Author: Melanie

Yesterday’s BBC Today programme interview, in which a former Harrods employee detailed calmly, but chillingly, her terrible experiences of sexual abuse at the hands of Mohammed Al-Fayed, took me back. 

In the late 80s, I did a management training contract at Harrods and was occasionally tasked with manning the reception of Al-Fayed’s private office on the top floor.  

So I was saddened but not shocked to listen to the allegations.  It also reminded me of what many at the BBC said after Jimmy Savile had been exposed:  you sort of knew he was a wrong-un, had heard the gossip and certainly wouldn’t want to be left alone in close proximity, but you personally had no evidence on which to base a complaint.   

So I heartily applaud those who are now, many years later, prepared to voice their harrowing experiences which, by all reports, is encouraging others to come forward. 

It is vitally important that the rich and famous who abuse their power for sexual gratification, with no regard whatsoever to the consequences for their victims, are held accountable for their behaviour.

In my current role it is also the communications dimension of these complaints that interests me. 

There is a growing trend for what are essentially legal challenges to be first run through the lens of publicity rather than the other way round.  As regular advisers in this sphere, we quite often see complainants now deciding to speak to the media and securing a documentary, or print copy, having had their complaints to the police discontinued – allegedly due to lack of evidence.  Holding a press conference – as Al Fayed’s accusers’ lawyers did this morning – is an additional and effective route to reach a maximum audience.

Many readers of the reports that follow won’t fully appreciate the fact that these are as-yet-untested allegations aired prior to launching a civil claim, where the bar is lower than the criminal burden of proof.  Such claims, often funded through conditional fee agreements, are considered by claimants as the only remaining route to achieve court-approved recognition of the trauma they say they have suffered.  Some will simply want the financial recompense that is the civil courts’ remedy, but for others the aim is to ensure the defendant answers for their ‘crime’ in a public forum, and for there to be a judicial decision at the end of the process.  This could forever act as validation.

Of course where this powerful use of media can wreak lasting and real havoc is on the life of an innocent, wrongly accused, and those close to them.  We’ve also advised on such cases. The reality is that it’s extremely challenging to restore a reputation that, by the time of a trial, may have faced years of intrusive media discrediting.   The very same media subsequently pay scant regard to the successful defence of a civil claim in lieu of proof of innocence delivered by a jury.  

Neither Savile nor Al-Fayed can now answer for their actions in any court, demonstrating how crucial swift and fair charging decisions by the CPS are to both complainant and defendant.  But it also demonstrates the incredible power (and responsibility) of the media – both documentary broadcast and investigatory print. 

A lot rides on the complainants convincing journalists that there is a case to answer.

September 2024

Is it fair for an investor’s political views to impact on a company’s brand? That’s the question raised by the news that Gail’s, the bakery bellwether of gentrification, has been boycotted by activist residents of Walthamstow, seemingly partially due to the fact of Gail’s minority investor’s views on Brexit and Covid lockdowns.

Like it or not, we are living in an increasingly polarised world.  For years marketers have sought to implore brands to create a ‘personality’, to share their ‘values’ and to profess their ‘identities’, through customer, social and traditional media engagement.  Increasingly brand personas are shaped by concurrent political and social mores. The trouble comes when the virtues a company (or now investor) signals are not shared by the discerning end purchaser. 

It strikes me that the political views of an investor in a hitherto successful business selling bread and buns to the affluent should not have to temper his lawfully-held beliefs for fear of affecting the commercial interests of his partially-owned company – provided he has not sought to foist those beliefs on consumers.   Afterall, the Walthamstow warriors’ stance suggests that they would expect to examine the political views of, say, all John Lewis’ owners (including its staff) before exercising their buying choices at its partnership’s stores.  While the Gail’s challenge is wrapped up as an impassioned defence of independent stores, Luke Johnson’s personal views were specifically referenced in a local barista’s objections. And what if a leader’s beliefs change over time, as we are told has happened in relation to many a Brexit vote?  

