Neidle: Complained to SRA
Top media law firm Carter-Ruck was instructed “in furtherance of fraud” by cryptocurrency scam OneCoin and its co-founder Dr Ruja Ignatova, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said this week.
As a result, the iniquity exception to a claim of legal professional privilege (LPP) applied.
It made the decision on the papers following a case management hearing last month in the case of partner Claire Gill, who is facing an allegation that, in April 2017, she “sent or arranged to be sent correspondence which contained an improper threat of litigation”.
The case is being watched closely by campaigners on strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs.
OneCoin is widely described as a cryptocurrency fraud estimated to have cost investors around the world at least $4bn, while Dr Ignatova, dubbed the ‘CryptoQueen’, is one of the FBI’s 10 most wanted fugitives.
Well-known tax lawyer and campaigner Dan Neidle said in late 2023 that he had reported Carter-Ruck to the SRA [1] for representing OneCoin.
Ms Gill sought an order anonymising references to her former clients and imposing reporting restrictions, on the basis that their communications with her attracted LPP.
The SDT also received applications for non-party disclosure from Mr Neidle and from Tim Bullimore, a solicitor who takes a close interest in transparency at the SDT.
They wanted the ‘rule 12’ statement – which puts the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) case – Ms Gill’s reply and other documents.
The SRA’s position was that the documents exhibited to the rule 12 statement did not attract LPP “on the basis that the Carter-Ruck retainer was entered into in furtherance of fraud”, the SDT recorded.
Ms Gill submitted that disclosure should be delayed until a hearing in December, when she will attempt to have the case dismissed. While she adopted a neutral position on whether the iniquity exception applied, she pointed out that there needed to be evidence – “mere assertion is insufficient”.
However, the SDT said 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 this conclusion, the tribunal took into judicial findings in the US and UK, the worldwide freezing order issued by the High Court in August 2024 – “which, while not conclusive, indicated a good arguable case of fraud” – and the “fugitive status” of Dr Ignatova.
While it was correct that, under the tribunal’s rules, foreign findings and freezing orders were not determinative, they were “sufficiently persuasive when taken together with the surrounding evidence”, the SDT went on.
“The tribunal also noted that [Ms Gill] did not identify specific documents within the pleadings said to attract privilege independently of the retainer.
“While [she] explained this as reflecting her professional duty not to fragment her former clients’ claims to privilege, the absence of document-specific argument weighed against preserving privilege for the bundle as a whole.”
The SDT added that its finding did not mean every communication under a tainted retainer must necessarily be stripped of privilege, but Ms Gill “did not put forward a granular basis for distinguishing between privileged and non-privileged material”.
As a result, the tribunal was not satisfied that LPP should continue to protect any part of the rule 12 statement, the answer or exhibits.
There was also “no reason” to delay disclosure until December. “The open justice principle required timely access to documents unless compelling justification for delay was shown, which was not the case here,” the SDT said.
“The tribunal noted that [Ms Gill] earlier indicated a wish to make an application for anonymity on 6 October 2025. It was believed to [be] necessary for the press to have sight of this disclosure to enable them to make representations against the anonymity application if appropriate.”
It directed that the documents be released immediately to the non-party applicants.
Mr Neidle told Legal Futures: “I think most lawyers would be appalled if they had accidentally assisted a fraud. Carter-Ruck show no contrition. Their response was instead to seek an anonymity order and secret hearings, to prevent anyone even finding out about their role.
“I’m very grateful to the media and free speech organisations who came together to prevent this. We’ll now all be able to see all the arguments and evidence, against Carter-Ruck and in its defence. That’s how open justice is supposed to work.”