chairman Sir Christopher Meyer criticises media law firms". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 13 October 2009.

[44] "Peter Carter-Ruck (Telegraph obituary)". The Daily Telegraph. London. 22 December 2003. Retrieved 9 February 2010. In 1989 Carter-Ruck publicly attacked the £600,000 damages awarded to Sonia Sutcliffe against the magazine and was invited to an Eye lunch, an occasion he attended with some trepidation. Not long afterwards, he asked if, in the new spirit of friendship, they would now stop printing the first letter of Ruck as an F. Their response, not unpredictably, was to print the first letter of Carter as an F as well. 'I think my relationship with Private Eve [sic] is now definitely hate,' he said later.

[45] "The Libel Reform Campaign". Archived from the original on 2 March 2021. Retrieved 26 February 2021.

[lse-46] "Something Rotten in the State of English Libel Law? A Rejoinder to the Clamour for Reform of Defamation" (PDF). January 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 7 November 2011.

[47] Lawrence, Felicity (19 January 2011). "Soil Association given libel warning after objection to huge pig farm". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 19 January 2011.

[comp-48] "How to get a shred in law". The Lawyer. 11 February 2008. Retrieved 13 October 2009.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|UK law firm}}
 {{Use British English|date=May 2013}}
 {{Use dmy dates|date=January 2020}}
 {{Infobox law firm
 | name             = Carter-Ruck
-| logo             = File:Carter-Ruck logo.png
+| logo             = Carter-Ruck logo.svg
-| headquarters     = St Andrew Street<br>[[London]], {{postcode|EC|4A}}<br>[[United Kingdom]]
+| headquarters     = The Bureau, 90 Fetter Lane<br>[[London]], {{postcode|EC|4A}}<br>[[United Kingdom]]
-| type             = [[lawyer|Law firm]]
 | founder          = [[Peter Carter-Ruck]]
-| key_people       = Nigel Tait<br><small>Managing Partner</small><br>Cameron Doley<br/><small>Senior Partner</small>
+| key_people       = {{ubl|Nigel Tait<br>{{small|(Managing Partner)}}|Cameron Doley<br />{{small|(Senior Partner)}}}}
 | practice_areas   = [[English defamation law|Libel]], [[Privacy in English law|privacy]], [[international law]] and commercial disputes
 | date_founded     = 1982
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 }}
-'''Carter-Ruck''' is a British law firm founded by [[Peter Carter-Ruck]].<ref>[http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54640,people,news,peter-carter-ruck-the-man-who-invented-the-libel-industry The man who invented the London libel industry], Nigel Horne, [[The First Post]], 13 October 2009</ref> The firm specialises in [[English defamation law|libel]], [[Privacy in English law|privacy]], [[international law]] and commercial disputes.<ref>[http://www.carter-ruck.com www.carter-ruck.com] {{Retrieved|accessdate = 13 October 2009 }}</ref>
+'''Carter-Ruck''' is a British law firm founded by [[Peter Carter-Ruck]].<ref>[http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54640,people,news,peter-carter-ruck-the-man-who-invented-the-libel-industry The man who invented the London libel industry], Nigel Horne, [[The First Post]], 13 October 2009</ref> The firm specialises in [[English defamation law|libel]], [[Privacy in English law|privacy]], [[international law]] and commercial disputes.<ref>[http://www.carter-ruck.com www.carter-ruck.com] {{Retrieved|accessdate = 13 October 2009 }}</ref> The leading legal directories (Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners) rank Carter-Ruck in the top tier of media, defamation and privacy lawyers in the UK.<ref>[http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/firm/323/carter-ruck] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150602042939/http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/firm/323/carter-ruck |date=2 June 2015 }}, chambersandpartners.com. Accessed 13 March 2015.</ref><ref name="legal500">[http://www.legal500.com/firms/2640-carter-ruck/93-london] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001829/http://www.legal500.com/firms/2640-carter-ruck/93-london |date=4 March 2016 }}, Legal500.com. Accessed 13 March 2015.</ref>
+Carter-Ruck has been criticised for using intimidating and threatening tactics against journalists, government officials, and citizens to support the interests of their clients.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-01-21 |title=Oligarchs use London law firms to intimidate journalists, MPs say |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/21/oligarchs-use-london-law-firms-to-intimidate-journalists-mps-say |access-date=2022-05-09 |website=The Guardian |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-03-16 |title=Lawyers intimidating journalists to protect oligarchs say MPS |url=https://aej.org/2022/03/16/lawyers-intimidating-journalists-to-protect-oligarchs-say-mpslondon-lawyers-intimidating-journalists-to-protect-oligarchslondon-lawyers-intimidate-journalists-to-protect-oligarchs-mps-told/ |access-date=2022-05-09 |website=Association of European Journalists |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Segal |first=David |date=2022-03-29 |title=Do Russian Oligarchs Have a Secret Weapon in London's Libel Lawyers? |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/business/oligarchs-london-putin-russia.html |access-date=2022-05-09 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> In 2022, a U.S. Congressman from Tennessee recommended that six Carter-Ruck lawyers be banned from entering the United States because of their ongoing work on behalf of Russian oligarchs.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-19 |title=US congressman urges Biden to ban six UK lawyers for 'enabling' oligarchs |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/19/us-congressman-urges-biden-to-ban-six-uk-lawyers-for-enabling-oligarchs |access-date=2022-05-09 |website=The Guardian |language=en}}</ref>
