Formal complaints target top barristers and solicitors over alleged misuse of privileged materials from covert Black Cube entrapment of opposing lawyer

A deepening legal scandal threatens to upend one of London’s most closely watched commercial disputes, as high-profile barristers and solicitors representing Mexican wannabe billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego now face formal complaints filed with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Bar Standards Board (BSB), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and select members of the House of Lords.

At issue: allegations that Salinas’s legal teams knowingly deployed evidence secretly gathered through a clandestine Black Cube operation. The private intelligence firm, infamous for past global scandals and unlawful schemes, posed as fake clients using fake names, summoned the defense lawyer to Amsterdam where he was secretly recorded unbeknown to him, allegedly induced to consume alcohol, and the Black Cube secret operative extracted highly sensitive litigation defense strategy — material later submitted to the UK High Court. 

Legal analysts describe the case as potentially “one of the gravest attempts to subvert and undermine the honor of the justice system in modern UK commercial litigation.”

The rules at stake — and why they matter
The formal complaints cite breaches of the most critical professional duties under UK law, including:

1. SRA Principle 1: obligation to uphold the rule of law and proper administration of justice.
2. SRA Principle 2: to maintain public trust and confidence in the legal profession.
3. SRA Principle 5: to act with integrity.
4. SRA Rule 1.4: prohibiting misleading the court or others by acts, omissions, or allowing or being complicit in the acts or omissions of others (including the client).
5. SRA Rule 2.1: forbidding misuse or tampering with evidence.

For barristers, the alleged breaches strike at:

1. BSB Core Duty 1 (CD1): duty to the court and the proper administration of justice, which overrides even client interests.
2. BSB Core Duty 3 (CD3): duty to act with honesty and integrity.
3. BSB Core Duty 5 (CD5): duty not to conduct oneself in a way that undermines public trust.
4. BSB Rule rC8 & rC9: specifically prohibiting misleading the court and abusing the advocate’s role.
5. BSB Rule rC66: duty to report serious misconduct by others.

Legal ethics experts warn that violating these standards is no technical matter. Such breaches strike at the very core of the justice system and fairness of trials. As officers of the court, the lawyers are granted special trust — to handle confidential information, represent parties in court honestly and with integrity, and act as ambassadors of justice — precisely because they are expected to prioritize truth, integrity, and fairness over any client’s ambitions or money.

Courts Have Already Acted Against Use of Illicit Evidence in Similar Cases
Recent case law underscores how seriously English courts view attempts to exploit confidential or privileged material secured through covert means. 

In Bourlakova v Bourlakov (Comm. Ct, 2024), the High Court intervened after private investigators were deployed to obtain sensitive documents from the opposing side. The court swiftly ordered an adjournment, delivery up, and deletion of the improperly acquired materials, emphasizing that protecting the integrity of the proceedings came before any party’s litigation strategy. Observers say the Salinas dispute is even more troubling. 

In R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1089 (Court of Appeal), while on remand in prison, the police covertly recorded conversations between Grant and his solicitor. These recordings were made without judicial authorisation and without the knowledge of either Grant or his legal team. 
The surveillance was part of a broader operation and included legally privileged conversations, breaching the core protections of solicitor-client confidentiality. 

The Court of Appeal quashed Grant’s conviction.

• It held that state misconduct in violating legal professional privilege (LPP) was so serious that it offended the rule of law.
• The court emphasised that the right to communicate confidentially with legal advisers is a fundamental right, and its deliberate violation by the state renders a trial inherently unfair.

What repercussions could follow if the complaints made against the barristers and solicitors succeed?

If the allegations are substantiated:

The solicitors could face suspension or being struck off the roll by the SRA, permanently losing the right to practice law.

The barristers could be disbarred by the BSB, likewise ending their professional careers.

Both groups could also face heavy costs orders, reputational ruin, or referral for criminal investigation on the serious charge of perverting the course of justice, which under UK common law is punishable by imprisonment up to life. 

It is not known what other actions the harmed Defendants intend to take to introduce the rule of law back in to the case and detail Ricardo Salinas and his lawyers abuse of process. But legal observers state that the case has been irredeemably tainted by the unlawful tactics allegedly orchestrated by Salinas legal teams.

Who are the lawyers implicated in wrongdoing?
The complaints specifically name:

• Stephen Robins KC, John David Meredith Wardell KC, Adam Cloherty KC,
• Henry Phillips, Matthew Abraham, Ryan Perkins,
• Richard Greenberg, Stephanie Wilkins, Andrew John Ford,  Edward John Whitney Allen, Adam Flacks, Hana Kapadia, Disa Greaves

The law firms involved are Enyo Law LLP and LK Law LLP. Enyo Law LLP was engaged by Salinas during the covert recordings and LK Law LLP deployed the covert recordings.

