Carter-Ruck Partner Faces Tribunal Over “Improper” Threats
A senior partner at elite law firm Carter-Ruck is facing prosecution by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for allegedly issuing improper legal threats to silence a victim of the $4 billion OneCoin fraud.
Claire Gill, who represented fugitive “Cryptoqueen” Ruja Ignatova, appeared before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) this week. The SRA accuses Gill of sending an “improper threat of litigation” in 2017 to Jennifer McAdam, a Scottish investor who lost her life savings to the Ponzi scheme.
The “Clear Message” Strategy
The prosecution centers on an April 2017 letter demanding McAdam remove YouTube videos exposing OneCoin’s criminal ties. Internal emails revealed during the tribunal show Gill discussing the strategy with PR consultants, noting the need to target a critic to intimidate others.
“I agree it seems we need to take action against… a suitable target to send a clear message which can be used for PR purposes.”
The SRA argues Gill knew—or should have known—there was a “strong possibility” OneCoin was fraudulent. At the time, the FCA had already issued warnings about the scheme.
Piercing the Privilege Veil
In a rare move, the tribunal ruled that Carter-Ruck’s work was conducted “in furtherance of fraud,” stripping the firm of standard legal privilege protections. This ruling allowed the release of internal communications that would typically remain confidential.
OneCoin, which collapsed in late 2017, defrauded investors of roughly $4 billion globally. Ignatova remains on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.
Defense: “Good Faith”
Carter-Ruck maintains that Gill acted on specific client instructions and had no knowledge of the fraud.
“Ms. Gill and the firm proceeded entirely in good faith,” the firm stated, arguing they relied on assertions from OneCoin executives that the allegations were false. The tribunal continues.
This prosecution signals a critical shift in liability for “reputation management” firms serving crypto entities. The tribunal’s decision to pierce legal privilege because the retainer furthered a fraud sets a dangerous precedent for legal counsel. If lawyers can be held professionally liable for SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) on behalf of opaque protocols, expect top-tier firms to demand significantly higher diligence and retainers before defending distressed crypto assets.