-The leading legal directories (Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners) rank Carter-Ruck in the top tier of media, defamation and privacy lawyers in the UK.<ref>http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/firm/323/carter-ruck, chambersandpartners.com. Accessed 13 March 2015.</ref><ref name="legal500">http://www.legal500.com/firms/2640-carter-ruck/93-london, Legal500.com. Accessed 13 March 2015.</ref> The firm is described by Legal 500 as being "a force to be reckoned with"<ref name="legal500"/> and by Chambers and Partners as "acclaimed for its depth of quality expertise" routinely acting in "ground-breaking cases for high-flyers in the fields of business and entertainment".<ref>http://www.chambersandpartners.com/11805/20/editorial/1/1, chambersandpartners.com. Accessed 13 March 2015.</ref>
-Carter-Ruck's public international law team is described by Chambers as "excellent, very knowledgeable and [as having] a flourishing sanctions practice" and as being "Renowned for its distinct expertise in sanctions against states and targeted asset freezing against individuals, and for its involvement in highly sensitive cases."<ref>http://www.chambersandpartners.com/11814/96/editorial/1/1, chambersandpartners.com. Accessed 13 March 2015</ref> The firm's banking litigation practice is also ranked by both directories.<ref>http://www.chambersandpartners.com/11814/888/editorial/1/1#RankedFirms_Tab, chambersandpartners.com. Accessed 13 March 2015</ref><ref>http://www.legal500.com/c/london/dispute-resolution/banking-litigation-investment-and-retail#paragraph_13547, Legal500.com. Accessed 13 March 2015</ref>
-The firm offers some of their services including libel actions and high-value commercial claims on a [[Contingent fee|"no win, no fee" basis]].<ref>http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6236407.ece, Wade, Alex (7 May 2009). "Credit-crunch victims turn to no-win, no-fee for help". The Times. Retrieved 13 October 2009</ref>
 ==Background==
@@ Line 25: / Line 21: @@
 ==Notable clients and cases==
-Recent or current clients include the [[State of Qatar]], [[Albert R. Broccoli|Cubby Broccoli]], [[Tesco plc]], [[Rached Ghannouchi]], [[Sir Elton John]], [[Simon Cowell]], [[Yusuf Islam]] (formerly Cat Stevens), [[Liam Gallagher]], [[Jude Law]], [[Prince Radu of Romania]], [[Frank Bruno]] and [[Chelsea Football Club]]. The firm represents numerous MPs (including government ministers), MEPs and other political figures including a number of national governments and heads of state.<ref>http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Recent_Work.asp {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101026013349/http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Recent_Work.asp# |date=26 October 2010 }}, Accessed 16 September 2010</ref>
+Recent or current clients include the [[State of Qatar]], [[Albert R. Broccoli|Cubby Broccoli]], [[Tesco]], [[Rached Ghannouchi]], [[Sir Elton John]], [[Simon Cowell]], [[Yusuf Islam]] (formerly Cat Stevens), [[Liam Gallagher]], [[Jude Law]], [[Prince Radu of Romania]], [[Frank Bruno]] and [[Chelsea Football Club]]. The firm represents numerous MPs (including government ministers), MEPs and other political figures including a number of national governments and heads of state.<ref>[http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Recent_Work.asp] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101026013349/http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Recent_Work.asp |date=26 October 2010 }}, Accessed 16 September 2010</ref>
-===Boris Berezovsky===
+===Russian oligarchs===
-Carter-Ruck acted for the Russian businessman [[Boris Berezovsky (businessman)|Boris Berezovsky]] in a number of libel and other actions, including in the House of Lords against ''Forbes'' magazine,<ref>https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000511/bere-1.htm, House of Lords Judgment: Berezovsky v Michaels and Others, UK Parliament website</ref> ''The Guardian''<ref>http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=33453&sectioncode=1 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110616115638/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=33453&sectioncode=1 |date=16 June 2011 }}, "Guardian libel payout to Russian billionaire", Press Gazette, 10 March 2006</ref> and Russian state-owned broadcaster VGTRK.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8559543.stm, "Boris Berezovsky wins Litvinenko poison spy libel case" BBC News website, 10 March 2010</ref>
+Carter-Ruck acted for the Russian businessman [[Boris Berezovsky (businessman)|Boris Berezovsky]] in a number of libel and other actions, including in the House of Lords against ''Forbes'' magazine,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000511/bere-1.htm|title=House of Lords Judgment: Berezovsky v Michaels and Others|website=parliament.uk}}</ref> ''The Guardian''<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=33453&sectioncode=1|title=Guardian libel payout to Russian billionaire|work=Press Gazette|date=10 March 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110616115638/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=33453&sectioncode=1|archive-date=16 June 2011}}</ref> and Russian broadcaster [[All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company|VGTRK]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8559543.stm|title=Boris Berezovsky wins Litvinenko poison spy libel case|publisher=BBC News|date=10 March 2010}}</ref>
