“Solicitors Aren’t Daleks”: Did Carter-Ruck’s Crypto Retainer Breach Legal Ethics?

IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT one of the country’s leading defamation firms was instructed ‘in furtherance of fraud’ by a cryptocurrency scheme and a fugitive entrepreneur.

Warning: Please keep in mind when you read this update that Carter-Ruck partner Claire Gill denies ALL the allegations in the news below.

According to a notice published today by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/020940/

• Claire Gill, a partner at the firm, will face the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal over a letter sent in April 2017, which allegedly contained “an improper threat of litigation”,

This case serves as a wake-up call for law firms operating in high-stakes areas such as defamation and cryptocurrency. The SDT’s ruling reinforces that ethical boundaries matter and that legal privilege cannot be weaponised to protect fraud.

Dan Neidle, founder of the “thinktank” Tax Policy Associates and former head of tax at Clifford Chance, is quoted as saying :

• “Solicitors aren’t Daleks. We have ethical and professional obligations.
• We’re not permitted to act for blatant fraud and threaten people who call out the fraud.”

Introduction

In a landmark ruling for transparency and legal ethics, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has determined that Carter-Ruck’s legal work for fugitive crypto fraudster Ruja Ignatova—the so-called “CryptoQueen”—was conducted in furtherance of fraud, stripping away the protections of legal professional privilege.

This decision opens the door to public scrutiny of how one of the UK’s most prominent libel firms allegedly helped suppress reporting on the $4 billion OneCoin scam.

The Case Against Claire Gill

At the heart of the case is Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck, who faces disciplinary proceedings for sending a letter in April 2017 that allegedly contained an improper threat of litigation.

The letter was part of a broader legal strategy to silence journalists and whistleblowers investigating OneCoin.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is prosecuting Gill for breaching professional conduct rules, arguing that the threats were not only unethical but also served to protect a massive fraud.

Legal Privilege Overturned

Gill sought to anonymise her client and shield communications under legal professional privilege (LPP).

However, the SDT ruled that the retainer was “engaged in furtherance of fraud”, invoking the iniquity exception. This legal principle removes privilege when legal services are used to commit or conceal wrongdoing.

This ruling means key documents, including Gill’s defence and the SRA’s case statement, must be disclosed.

Open Justice in Action

The disclosure was secured through a joint application by:

• Spotlight on Corruption
• Dan Neidle (Tax Policy Associates)
• The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
• Foreign Policy Centre
• The Free Speech Union

Their intervention underscores the importance of open justice, mainly when legal threats are used to suppress scrutiny of public interest issues.

Compliance & Ethical Lessons

• Legal privilege is not absolute—it cannot be used to shield misconduct.
• Lawyers must conduct due diligence on clients, especially in high-risk sectors like crypto.
• Improper threats can lead to disciplinary action and reputational damage.
• Transparency matters—especially when legal professionals are involved in suppressing journalism or whistleblowing.

Read more

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) understands

1. Carter-Ruck sent the letter in question on behalf of the firm’s then client, OneCoin, a multibillion-dollar fraud, and its co-founder, Ruja Ignatova, a fugitive from justice who remains on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.
2. TBIJ, in collaboration with The Economist, reported in 2023 that Carter-Ruck sent a letter to a victim who had spoken out about the fraud, threatening her with a defamation lawsuit.
1. Read the original investigation https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-12-01/carter-ruck-britains-fiercest-libel-firm-will-pursue-anyone-anywhere-reputation
3. Jen McAdam, who had tried to warn others of the scam, told TBIJ
4. The letter caused her significant distress at a time when she had already lost her life savings. (McAdam declined to comment for today’s story.)

Dan Neidle, founder of the think tank Tax Policy Associates

5. After TBIJ’s original story was published, Dan Neidle, founder of the thinktank Tax Policy Associates and former head of tax at Clifford Chance, filed a report to the SRA about Carter-Ruck’s work for OneCoin.
1. https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/09/18/carter-ruck-onecoin-fraud-coverup/
6. In response to today’s referral, Neidle said:
1. “Solicitors aren’t Daleks. We have ethical and professional obligations.
2. We’re not permitted to act for blatant fraud and threaten people who call out the fraud.”

Carter-Ruck sent several other letters on behalf of OneCoin, including to the Financial Conduct Authority.