Statement from Astor
A spokesperson for Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd approached for this article stated:

“Lawyers are officers of the court first. When they abandon their duties of honesty and integrity to serve an unlawful agenda, they undermine public trust in the entire system. These are not abstract rules — they protect every litigant’s right to a fair process, and lawyers should not participate in or engage in conduct contrary to lawyers professional duties and Bar Rules. What took place is a travesty and we are shocked at the lawyers conduct. The lawyers had an obligation to distance themselves from such wrongdoing, instead they looked the other way or endorsed it”. 

The court documents reveal that the dispute centers around whether Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd had the right to lend the shares during the term of the loan. The term which is used in the financial industry is referred to as “Rehypothecation”. Ricardo Salinas legal team claims that Astor did not have such rights. We had obtained a copy of the loan agreement and accompanying legal opinion and it appears that Astor did have such right. 

The spokesperson further reported that:
“It is further very upsetting that the same lawyers have been lying and continue to lie to the UK High Court as to whether Astor had the right to lend the shares to third parties during the loan term. That to us is perjury, obstruction of justice and perversion of justice and this will not be tolerated. We have in fact reported all the  people involved from Enyo Law LLP and LK Law LLP and the named barristers and we will trust that the regulatory authorities will investigate who is involved and how and take appropriate measures. We will not stand for lying to court by Ricardo Salinas lawyers”. 

Disclaimer
These remain allegations subject to ongoing legal and regulatory processes. No findings of liability, misconduct, or criminal wrongdoing have yet been made by courts or regulatory authorities as of the date of this publication, and all individuals and entities mentioned are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Sources: 

• Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd statement
• Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd: Ricardo Salinas Accused of Hiring Black Cube to Influence UK Legal Case in USD $115M Loan Dispute
• Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd: Ricardo Salinas under scrutiny for alleged use of Black Cube in UK $115M loan dispute
• Bourlakova v Bourlakov (Comm. Ct, 2024): https://www.3harecourt.com/case/bourlakova-ors-v-bourlakov-ors-2024-ewhc…
• The BSB Handbook: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/the-bsb-handbook.html
• SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-sol…
• UK Court filings (Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd vs. Salinas)

While most card-style wallets trade off security for convenience, the ELLIPAL X Card cold wallet proves that users no longer have to compromise.

This article compares two crypto card wallets, ELLIPAL X Card and Tangem Wallet, to uncover which one truly delivers on both security and convenience.

ELLIPAL X Card: Full Offline Protection Meets Portability

The ELLIPAL X Card offers uncompromised offline security with the convenience of a tap-to-use NFC card. It’s built for serious users who prioritize complete control over their private keys.

Key Features:

• Compact, ultra-portable design — fits into wallets, cardholders and pockets

• CC EAL 6+ secure chip protection

• Use Starter to achieve 100% offline during wallet setup, backup, and recovery

• Uses NFC for wallet connection and transactions

• No battery required, always ready to use

• Wallet duplication — supports duplicating up to 10 backup cards at a time

Price:

39-99 USD

Pros:

• Slim and portable — fits in any wallet or pocket

• 100% offline during wallet setup, backup, and recovery — offering superior protection for your seed phrase

• No battery or charging required

• Offers a great balance of affordability and high-end security features

• Duplicate up to 10 cards — perfect for backups or shared use

• Do not support PIN code recovery — reducing the risk of PIN code leakage

Tangem Wallet: Simplicity

Tangem Wallets emphasize simplicity and accessibility. However, this ease of use comes with some security trade-offs that may not align with the needs of more security-conscious users.

Key Features:

• Card-sized for easy carry — fits in any wallet, pocket, or cardholders

• CC EAL 6+ secure chip protection

• Uses NFC for wallet connection and transactions

• 2–3 backup cards per account

• Allow PIN code (access code) resets if losing card wallet

Price:

54.9 –139.8 USD

Pros:

• Slim and portable — fits in any wallet or pocket

• No battery or charging required

• Cards work instantly via mobile NFC

Cons:

• Backup is limited to 2–3 cards per account

• Allows PIN code (access code) resets — meaning anyone with 2 cards could potentially reset the PIN code (access code) without your consent

• Seed phrase needs to be entered on mobile phone. It may be exposed online via a mobile device — increasing the risk of crypto security

Conclusion

For those seeking true cold storage without sacrificing convenience, the ELLIPAL X Card is the smarter choice. The ELLIPAL X Card stands out by offering true cold storage with real-world usability, bridging the gap between convenience and uncompromising security. For those who want full control of their assets anytime, anywhere, ELLIPAL delivers a secure and innovative solution designed for the modern crypto user.