+Carter-Ruck was involved in legal action against ''Financial Times'' journalist [[Catherine Belton]] and her publisher HarperCollins over her book ''[[Putin's People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West|Putin's People]]''.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2022-04-19 |title=US congressman urges Biden to ban six UK lawyers for 'enabling' oligarchs |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/19/us-congressman-urges-biden-to-ban-six-uk-lawyers-for-enabling-oligarchs |access-date=2022-05-04 |website=The Guardian |language=en}}</ref>
-===Richard Burgon===
-Carter-Ruck acted for [[Richard Burgon]] MP who in February 2019 was awarded damages of £30,000 in the High Court for libel. The paper is expected to pay his legal costs, and an injunction was issued preventing the false statements from being published again. The article in question made a false allegation that Burgon had joined a band which delighted in using Nazi symbols.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/feb/06/labour-mp-richard-burgon-wins-nazi-libel-case-against-sun</ref>
+After [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022]], Carter-Ruck said it condemned the invasion and that the firm would not represent individuals associated with the Vladimir Putin regime.<ref name=":0" />
-===Henrik Thomsen===
-The firm defended a libel action brought against Danish radiologist Henrik Thomsen, who had questioned the safety of a contrast agent used in patients undergoing MRI scans, which was produced by GE Healthcare. The firm represented Thomsen on a "no win, no fee" basis.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/feb/18/ge-healthcare-henrik-thomsen-libel, "US Drug firm drops libel action against scientist", The Guardian, 18 February 2010</ref>
 ===Madeleine McCann===
-The firm has been involved in several libel cases related to the missing child [[Disappearance of Madeleine McCann|Madeleine McCann]]. Complaints were brought on behalf of the child's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, against the ''[[Daily Express]]'', the ''[[Daily Star (United Kingdom)|Daily Star]]'' and their sister Sunday newspapers over stories that suggested that the parents may have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance. The complaints led to the publication of unprecedented front-page apologies to Kate and Gerry McCann, in addition to a payment of £550,000 in damages, which was donated to the fund to find Madeleine.<ref>http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/38490, "Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry", the Daily Express, 23 March 2008</ref><ref>http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/32577/Kate-Gerry-McCann-Sorry/, "Kate & Gerry McCann: Sorry", the Daily Star, 23 March 2008</ref>
+The firm has been involved in several libel cases related to the missing child [[Disappearance of Madeleine McCann|Madeleine McCann]]. Complaints were brought on behalf of the child's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, against the ''[[Daily Express]]'', the ''[[Daily Star (United Kingdom)|Daily Star]]'' and their sister Sunday newspapers over stories that suggested that the parents might have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance. The complaints led to the publication of unprecedented front-page apologies to Kate and Gerry McCann, in addition to a payment of £550,000 in damages, which was donated to the fund to find Madeleine.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/38490|title=Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry|date=23 March 2008|work=Daily Express}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/32577/Kate-Gerry-McCann-Sorry/|title=Kate & Gerry McCann: Sorry|date=23 March 2008|work=Daily Star}}</ref>
-Carter-Ruck also advised the so-called 'Tapas Seven',<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7331034.stm | work=BBC News | title=Who are the McCann tapas seven? | date=16 October 2008}}</ref> the friends who were dining with the child's parents when she went missing. The complaints again led to the publication of an apology and a payment of £375,000 in damages, donated to the fundraising group [[Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Madeleine's Fund|Madeleine's Fund]].<ref>http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/66632/-The-Tapas-Seven-an-apology, THE TAPAS 7 – AN APOLOGY", The Sunday Express, 19 October 2008</ref>
+Carter-Ruck also advised the so-called 'Tapas Seven',<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7331034.stm | work=BBC News | title=Who are the McCann tapas seven? | date=16 October 2008}}</ref> the friends who were dining with the child's parents when she went missing. The complaints again led to the publication of an apology and a payment of £375,000 in damages, donated to the fundraising group [[Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Madeleine's Fund|Madeleine's Fund]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/66632/-The-Tapas-Seven-an-apology|title=THE TAPAS 7 – AN APOLOGY|date=19 October 2008|work=Sunday Express}}</ref>
-===The Mahmood Family===
-MailOnline and its columnist [[Katie Hopkins]] published a full apology and paid £150,000 in damages to the Mahmood family over two articles published in December 2015. The article falsely conveyed the impression that Tariq and Zahid Mahmood were extremists linked to Al Qaeda whereas they were in fact two brothers taking their families on a trip to Disneyland.<ref>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38367563</ref>
-===Michael Martin===
