Mark Bridges, former private solicitor to Queen Elizabeth II and one of Britain’s most eminent legal figures, helped manage the offshore assets of Rifaat al-Assad—an alleged Syrian war criminal—while also serving as legal advisor to the monarch, an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and The Guardian,UK has revealed.
Bridges, who served the Queen from 2002 to 2018 and was knighted in 2019 for his royal service, was a trustee on at least five offshore trusts connected to Rifaat al-Assad or his relatives between 1999 and 2008. Rifaat, the uncle of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, is known as the “butcher of Hama” for his alleged role in the 1982 massacre that left tens of thousands of Syrians dead. He was formally charged with war crimes by Swiss prosecutors in 2024.
Although Bridges ceased acting as trustee in 2008, his firm Farrer & Co confirmed that he continued to offer “ad-hoc and limited” legal advice to Rifaat until 2015.
There is no suggestion that Bridges broke any laws, and his firm insists his actions were in full compliance with regulations at the time. They also claim that he and his fellow trustees were presented with “credible information” that countered the war crimes allegations. Legal privilege prevents the disclosure of that evidence, though Farrer & Co cited defamation rulings in France which found in Rifaat’s favour on certain claims.
Nevertheless, the revelations raise serious ethical questions about the overlap between Bridges’ royal role and his involvement with a figure accused of gross human rights violations. The situation has also reignited scrutiny of the UK’s role in enabling the laundering of illicit wealth through its legal and financial systems.
A Reputation Under Pressure
Bridges, also known as the 3rd Baron Bridges, was not only the Queen’s solicitor but a central figure in the elite legal circles of London. As head of the international private client team at Farrer & Co—an elite law firm whose clients have included generations of the royal family—he provided legal counsel at the heart of the British establishment.
Yet during the same period, he was assisting Rifaat al-Assad, who had amassed a vast European property empire following his exile from Syria in 1984. Rifaat, once vice-president of Syria, claimed his wealth came from the Saudi royal family. But in 2020, a French court convicted him of laundering hundreds of millions of dollars embezzled from Syrian public funds.
Spanish prosecutors estimate that by 2019, Rifaat’s fortune exceeded £500 million, much of it hidden through shell companies and trusts. Two of the trusts Bridges helped manage were alleged to hold properties in Spain worth over €695 million, including lavish villas and luxury apartment complexes. Prosecutors said the offshore structures were used to launder stolen public money and disguise Rifaat’s ownership.
Despite the longstanding and public nature of the allegations against Rifaat—particularly his leadership of the Defence Brigades during the brutal suppression of the 1982 Hama uprising—Bridges and his firm continued to work with him.
The Hama Massacre and Legal Questions
The Hama massacre remains one of the most infamous episodes in modern Middle Eastern history. Estimates suggest between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians were killed when Syrian government forces crushed an armed uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hama. Amnesty International reported claims of mass executions and the use of chemical agents. Rifaat, then commander of the Defence Brigades, has long been considered a key architect of the violence.
By the time Bridges became a trustee in 1999, media coverage and human rights reports had already widely associated Rifaat with these atrocities. Yet, according to a 2018 Gibraltar court ruling, trustees had received what they considered to be credible assurances that Rifaat’s fortune was legitimate.
The ruling legal standard aside, critics argue that the moral implications should have been clear—especially for a solicitor with such a high-profile public role. Anti-corruption activists say that by working with Rifaat, Bridges helped to sanitize and shield the wealth of a man accused of some of the worst war crimes of the 20th century.
Fallout and Growing Pressure on Legal Sector
The revelations come amid heightened scrutiny of Britain’s legal and financial services industry and its entanglements with autocrats and oligarchs. The fallout from the war in Ukraine and revelations about Russian money in London have intensified calls for reform.
Earlier this month, a taskforce of senior lawyers and civil society experts urged law firms to demand more credible explanations about the sources of clients’ wealth. The report emphasized that reputational risks for the legal profession are now “no longer sustainable to ignore.”
The ongoing legal fallout from Rifaat’s European empire underscores these concerns. Although dozens of his properties were seized in France and Spain, the funds have yet to be repatriated to Syria—a nation still reeling from years of war, dictatorship, and economic collapse. Human rights groups argue that the stolen assets should be used to help rebuild the country.
“Restitution of Rifaat’s stolen assets is more urgent than ever,” said Chanez Mensous of the French anti-corruption NGO Sherpa, which initiated legal proceedings against Rifaat. “These funds belong to the Syrian people.”
Royal Implications and Silence
The Queen’s office has declined to comment, and there is no evidence that Elizabeth II was aware of her solicitor’s involvement with Rifaat. Still, the optics are deeply problematic: had the connection become public during her lifetime, it could have caused considerable embarrassment for the monarchy.
Bridges, citing client confidentiality, has declined to comment on the appropriateness of representing Rifaat or whether he intends to return any of the fees he earned.
Farrer & Co acknowledged that today’s regulatory and ethical standards may have prompted a different decision: “Whether the same decision [to act for Rifaat] would be made today in light of further information now available… is a point on which one might speculate.”