In a week in which we’ve seen a campaign highlighting Prince William’s hypocrisy for earning from car dealers renting his Duchy of Cornwall land, while being the creator of the environmental Earthshot prize, and Starbucks having to change CEO partly due to customer fall-out over the company’s perceived support for Israel in the Gaza conflict, it is clear that business leaders’ political stance and ESG considerations increasingly collide.   

For communicators this poses ongoing challenges.  Who is the arbiter of views held by businesspeople, as to whether they are sufficiently acceptable so as not to impact turnover?  It’s undoubtedly consumers, but smart comms advisers will spot impending trouble if consulted in time.  Balanced decisions can then be made between risk and reward.

Humanising a brand and helping it evolve with the zeitgeist can make it more accessible – but companies enter the shark infested waters of certain debates at their peril – which is why the savvy will have boundaries on their owners’ public engagement.  There’s one simple rule these days – if you do make your political views widely known, it risks commercial and often professional consequences.

That said, some brands will take the Millwall approach and care little for the views of those who are not already supporters.   Others, however, in a keenly-competitive market place, may well think twice about receiving investment from entities or individuals known to hold polarising views.  

In short, if you look to portray a persona, you have to live by all that that stands for, or risk deterring consumers whilst disappointing existing ones too.  

I’m just left wondering, in the game of virtues, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Written by Melanie Riley, Managing Director.

Cybersecurity company CrowdStrike more than lived up to its name last Friday, sparking global chaos when a faulty Windows system update hit millions of businesses and individuals in seemingly the biggest IT outage in history.

From airlines to banks, the NHS to media groups, supermarkets to train operators, few were immune from the “Blue Screen of Death” errors that caused computers around the world to crash.

But ironically for a company focused on risk prevention and management, not only did CrowdStrike’s software glitch provoke an IT meltdown of unprecedented proportions, but its own response to the crisis was found wanting, in communications terms at least.

Posting on X (Twitter) on Friday, CEO and co-founder George Kurtz’s initial statement began:

“CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts. Mac and Linux are not impacted. This is not a security incident or cyberattack. The issue has been identified, isolated and a fix has been deployed.”

After instructing customers to refer to the support portal and use official channels for further updates (without even linking to said channels), the post concluded:

“Our team is fully mobilized to ensure the security of CrowdStrike customers.”

Nowhere in the statement was there a hint of an apology, an admission of responsibility, a recognition of the magnitude of the multibillion-dollar disaster, which grounded planes, crippled businesses, and put lives at risk through cancelled operations. Nor did it explain what the issue was, what fix had been deployed, or when the issue was likely to be resolved.

Instead, Kurtz sought refuge in corporate language, devoid of humanity and accountability, and written in the passive voice – clearly to try to minimise the threat of litigation and financial collapse.

Yet in any crisis, and particularly one of a company’s own making, communication is paramount in controlling the situation, limiting the reputational fall-out as far as possible, and regaining trust.

Responsibility, transparency, clarity and empathy should be the guiding principles, with the company’s senior leadership providing regular updates across multiple platforms to address all stakeholders.

Customers, investors, employees, regulators, the media – all need to be reassured that the company is taking ownership of a crisis, that it is recognises the impact on its customers – and above all that it is sorry. Otherwise, the company risks inflaming tensions further and potentially provoking a mass customer exodus.

Only five and a half hours later did Kurtz finally apologise in a second tweet – albeit after a defensive opening:

“Today was not a security or cyber incident. Our customers remain fully protected.

“We understand the gravity of the situation and are deeply sorry for the inconvenience and disruption. We are working with all impacted customers to ensure that systems are back up and they can deliver the services their customers are counting on.”

And in a third post, a few hours later, Kurtz committed “to provide full transparency on how this occurred and the steps we’re taking to prevent anything like this from happening again”.

