On March 23, 2026, the ACNA announced that it has retained Lathrop GPM to conduct an independent procedural review of the Title IV disciplinary process of Bishop Stewart Ruch. The update includes a brief scope for the investigation, but the ACNA declines to provide the engagement letter or commit to publicly sharing the subsequent findings.
This development comes after months of dedicated advocacy by the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina’s (ADOSC) Standing Committee, as well as Anglicans for Truth, Renewal, and Accountability. On February 20, 2026, the ADOSC Standing Committee reminded the Executive Committee of the ACNA’s promise to promptly initiate the investigation, noting that “any third-party investigation will only deepen concern unless its engagement letter, scope, and full findings are made publicly available. Anything less will only reinforce the very confusion and scandal the court identified as damaging to the ACNA.”
The ADOSC Standing Committee included substantial concerns about Bp. Ruch’s Title IV process in their February 20 letter. These concerns were not addressed. On February 26, 2026, the Executive Committee instead proposed a private, in-person meeting: “We desire to send to you, three of members and the Dean of the Province, also our Chancellor, to meet with three members of your choosing, and yourselves.”
ADOSC’s Standing Committee declined, stating in their diocesan communication: “Our response to this request is that we are willing to meet but only with our whole Standing Committee and with no promise of confidentiality since our singular purpose is shining light into the process of justice in the Province.”
The ADOSC Standing Committee’s decision to publish the correspondence related to the Ruch investigation underscores the Province’s lack of transparency in this process.
ACNAtoo has long identified Lathrop as an inappropriate investigation firm. On February 21, 2021, before ACNAtoo was even formed, Joanna Rudenborg communicated to Bp. Ruch and other UMD leaders that Lathrop was an unacceptable firm to conduct a survivor-safe investigation.
Their page on Organizational Misconduct tells me, right off the bat, that they have an in-house conflict of interest that makes them untenable…Through a series of stories about how they successfully defended the technical legal distance between admitted perpetrators and the organizations that enabled them to some degree, they are signaling to you, “the client,” that they will do an investigation in such a way that should you run into legal problems in the course of it, they can help you defend yourself on that front, against the victims. The conflict of interest involved in them being “independent” investigators and also defense attorneys couldn’t be more stark.
Eve Ahrens, one of the original ACNAtoo members, assessed Lathrop (although not by name) in an article about independent investigations from 2024: “One red flag Ahrens noticed: a firm that advertised objective sexual misconduct investigations on the same page it touted eight cases in which it had gotten employers, schools, and churches off the hook for liability.”
Lathrop GPM is known in church abuse circles for unprofessional investigations. The firm was hired by the International House of Prayer Kansas City (IHOPKC) to investigate IHOPKC founder Mike Bickle’s sexual abuse. Boz Tchividjian, who represented several of Bickle’s victims, objected to Lathrop in a 2023 statement: “Why would reported victims of sexual abuse and misconduct sit down with an attorney from a firm that represents churches in sexual abuse matters and then boasts about its successes?”
Tchividjian’s concerns were well-founded; the seven-page Lathrop report was inadequate and inflicted unnecessary trauma on Bickle’s survivors. The deficiencies in the Lathrop report are particularly evident when contrasted with the sixty-eight-page Firefly independent investigation report, which identified at least seventeen individuals sexually abused by Mike Bickle.
In another concerning case highlighted on Lathrop’s “Organizational Misconduct” page, Lathrop boasts about the following success to its potential clients:
Obtained a complete dismissal of a private high school and an affiliated diocese in an action involving a volunteer coach who sexually assaulted a member of the girls’ softball team. A prompt and thorough investigation by our team allowed the client to assess its liability risks and whether its policies had been followed. The trial court granted motions arguing there was no duty to protect the plaintiff from sexual assaults that were unrelated to any school activity and occurred on private property.
In this case, the sexual predator was convicted in criminal court. Lathrop subsequently engaged in vicious legal maneuvering against the survivor while representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento in a civil suit. Lathrop intimidated the sexual assault survivor with $7,300 in legal fees after she was forced to withdraw her civil case on a technicality. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) noted that Lathrop has “long used ‘scorched earth’ tactics against victims.” Survivors and concerned ACNA members have every reason to question the integrity of an investigation conducted by a firm that is notorious for protecting institutions and crushing abuse survivors.
A December 2025 petition organized by Anglicans for Truth, Renewal, and Accountability includes several crucial requests for the investigation into the Ruch matter, none of which have been granted:
- We ask that the assessment be conducted by an organization or individual that possesses significant expertise as an investigative and compliance firm (rather than a law firm), a public record of prioritizing truth and care for victims over institutional protection, and significant experience conducting trauma-informed assessments and investigations in religious spaces.
- We ask that the scope of the investigation and the contract with the investigating party be made public with a three-week period for comment and revision prior to being finalized.
- We ask that the Provincial Office and the College of Bishops publicly commit to full cooperation with the investigating party, trusting the words of our Lord that “the truth will set you free.”
- We ask that the Provincial Office and College of Bishops commit to releasing the final report of the investigating party publicly and promptly regardless of the findings or outcome. We ask that the final report be unredacted except as needed to protect victims.
The ACNA’s unilateral decision to retain Lathrop, despite this long-documented history, demonstrates its inability to conduct due diligence and its disinterest in listening to its members.