-Carter-Ruck acted for [[Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn|Michael Martin]], the former [[Speaker of the  House of Commons (United Kingdom)|Speaker of the  House of Commons]], and secured the publication of an apology for Speaker (now Lord) Martin by ''The Times''. The firm acted on a '[[Contingent fee|no win, no fee]]' basis and Lord Martin recovered his legal costs from the newspaper. It was reported that over £21,000 of public funds had been spent on employing Carter-Ruck to defend him against other newspaper reports that questioned whether he acted impartially in the House of Commons, although the House administration confirmed that they had endorsed the use of Carter-Ruck for that purpose.<ref name="speaker">{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565832/Commons-Speaker-spent-21k-on-libel-lawyers.html|title=Commons Speaker spent £21k on libel lawyers|last=Helm|first=Toby|date=11 October 2007|work=The Daily Telegraph|accessdate=13 October 2009 | location=London}}</ref>
-===Roy Ramm===
-''The Mirror'' issued an apology and agreed to pay compensation and legal costs to Carter-Ruck client former police Commander [[Roy Ramm]], after the newspaper published false and defamatory allegations about him on its website on 8 March 2018. The article falsely depicted Mr Ramm as having responsibility for the police undercover operation and investigation into the murder of [[Rachel Nickell]] on Wimbledon Common in July 1992, and alleged that, as a consequence, he was "disgraced". In fact Mr Ramm's role was limited to supplying a police officer for undercover work in the investigation.<ref>https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mirror-publisher-pays-out-substantial-compensation-to-ex-police-commander-over-false-allegations/</ref>
-===Shilpa Shetty===
-[[Shilpa Shetty]] consulted Carter-Ruck after the [[Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy|''Celebrity Big Brother'' racism controversy]]; she later failed to pay a legal bill of £13,000 and was sued by the firm as a result.<ref name="shilpa">{{cite news|url=http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/shilpa-shetty-firm-sued-240707.html |archive-url=https://archive.is/20130217222552/http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/shilpa-shetty-firm-sued-240707.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=17 February 2013 |title=Shilpa Shetty's firm sued for payment default |date=24 July 2007 |publisher=OneIndia |accessdate=19 October 2009 }}</ref>
 ===Church of Scientology===
-In late 2008, [[John Duignan]], a former [[scientology|Scientologist]], published ''[[The Complex: An Insider Exposes the Covert World of the Church of Scientology]]'', a book critical of Scientology. Carter-Ruck, citing defamation laws, stopped [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] from publishing the book in Britain.<ref>Barrett, D.V. (2008): How Scientologists pressurise publishers. [[The Guardian]], Thursday 4 December 2008. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2008/dec/04/religion-scientology-books article online]</ref>
+In late 2008, John Duignan, a former [[Scientology|Scientologist]], published ''[[The Complex: An Insider Exposes the Covert World of the Church of Scientology]]'', a book critical of Scientology. Carter-Ruck, citing defamation laws, stopped [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] from publishing the book in Britain.<ref>Barrett, D.V. (2008): How Scientologists pressurise publishers. [[The Guardian]], Thursday 4 December 2008. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2008/dec/04/religion-scientology-books article online]</ref>
 In 2010, Carter-Ruck represented the Church of Scientology regarding 28 September 2010 broadcast on "Secrets of Scientology" aired by [[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]]'s ''[[Panorama (TV series)|Panorama]]'', claiming the journalist involved was biased.<ref name="BBCSecrets">{{cite news | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9032000/9032278.stm | title=John Sweeney revisits the Church of Scientology  |publisher=[[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]]'s [[Panorama (TV series)|Panorama]] series | date=September 2010 | accessdate = 25 September 2010}}</ref>
 In 2016, Carter-Ruck were again found to be representing Scientology in the UK when they sent several letters to [[Louis Theroux]] and his producers during the making of ''[[My Scientology Movie]]'' threatening, amongst other things, legal action and an injunction against its release.{{Citation needed|date=October 2016}} The film was released in 2015.
-===Tullett Brown===
-Carter Ruck were reported as aiding 'scammers' Tullett Brown<ref>{{cite news | url=http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/07/tullett-brown-scammers-net-32m.html | title=Tullett Brown Scammers net 3.2million |work=[[Daily Mirror]] | date=July 2012 | accessdate = 6 July 2012}}</ref> enabling them to continue trading for 3 years whilst netting £3.2 million from investors. They threatened to sue journalists including Tony Levene if they reported the information publicly, thus stifling free speech. However, Levene himself stifled an investigation by another newspaper by alerting Carter-Ruck through his internet postings.
-Carter-Ruck appear to try and distance themselves from criticism in the press by replying to ''The Guardian'''s questions – "The partner who dealt with Tullett Brown is no longer at Carter-Ruck. Also, as you are aware, Tullett Brown is now in liquidation. We have no instructions to respond to your questions."<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/jun/08/green-investment-turned-hazardous | location=London | work=The Guardian | first=Tony | last=Levene | title=A green investment that turned hazardous | date=8 June 2012}}</ref>
 ===Trafigura===
-Carter-Ruck was instructed by commodities trader [[Trafigura]] over press coverage relating to the discharge of oil 'slops' from a Trafigura-chartered tanker in Côte d'Ivoire in 2006.
+Carter-Ruck was instructed by commodities trader [[Trafigura]] over press coverage relating to the discharge of oil 'slops' from a Trafigura-chartered tanker in Ivory Coast in 2006.
