When Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego arrived in London’s Commercial Court in 2024, he framed his £350 million dispute with Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd as a routine loan‑collateral quarrel. Two years, three law‑firms and one private‑spy agency later, the case now threatens to become a landmark test of how far English advocates can go before they trip the very codes that license them to practice.
A legal team in constant flux
Salinas has already rotated through three City firms—Paul Weiss, Enyo Law and now LK Law—leaving each amid unpaid‑fee and reputational concerns, according to case‑management notes read into the record by Mr Justice Foxton. That churn, veteran costs judge Alex Hutton KC warns, “is often the canary for more profound strategy problems: where every new firm inherits a tainted evidential file, the jeopardy snowballs.”
Black Cube enters—along with a red flag for privilege
In a June 2025 statement, Astor accused Salinas of retaining Israeli private‑intelligence firm Black Cube to “intoxicate, secretly record and sabotage” Astor’s lead solicitor, then submitting doctored transcripts to the Commercial Court. The release brands the manoeuvre “an act of perjury and perversion of justice.”
If true, the tactic strikes at the heart of legal privilege: any conversation with opposing counsel is ordinarily off‑limits. Using covertly obtained material not only risks exclusion; it invites disciplinary scrutiny of every lawyer who touched it.
The rulebook is unambiguous
- Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Rule 2.1: “You do not misuse or tamper with evidence or attempt to do so.”
- Bar Standards Board (BSB) rC6: Barristers “must not knowingly or recklessly mislead the court” and must not put affidavits before the court that they know to be untrue or misleading.
Any lawyer who knew the Black Cube transcripts were the fruit of deception—and still relied on them—would be at risk of suspension, disbarment or even contempt.
A carousel of law firms raises more questions than answers
Salinas has already cycled through three sets of English solicitors—Paul Weiss, Enyo Law and now LK Law—and at least two barristers’ teams. A syndicated report notes that the latest switch followed “growing controversy surrounding [his] legal team’s use of materials allegedly gathered by Black Cube,” and warns that perpetual lawyer‑hopping can signal a calculated bid to delay or out‑flank regulatory scrutiny.
Frequent changes make it harder for incoming counsel to certify the cleanliness of the evidential record; each new firm inherits a file potentially tainted by previous strategic gambits.
How the alleged conduct fits (or fails) the codes
- Commissioning Black Cube
Possible breach: SRA Principle 5 (integrity) if solicitors instructed operatives to extract privileged data. - Submitting the transcripts
Possible breach: SRA Rule 2.1 (tampering) and BSB rC6 (misleading the court) if the lawyers knew—or were wilfully blind to—the origin of the material. - Continuing to rely on the evidence after challenge
Possible breach: SRA Rule 1.4 (duty not to mislead) once the provenance is disputed and unresolved.
Under the SRA’s fining powers, firms face unlimited penalties in the High Court; individuals can be struck off. The BSB may disbar barristers and request a referral for criminal contempt.
Why the Black Cube material may be radioactive
Even if the recordings are factually accurate, English courts treat entrapment evidence with extreme scepticism. The leading authority, Jones v University of Warwick (2003), held that covert surveillance which breaches a duty of confidence will usually be excluded unless “very strong countervailing factors” exist. Here, the operative target was not a claimant faking whiplash but opposing counsel in an ongoing case—a scenario several QCs describe as “uniquely corrosive.”
Black Cube’s own marketing trumpets its willingness to deploy ex‑intelligence officers under false identities; as The New Yorker reported, the firm “openly advertised its ties to Israeli spy agencies.” That pedigree ensures any material it gathers will be forensically probed for manipulation.
Possible next steps for regulators
- SRA & BSB inquiries – Astor confirms formal complaints are in the regulators’ hands; first‑instance findings typically arrive within 12 months.
- Referral to the SFO – Should the judge conclude there was an attempt to pervert the course of justice, the criminal‑fraud agency could open a parallel probe.
Bigger than Salinas
Whatever the loan dispute’s merits, the Black Cube episode places a spotlight on the grey zone where high‑value litigants outsource intelligence gathering to ex‑spies. The Commercial Court’s ruling—and any disciplinary fallout—will clarify where advocacy ends and sabotage begins, and whether the U.K. bar’s self‑policing is strong enough to deter repeat performances.
Disclaimer
All allegations against Ricardo Salinas Pliego, Black Cube and the named lawyers remain unproven. Court rulings, regulatory investigations and any appeals are pending. This article relies on publicly available court documents, the Astor press release of 19 June 2025 and contemporaneous media coverage; the information should not be taken as a finding of fact or as legal advice.