One of the country’s leading defamation firms was instructed ‘in furtherance of fraud’ by a cryptocurrency scheme and a fugitive entrepreneur.
Carter-Ruck partner Claire Gill is facing the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal over an allegation that, in April 2017, she sent or arranged to be sent correspondence which contained an ‘improper threat of litigation’. Gill denies the allegation in full.
An application for disclosure of documents, including details of the allegation, was allowed by the SDT after the tribunal concluded it was ‘satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Carter-Ruck retainer was engaged in furtherance of fraud by OneCoin and Dr Ruja Ignatova’.
In reaching its decision, the tribunal said it had considered judicial findings made in the UK, a High Court worldwide freezing order against Ignatova made in August 2024 which ‘while not conclusive, indicated a good arguable case of fraud’ and the ‘fugitive status of Dr Ignatova, of which the tribunal took judicial notice’.
The SDT noted that though ‘not conclusive’, the findings and freezing order were ‘sufficiently persuasive when taken together with the surrounding evidence’.
Read more
It added: ‘The tribunal also noted that the respondent [Gill] did not identify specific documents within the pleadings said to attract privilege independently of the retainer.
‘The tribunal observed that its finding does not mean every communication under a tainted retainer must necessarily be stripped of privilege. However, in this case, the respondent did not put forward a granular basis for distinguishing between privileged and non-privileged material. In those circumstances, the tribunal was not satisfied that any part of the Rule 12 statement, the answer, or exhibits should continue to be protected by [legal professional privilege].’
The SDT directed that the Rule 12, answer – Gill’s defence to the allegations – and pleading in relation to the privilege and anonymity applications be released.
A Carter-Ruck spokesperson said: ‘It is no part of the SRA’s case against Ms Gill that she or any of her colleagues (nor the other solicitors firms and barristers instructed) knew that OneCoin was a fraud. Ms Gill and her colleagues certainly had no such knowledge. To the contrary, and as the papers to be released by the SDT (in advance of Ms Gill’s application for summary dismissal) make clear, Ms Gill and the firm proceeded entirely in good faith.
‘She relied at all times not only on client instructions and information provided but also on advice previously given to OneCoin – also no doubt in good faith – by a number of lawyers including other solicitors specialising in multi-level marketing schemes. This is all confirmed in the papers to be released by the SDT.
‘We are confident that Ms Gill’s conduct of the matter, including her conduct with regard to the single letter which is the subject of the SRA’s proceedings, was fully in accordance with her professional obligations.’