-Libel proceedings were brought against the BBC in 2009 after a broadcast of the current affairs programme ''Newsnight'' falsely suggested that Trafigura's actions caused a number of deaths, miscarriages and serious injuries. The BBC went on to broadcast an apology as the opening item on ''Newsnight''.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMYvFlqLpv8, Broadcast apology, BBC Newsnight, 17 December 2009</ref> The BBC also apologised in a Statement in Open Court.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8417913.stm, Statement in Open Court, BBC Newsnight website, 17 December 2009</ref>
+Libel proceedings were brought against the BBC in 2009 after a broadcast of the current affairs programme ''Newsnight'' suggested that Trafigura's actions had caused a number of deaths, miscarriages and serious injuries. The BBC went on to broadcast an apology as the opening item on ''Newsnight''.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMYvFlqLpv8|title=BBC Newsnight apology to Trafigura - high quality|date=19 December 2009 |accessdate=6 January 2023|via=www.youtube.com}}</ref> The BBC also apologised in a Statement in Open Court.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8417913.stm|title=Trafigura v BBC: Statement in open court|date=17 December 2009|accessdate=6 January 2023|via=news.bbc.co.uk}}</ref>
-Corrections concerning Trafigura were also published by ''The Times'',<ref>http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article2144616.ece, "Trafigura – Correction", ''The Times'', 4 September 2009 {{paywall}}.</ref><ref>http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/world/africa/article2496197.ece, "Trafigura – Correction", ''The Times'', 29 April 2010 {{paywall}}.</ref> ''The Independent'',<ref>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/trafigura-no-link-identified-between-toxic-dumping-incident-and-serious-injuries-1904830.html, "Trafigura no link identified between toxic dumping incident and serious injuries", The Independent, 22 February 2010</ref> and ''The Guardian''.<ref>"Corrections and Clarifications" column, ''The Guardian'', 6 May 2010 (hard copy newspaper only)</ref>
+Corrections concerning Trafigura were also published by ''The Times'',<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article2144616.ece,|title=Trafigura – Correction|work=[[The Times]]|date= 4 September 2009 |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/world/africa/article2496197.ece |title=Trafigura – Correction|work=[[The Times]]|date= 29 April 2010 |url-access=subscription}}</ref> ''The Independent'',<ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/trafigura-no-link-identified-between-toxic-dumping-incident-and-serious-injuries-1904830.html "Trafigura no link identified between toxic dumping incident and serious injuries"], ''The Independent'', 22 February 2010</ref> and ''The Guardian''.<ref>"Corrections and Clarifications" column, ''The Guardian'', 6 May 2010 (hard copy newspaper only)</ref>
-In September 2009, ''[[The Guardian]]'' reported that Carter-Ruck demanded it delete published articles relating to the [[Trafigura]] [[2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump|toxic oil disaster]], saying it was  "gravely defamatory" and "untrue" to say that Trafigura's waste had been dumped cheaply and could have caused deaths and serious injuries. ''The Guardian'' later reported that Trafigura agreed to pay compensation to 31,000 West African victims. ''The Guardian'' also alleged that other media outlets in the [[Netherlands]] and [[Norway]] were also threatened with [[gagging order]]s.<ref>{{cite news
+In September 2009, ''[[The Guardian]]'' reported that Carter-Ruck demanded it delete published articles relating to the [[Trafigura]] [[2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump|toxic oil disaster]], saying it was  "gravely defamatory" and "untrue" to say that Trafigura's waste had been dumped cheaply and could have caused deaths and serious injuries. ''The Guardian'' later reported that Trafigura agreed to pay compensation to 31,000 West African victims. ''The Guardian'' also alleged that other media outlets in the [[Netherlands]] and [[Norway]] were also threatened with [[gagging order]]s.<ref>{{cite news
 | title = Papers prove Trafigura ship dumped toxic waste in Ivory Coast
 | url = https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/13/trafigura-ivory-coast-documents-toxic-waste
 | newspaper = [[The Guardian]]
 | date = 17 September 2009
 | accessdate = 1 May 2009
 | location = London
 | first = David | last = Leigh
 }}</ref>
 These turned out to be [[NRK]] in Norway, and ''[[De Volkskrant]]'' and [[Greenpeace]] in the Netherlands.
-In October 2009, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article stating that it had been prevented from reporting on a parliamentary matter, being ''"forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret. The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck."'' The paper further claimed that this case appears ''"to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 [[Bill of Rights 1689|Bill of Rights]]"''.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament Guardian gagged from reporting parliament], ''The Guardian'', 12 October 2009</ref>
+In October 2009, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article stating that it had been prevented from reporting on a parliamentary matter, being "forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret. The only fact ''The Guardian'' can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck." The paper further claimed that this case appears "to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 [[Bill of Rights 1689|Bill of Rights]]".<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament"], ''The Guardian'', 12 October 2009</ref>
 The question subject to the gagging order was from [[Paul Farrelly]], MP for [[Newcastle-under-Lyme]]:
-{{cquote|To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.<ref name="Leigh">{{cite news | author = David Leigh | url = https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question | title = Gag on Guardian reporting MP's Trafigura question lifted | newspaper = [[The Guardian]] | accessdate = 13 October 2009 | location=London | date=13 October 2009}}</ref>}}
+{{blockquote|To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.<ref name="Leigh">{{cite news | author = David Leigh | url = https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question | title = Gag on Guardian reporting MP's Trafigura question lifted | newspaper = [[The Guardian]] | accessdate = 13 October 2009 | location=London | date=13 October 2009}}</ref>}}
-The following day the firm agreed to discharge the order preventing the reporting of the events, which concerned [[Trafigura]] and a draft chemistry report into the oil slops incident in Côte d'Ivoire.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8304483.stm Parliamentary question gag lifted], [[BBC News]], 13 October 2009</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/13/trafigura-carter-ruck-gag Trafigura gag attempt unites house in protest], David Leigh, [[The Guardian]], 13 October 2009</ref> Trafigura maintained that the report was a superseded draft report which was legally privileged and confidential, and that it had been obtained illegally and passed to ''The Guardian''.<ref>http://www.trafigura.com/PDF/Carter%20Ruck%20press%20release,%2016%20October%202009.pdf</ref>
+The following day the firm agreed to discharge the order preventing the reporting of the events, which concerned [[Trafigura]] and a draft chemistry report into the oil slops incident in Ivory Coast.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8304483.stm "Parliamentary question gag lifted"], '"[[BBC News]]'', 13 October 2009</ref><ref>David Leigh, [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/13/trafigura-carter-ruck-gag "Trafigura gag attempt unites house in protest"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', 13 October 2009</ref> Trafigura maintained that the report was a superseded draft report which was legally privileged and confidential, and that it had been obtained illegally and passed to ''The Guardian''.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.trafigura.com/PDF/Carter%20Ruck%20press%20release,%2016%20October%202009.pdf|title=|publisher=Carter-Ruck|access-date=10 November 2011|archive-date=2 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402201242/http://www.trafigura.com/PDF/Carter%20Ruck%20press%20release,%2016%20October%202009.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=March 2022}}
-According to a press release on Carter-Ruck's website the reason that ''The Guardian'' could not report the question asked by Paul Farrelly was because a gagging order had been in place since 11 September 2009, before the MP asked the question. They also stated that it had never been their intention to prevent the press reporting on parliament and that they had since agreed on changes with ''The Guardian'' to the gagging order so that they could report on the issue.<ref name="trafPR">{{cite web|url=http://www.carter-ruck.com/Documents//Trafigura-Press_Release-13.10.2009.pdf |title=Press Release by Carter-Ruck on behalf of Trafigura Limited and Trafigura Beheer BV |date=13 October 2009 |accessdate=13 October 2009 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> The firm also pointed out that ''The Guardian'' had in fact consented to the order preventing the newspaper from publishing any article about the chemistry report.