7. TBIJ’s reporting also revealed that Carter-Ruck sent several other letters on behalf of OneCoin, including to the Financial Conduct Authority, which in 2016 published a warning notice about the scheme.
8. In the summer of 2017, Carter-Ruck, instructed by OneCoin, wrote to the regulator demanding the notice be removed. Within three weeks, the FCA had taken the notice down. (The FCA told TBIJ in 2023 this was because the firm’s activities “did not require regulation”).
9. Carter-Ruck then contacted OneCoin’s lawyers in other countries, asking them to seek the removal of similar notices posted by their national regulators.
10. It is not believed that any of these letters is the subject of today’s referral.
11. Months after the disappearance of the FCA notice, with the fraud still going strong, OneCoin co-founder Ignatova vanished. Her whereabouts remain unknown.
12. The SRA said it was unable to comment further on today’s announcement.
13. Carter-Ruck said: “We are disappointed by the SRA’s decision to bring these proceedings against our colleague, who we will be fully supporting in her defence of this matter.”

HERE’S A DETAILED SUMMARY OF THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL (SDT) RULING INVOLVING CARTER-RUCK, ITS PARTNER CLAIRE GILL, AND THE ONECOIN CRYPTO FRAUD:

CASE SUMMARY: CARTER-RUCK, CLAIRE GILL & ONECOIN

Background

• Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck, is being prosecuted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for allegedly making improper legal threats in 2017 on behalf of OneCoin and its co-founder, Ruja Ignatova, known as the “CryptoQueen” and currently on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.
• The threats were aimed at silencing victims and critics of OneCoin, a $4 billion cryptocurrency fraud.

SDT Ruling Highlights

🧨 “In Furtherance of Fraud”

• The SDT ruled that Carter-Ruck’s retainer was “engaged in furtherance of fraud” by OneCoin and Ignatovaturn9search34.
• This triggered the “iniquity exception” to legal professional privilege (LPP), meaning Gill cannot rely on privilege to keep communications confidential.

📂 Disclosure Ordered

• The SDT ordered the release of:
• The Rule 12 statement (SRA’s case).
• Gill’s defence and pleadings.
• Documents related to her anonymity and privilege applications.

🧑‍⚖️ Basis for Decision

• The tribunal relied on:
• UK judicial findings.
• A High Court worldwide freezing order against Ignatova (Aug 2024).
• Her fugitive status.
• These were deemed “sufficiently persuasive” to override privilege claims.

Public Interest & Open Justice

• The ruling followed a joint application by:
• Spotlight on Corruption
• Dan Neidle (Tax Policy Associates)
• The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
• Foreign Policy Centre
• The Free Speech Union
• Their goal: to challenge Gill’s attempt to anonymise her client and suppress scrutiny of Carter-Ruck’s role.
• Dan Neidle commented:

“Solicitors aren’t Daleks. We have ethical and professional obligations. We’re not permitted to act for an obvious fraud and threaten people who call it out.”

Key Compliance & Ethical Takeaways

1. Legal privilege does not protect communications made in furtherance of fraud.
2. Law firms must conduct due diligence on clients, especially in high-risk sectors like crypto.
3. Improper threats to silence critics can lead to disciplinary action and reputational damage.
4. Transparency and open justice are paramount when legal professionals are involved in public interest matters.

Suggested Blog Title Ideas

• “Privilege Pierced: Carter-Ruck’s CryptoQueen Retainer Ruled a Fraud”
• “Open Justice Prevails: SDT Exposes Carter-Ruck’s Role in OneCoin Scandal”
• “Libel Law Meets Crypto Fraud: The Case Against Carter-Ruck and Claire Gill”
• “No Shield for Solicitors: SDT Rules Against Carter-Ruck in OneCoin Case”

References

• Carter-Ruck partner prosecuted for ‘improper’ threat to sue https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2025-08-06/carter-ruck-partner-prosecuted-for-improper-threat-to-sue
•  Carter-Ruck retainer 'was engaged in furtherance of fraud' by its ... https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/carter-ruck-engaged-in-furtherance-of-fraud-by-clients-sdt-finds/5124506.article
• https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/sdt-top-libel-firm-instructed-in-furtherance-of-fraud
• https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/09/18/carter-ruck-onecoin-fraud-coverup/
• https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2025-08-06/carter-ruck-partner-prosecuted-for-improper-threat-to-sue
• https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/carter-ruck-engaged-in-furtherance-of-fraud-by-clients-sdt-finds/5124506.article