UK court orders Quinn Emanuel to disclose identity of middleman in alleged forgery case

A UK judge has ordered the London office of law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to disclose the identity of a “middleman” involved in a document allegedly forged to deceive the court and an arbitral tribunal in a £229 million dispute.

The Law Society Gazette reported that the order came after Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and his company Filatona Trading Limited accused Quinn Emanuel of handling a falsified Russian-language report obtained through a London-based business intelligence consultancy. Deripaska claims the report was used against him by fellow oligarch Vladimir Chernukhin and his company Navigator Equities Ltd in arbitration proceedings. The case revolved around the ownership of Navop Holding Limited, a parent company of a Russian textile manufacturer, and a joint venture.

Quinn Emanuel argued it did not know the identity of the “ultimate source” of the disputed report and asserted that the information sought was protected by litigation privilege. However, Justice Calver disagreed, finding that the conditions for a Norwich Pharmacal order, which compels the disclosure of information from a party involved in alleged wrongdoing, had been met.

Justice Calver stated it was "strongly arguable" that the report was a forgery and that a crime or criminal contempt might have been committed. He noted that the Deripaska parties sought disciplinary action against the alleged wrongdoer, described as a potential “mole” within their organization.

The court concluded that Quinn Emanuel was not merely advising on the report but had become "unwittingly involved" in its verification and use in legal proceedings. This involvement, according to Justice Calver, mixed the law firm into the alleged wrongdoing and furthered its purpose. He emphasized that the consultancy’s identity and the source of the report did not fall under privileged information.

The judge noted that there was a “realistic prospect” the information sought would help identify the individual responsible for the alleged forgery. He called the disclosure order a “necessary and proportionate response” to the serious nature of the allegations, noting the significant financial stakes and potential deception.

Justice Calver emphasized that Deripaska and his company were pursuing “lawful redress of a serious wrong” for which they had no other means of obtaining relief.