+According to a press release on Carter-Ruck's website, the reason that ''The Guardian'' could not report the question asked by Paul Farrelly was because a gagging order had been in place since 11 September 2009, before the MP asked the question. They also stated that it had never been their intention to prevent the press reporting on parliament and that they had since agreed on changes with ''The Guardian'' to the gagging order so that they could report on the issue.<ref name="trafPR">{{cite web|url=http://www.carter-ruck.com/Documents//Trafigura-Press_Release-13.10.2009.pdf |title=Press Release by Carter-Ruck on behalf of Trafigura Limited and Trafigura Beheer BV |date=13 October 2009 |accessdate=13 October 2009 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> The firm also pointed out that ''The Guardian'' had in fact consented to the order preventing the newspaper from publishing any article about the chemistry report.
-Subsequently, lawyers advising the Speaker of the House of Commons are reported to have agreed with Carter-Ruck's interpretation that the injunction as initially granted did prevent the press from reporting the Parliamentary question.<ref>http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article192152.ece, "Enemies eye chance to dethrone John Bercow", 6 December 2009 (paywall protected)</ref>
+Subsequently, lawyers advising the Speaker of the House of Commons are reported to have agreed with Carter-Ruck's interpretation that the injunction as initially granted did prevent the press from reporting the Parliamentary question.<ref>[http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article192152.ece "Enemies eye chance to dethrone John Bercow"], 6 December 2009 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150527231554/http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article192152.ece|date=2015-05-27}} {{subscription required}}</ref>
-The Conservative MP [[Peter Bottomley]] reported the firm to the [[Law Society of England and Wales|Law Society]] due to their actions which prevented ''The Guardian'' covering parliamentary proceedings,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/14/carter-ruck-gag-law-society|title=MP to report Carter-Ruck to Law Society over attempt to gag Guardian|last=Summers|first=Deborah|date=14 October 2009|newspaper=The Guardian|accessdate=14 October 2009 | location=London}}</ref> however the Law Society did not uphold any complaint.
+The Conservative MP [[Peter Bottomley]] reported the firm to the [[Law Society of England and Wales|Law Society]] due to their actions which prevented ''The Guardian'' covering parliamentary proceedings,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/14/carter-ruck-gag-law-society|title=MP to report Carter-Ruck to Law Society over attempt to gag Guardian|last=Summers|first=Deborah|date=14 October 2009|newspaper=The Guardian|accessdate=14 October 2009 | location=London}}</ref> but the Law Society did not uphold any complaint.
 ===Craig Ames and Robert McGee===
@@ Line 98: / Line 76: @@
 ===OneCoin===
-In September 2016 Carter-Ruck threatened legal action against Andrew Penman's exposé of the purported [[cryptocurrency]] [[OneCoin]]. In May 2017, police and financial actions in several countries revealed that Carter-Ruck's client appears indeed to be a [[Ponzi scheme]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Penman|first1=Andrew|title=Seven months after I expose crypto-currency OneCoin, police move in|url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/seven-months-after-expose-crypto-8933566|agency=Mirror|date=17 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=OneCoin serve cease and desist to journalist over Ponzi claims|url=http://behindmlm.com/companies/onecoin/onecoin-serve-cease-and-desist-to-journalist-over-ponzi-claims/|website=Behind BLM|date=29 September 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Byrne|first1=Todd|title=Onecoin Threatens Critics as Chinese Authorities Shut Down Event|url=http://bitsonline.com/onecoin-threatens-critics/|website=Bitsonline|date=2 May 2017}}</ref>
+In September 2016 Carter-Ruck threatened legal action against Andrew Penman's exposé of the purported [[cryptocurrency]] [[OneCoin]]. In May 2017, police and financial actions in several countries revealed that Carter-Ruck's client did indeed appear to be operating a [[Ponzi scheme]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Penman|first1=Andrew|title=Seven months after I expose crypto-currency OneCoin, police move in|url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/seven-months-after-expose-crypto-8933566|agency=Mirror|date=17 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=OneCoin serve cease and desist to journalist over Ponzi claims|url=http://behindmlm.com/companies/onecoin/onecoin-serve-cease-and-desist-to-journalist-over-ponzi-claims/|website=Behind BLM|date=29 September 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Byrne|first1=Todd|title=Onecoin Threatens Critics as Chinese Authorities Shut Down Event|url=http://bitsonline.com/onecoin-threatens-critics/|website=Bitsonline|date=2 May 2017|access-date=18 June 2017|archive-date=11 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170611095858/http://bitsonline.com/onecoin-threatens-critics/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
 ===Labour Party===
-In July 2019 it was revealed that Carter-Ruck had written to Sam Matthews, the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]]'s former head of disputes, warning he could face legal action for breaking his [[Non-disclosure agreement]] for blowing the whistle on the party's handling of [[Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party|antisemitism allegations]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Labour 'sinks to deeper low' amid claims it gagged anti-Semitism whistleblowers |url=https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-07/labour-sinks-to-deeper-low-amid-claims-it-gagged-anti-semitism-whistleblowers/ |website=[[ITV News]] |accessdate=8 July 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Labour anger at BBC over Panorama antisemitism documentary |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-anger-at-bbc-over-antisemitism-documentary-pwltvwzr3 |website=[[The Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2019}}</ref>