Perhaps this change in tone during the course of the day reflects the appointment/briefing of crisis communications experts? While it remains to be seen whether CrowdStrike keeps its promise to be transparent and learn from its mistakes, the company seems, somewhat belatedly, to have recognised the importance of communications when IT hits the fan.

22nd July 2024

Written by Sarah Peters

The nation’s newspapers are traditionally a key battleground where an election can be lost or won. But to what extent has this significance waned following the rise of #social #media?

The Sun’s “Time for a new manager” headline today only reflects the result we are all expecting. This time round it won’t be ‘The Sun Wot Won It’– a reference to the commonly-held view of the paper’s influence over the 1992 election result when its “…will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights” front page on election day played a key role in the surprise win for John Major’s Conservative Party.

Newspapers used to have a monopoly on opinionated journalism in the UK before the introduction of social media and other news websites. Their power has undoubtedly waned given the way people consume media today. According to a recent YouGov poll, only 14% of Britons now get their news from a physical paper, although over a third of those are 50 to 64 year olds. This is in stark contrast to 42% of people getting their news from a newspaper’s website and app, and 43% from social media. This digital shift is further highlighted by The Sun’s circulation figures falling from 3.5 million in 1992 to 1.2 million in 2020, a more than 65% drop in less than three decades.

However just as voters are no longer as stubbornly tribal as they once were, so too do they now have access to a plethora of titles, channels and streaming options as never before. From GB News to City AM. From Politico to The Rest is Politics, there is something for all tastes and persuasions. According to YouGov, TV is actually now the primary choice for Brits aged over 40 to access news. No wonder poor Rishi and Keir’s teams have been insanely busy trying to maintain interest in the election across multiple outlets to try to reach all possible audiences. Yet does the immense range of sources on offer to the public only serve to dilute their impact?  

This 2024 election has been described as the first Tiktok election. So it will be interesting to see how Reform fares in today’s polling given we are told Farage outperforms rivals in terms of engagement and viewers on the social media channel. This is particularly intriguing as, according to YouGov, a third of young Britons have been reached with election content on TikTok. Labour is also said to have been more successful in its deployment of social media content and ‘memes’ to rally support from young voters and poke fun at the Tories than the latter’s old-school, polished videos of Sunak speaking to camera deployed on the Conservatives’ accounts.  We already know younger generations consume their media through digital/online channels. A recent YouGov study found social media is the most popular news source for under 40s with Facebook leading, followed by YouTube, Insta, X then Tiktok. However, interestingly, the same study found Facebook and YouTube are also the most dominant social media channels for the over 40s. 

Arguably the Tories will lose today’s election for reasons other than their media management strategy. However, the 2024 election shows us the challenge of campaigning in this modern media age. The parties had to work hard to target a disparate electorate via novel formats, programmes, news sites and channels, based on detailed data analysis for each outlet. Winning over Rupert Murdoch’s red top title is no longer enough in a world of viral soundbites.

Thursday 4th July 2024

An interesting little gem concerning employment tribunals almost passed me by – yet in many cases its implementation has the potential for considerable impact on both claimants and respondents from early next year (unless of course a new government puts paid to the currently suggested timetable).

Historically, responsibility for procedural rules within employment tribunals has been held by the Department for Business & Trade and its predecessor departments. Whereas responsibility for procedural rules in the Employment Appeal Tribunal rests with the Lord Chancellor.   Yet this is about to change.

The Tribunal Procedure Committee (“TPC”) has been preparing to take over the management of rules and procedures of the employment tribunal system, to add to its existing responsibilities for first and upper tier tribunals.  

The TPC has published a consultation paper over the rules the TPC anticipates making after the transfer of responsibility for the employment tribunal.  Buried within the technicalities of the procedure needed to complete this territorial change, is a proposal (ostensibly effective from April 2025) for an amendment to Rule 56: “to provide that case management hearings should be held in public unless there is good reason to keep them in private, in common with other jurisdictions, and in furtherance of the principle of open justice”.