+In July 2019, it was revealed that Carter-Ruck had written to Sam Matthews, the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]]'s former head of disputes, warning he could face legal action for breaking his [[non-disclosure agreement]] for blowing the whistle on the party's handling of [[Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party|antisemitism allegations]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Labour 'sinks to deeper low' amid claims it gagged anti-Semitism whistleblowers |url=https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-07/labour-sinks-to-deeper-low-amid-claims-it-gagged-anti-semitism-whistleblowers/ |website=[[ITV News]] |date=7 July 2019 |accessdate=8 July 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Labour anger at BBC over Panorama antisemitism documentary |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-anger-at-bbc-over-antisemitism-documentary-pwltvwzr3 |website=[[The Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2019}}</ref>
-=== Government of Hungary ===
-The Carter-Ruck Solicitors Law Firm acted on a case-by-case basis in June 2019 on behalf of [[Embassy of Hungary, London|the Embassy of Hungary, London]], regarding [[The Guardian|Guardian]] and the [[The Daily Telegraph|Daily Telegraph]] articles. The value of the service is £2162.26., as Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed responding to the public information request of the Hungarian news portal {{ill|444.hu|hu|vertical-align=sup}}.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://444.hu/2019/10/25/a-legsulyosabb-londoni-ugyvedekkel-probalnak-nyomast-gyakorolni-a-magyarorszagrol-kritikusan-iro-nemzetkozi-lapokra|title="They [the government of Hungary] try to put pressure on international newspapers criticising Hungary with heavy-weight London lawyers" translated from Hungarian original: "A legsúlyosabb londoni ügyvédekkel próbálnak nyomást gyakorolni a Magyarországról kritikusan író nemzetközi lapokra"|last=erdelyip|date=25 October 2019|website=444.hu|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=25 October 2019}}</ref>
-In addition to those mentioned in the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade response ([[The Guardian|Guardian]], [[The Daily Telegraph|Telegraph]]), {{ill|444.hu|hu|vertical-align=sup}} is aware of another case where Carter-Ruck acted on an article about the Hungarian government. The Carter-Ruck London office has sent several letters to [[Financial Times]] regarding an article published in July about bringing Hungary to the [[European Court of Justice]], for Hungarian authorities trying to starve some asylum seekers in the Serbian border transit zone. As {{ill|444.hu|hu|vertical-align=sup}} knows, after the first letter of Carter-Ruck, the paper supplemented the article by specifying who the Hungarian authorities did not allow to eat in the transit zone, but still did not use the terminology that the Hungarian government preferred for foreigners in the transit zone.<ref name=":0" />
 ==Criticism== <!-- Redirect [[Carter-Fuck]] targets here -->
-Sir [[Christopher Meyer]], former chairman of the [[Press Complaints Commission]] (PCC) said that the PCC was the firm's "sworn enemy" and accused the firm of using a Commons [[Select committee (United Kingdom)|select committee]] hearing to attack the PCC. He suggested that Carter-Ruck and other media law firms probably saw the PCC as their enemy because, "we can do the job for free and can provide a degree of discretion." Cameron Doley, then managing partner with Carter-Ruck, denied the accusations made against them.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/mar/25/christopher-meyer-pcc-media-law|title=PCC chairman Sir Christopher Meyer criticises media law firms|last=Luft|first=Oliver|date=25 March 2009 |newspaper=The Guardian|accessdate=13 October 2009 | location=London}}</ref>
+Sir [[Christopher Meyer]], former chairman of the [[Press Complaints Commission]] (PCC) said that the PCC was the firm's "sworn enemy" and accused the firm of using a Commons [[Select committee (United Kingdom)|select committee]] hearing to attack the PCC. He suggested that Carter-Ruck and other media law firms probably saw the PCC as their enemy because "we can do the job for free and can provide a degree of discretion". Cameron Doley, then managing partner with Carter-Ruck, denied the accusations made against them.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/mar/25/christopher-meyer-pcc-media-law|title=PCC chairman Sir Christopher Meyer criticises media law firms|last=Luft|first=Oliver|date=25 March 2009 |newspaper=The Guardian|accessdate=13 October 2009 | location=London}}</ref>
-The firm is frequently referred to as 'Carter-Fuck' by the satirical magazine ''[[Private Eye]]''. Despite their antagonistic relationship, Carter-Ruck publicly sided with ''Private Eye'' when the magazine lost a £600,000 libel case in 1989 against the wife of the [[Yorkshire Ripper]], Sonia Sutcliffe. Founder [[Peter Carter-Ruck]] was subsequently invited to attend a ''Private Eye'' lunch, and soon afterwards he asked whether the magazine could stop misprinting the first letter of 'Ruck' as an 'F'. ''Private Eye'''s response was to print the first letter of 'Carter' with an 'F' as well.<ref>{{cite news |title=Peter Carter-Ruck (Telegraph obituary) |date=22 December 2003 |accessdate=9 February 2010|quote=In 1989 Carter-Ruck publicly attacked the £600,000 damages awarded to Sonia Sutcliffe against the magazine and was invited to an Eye lunch, an occasion he attended with some trepidation. Not long afterwards, he asked if, in the new spirit of friendship, they would now stop printing the first letter of Ruck as an F. Their response, not unpredictably, was to print the first letter of Carter as an F as well. "I think my relationship with Private Eve is now definitely hate," he said later.|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1450022/Peter-Carter-Ruck.html | location=London | work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}</ref>
+The firm is frequently referred to as 'Carter-Fuck' by the satirical magazine ''[[Private Eye]]''. Despite their antagonistic relationship, Carter-Ruck publicly sided with ''Private Eye'' when the magazine lost a £600,000 libel case in 1989 against [[Sonia Sutcliffe]], the wife of the [[Yorkshire Ripper]]. Founder [[Peter Carter-Ruck]] was subsequently invited to attend a ''Private Eye'' lunch, and soon afterwards he asked whether the magazine could stop misprinting the first letter of 'Ruck' as an 'F'. ''Private Eye''{{'}}s response was to print the first letter of 'Carter' with an 'F' as well.<ref>{{cite news |title=Peter Carter-Ruck (Telegraph obituary) |date=22 December 2003 |accessdate=9 February 2010|quote=In 1989 Carter-Ruck publicly attacked the £600,000 damages awarded to Sonia Sutcliffe against the magazine and was invited to an Eye lunch, an occasion he attended with some trepidation. Not long afterwards, he asked if, in the new spirit of friendship, they would now stop printing the first letter of Ruck as an F. Their response, not unpredictably, was to print the first letter of Carter as an F as well. 'I think my relationship with Private Eve ''[sic]'' is now definitely hate,' he said later.|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1450022/Peter-Carter-Ruck.html | location=London | work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}</ref>
 === The Libel Reform Campaign ===
 {{see also|English defamation law#The Libel Reform Campaign}}
-The Libel Reform Campaign cite many instances where the application of the libel laws by law firms like Carter-Ruck is effectively gagging the freedom of expression and free speech in England and Wales, leaving only the wealthy anywhere in the world able to seek justice in the UK where it would be denied in their own country.<ref>http://www.libelreform.org</ref> See also ''[[Libel tourism]]''. However, these criticisms have been challenged by leading media law academics Prof. [[Alastair Mullis]] and Dr Andrew Scott.<ref name="lse">{{cite web|url=http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/news/libel.pdf |title=Something Rotten in the State of English Libel Law? A Rejoinder to the Clamour for Reform of Defamation |date=January 2010 |accessdate=7 November 2011 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629193955/http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/news/libel.pdf |archivedate=29 June 2011 }}</ref>
+The Libel Reform Campaign cite many instances where the application of the libel laws by law firms like Carter-Ruck is effectively gagging the freedom of expression and free speech in England and Wales, leaving only the wealthy anywhere in the world able to seek justice in the UK where it would be denied in their own country<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.libelreform.org/|title=The Libel Reform Campaign|access-date=26 February 2021|archive-date=2 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302160310/http://www.libelreform.org/|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{vague|reason=There must be a specific page on this topic, rather than citing the group's *entire website*|date=March 2022}} (see [[Libel tourism]]). However, these criticisms have been challenged by leading media law academics [[Alastair Mullis]] and Andrew Scott.<ref name="lse">{{cite web|url=http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/news/libel.pdf |title=Something Rotten in the State of English Libel Law? A Rejoinder to the Clamour for Reform of Defamation |date=January 2010 |accessdate=7 November 2011 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629193955/http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/news/libel.pdf |archivedate=29 June 2011 }}</ref>
-An example of Carter-Ruck acting on behalf of a client to stifle criticism was reported in ''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper on 19 January 2011. Carter-Ruck on behalf of Midland Pig Producers (MPP) issued a warning letter to the [[Soil Association]] (SA) threatening libel proceedings after the SA objected to a MPP planning application.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/18/soil-association-libel-pig-farm?INTCMP=SRCH|title=Soil Association given libel warning after objection to huge pig farm|last=Lawrence|first=Felicity|date=19 January 2011|newspaper=The Guardian|accessdate=19 January 2011 | location=London}}</ref> Threatening such proceedings, which are rarely followed through, is a typical modus operandi of Carter-Ruck (and other law firms) to minimise scrutiny of, and adverse publicity toward, their clients.{{Original research inline|date=October 2016}}
+An example of Carter-Ruck acting on behalf of a client to stifle criticism was reported in ''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper on 19 January 2011. Carter-Ruck on behalf of Midland Pig Producers (MPP) issued a warning letter to the [[Soil Association]] (SA) threatening libel proceedings after the SA objected to a MPP planning application.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/18/soil-association-libel-pig-farm?INTCMP=SRCH|title=Soil Association given libel warning after objection to huge pig farm|last=Lawrence|first=Felicity|date=19 January 2011|newspaper=The Guardian|accessdate=19 January 2011 | location=London}}</ref> Threatening such proceedings, which are rarely followed through, is a typical modus operandi of Carter-Ruck (and other law firms) to minimise scrutiny of, and adverse publicity toward, their clients – a practice known as a [[strategic lawsuit against public participation]], abbreviated SLAPP.{{Original research inline|date=October 2016}}
 ==Competitors==