So what previously were discussions, in private but before the judge, over details such as a claimant’s schedule of loss, disclosure, the list of witnesses etc among other matters, will soon be pored over by journalists and interested parties alike. 

As an agency that started our litigation PR advisory business with a high-profile employment claim over 21 years ago and has, in the intervening period, advised on countless employment-related disputes both at the High Court and before tribunals, we can readily see the potential impact of this greater and earlier transparency.  This may not always have positive effect, depending on the client’s perspective.

It seems to us that this changes the dynamics with regard to settlement. If it can become publicly known why the case is being brought, who is being called to give evidence and for what reason, the extent of disclosure required and indeed how much is being sought in terms of financial recompense by the claimants well before the claims have been tested in open court – respondents may have earlier decisions to make vis-à-vis continuing the defence or seeking to close the case down.  Does the ‘open’ principle always mean ‘justice’?  The answer perhaps lies in one’s own standpoint.  

We’d love to hear what employment lawyers think.

Meantime, if you are considering bringing (or are facing) proceedings before the employment tribunal, and wish to discuss the implications of media attention before the final hearing (and considerably earlier in the dispute than had been previously anticipated), drop us a line and we’d be happy to talk the matter through with you and your lawyers.

If anyone wishes to respond to the TPC’s consultation – be quick, it closes next Wednesday 26^th June.

By Melanie Riley

Even though votes are yet to be cast, the country appears to believe that the election is a run race and that the only question around Starmer’s rise to PM is the size of majority he will secure for Labour. Starmer’s steady hand has yet to waiver while it seems soggy Sunak has little chance of pulling it back as we enter the second half of the election campaign. Three weeks is a long time in politics…

With the manifestos now laid bare, we have seen few surprises from the two major parties and few rich pickings. Much has been made of Starmer’s background as the Director of Public Prosecutions and his real understanding of the issues facing the criminal justice system. But what exactly have he and Sunak said on plans to tackle court backlogs and legal aid? 

Labour have continued to champion an increase in prosecutors by allowing Associate Prosecutors (APs) to work on appropriate cases and encouraging a fast track of rape cases by introducing specialist courts at every crown court location in England and Wales. The kinds of ‘appropriate cases’ these APs will take on, however, have not been specified. The popular online blogger ‘The Secret Barrister’ argues that there is “literally nothing in Labour’s manifesto about the record Crown Court backlog”, with the AP proposal relating solely to the issue in the Magistrates’ Court. The Secret Barrister concludes that, “No government in history has caused as much damage to the criminal justice system, has created such appalling delays and has deliberately run up such an enormous backlog. And the official opposition don’t appear to have a clue how to address this.”

The Conservative manifesto seeks to cut the backlog by keeping open Nightingale court rooms, funding more sitting days and investing in court maintenance. Additionally, they look to continue with the digitisation of court processes, the expansion of the use of remote hearings, and to offer match funding for 100 criminal law pupillages to speed up justice for victims.  But as with all new recruits, experience takes time to build and have effect.

Labour’s ‘Hillsborough Law’ will place a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities. The party says it will also provide legal aid to the tune of £30 million for victims of disasters or state-related deaths. On top of this, Starmer and co have set aside £5 million of their budget to appoint legal advocates to provide free legal advice and support to rape survivors across England and Wales.

On the other side of the political line, the Conservatives plan to expand the provision of legal aid at inquests related to major incidents where the Independent Public Advocate is appointed or in the aftermath of terrorist incidents, which would be widely welcomed.

What is sadly lacking from both is hard numbers in terms of investment that will be pledged to the administration of justice as a whole for the benefit of society. The public know the system is broken. The Law Society says we need an immediate investment of £11.3m for civic legal aid and the Bar Council says we need a “whole system review” through Royal Commission, which the Conservatives promised in their 2019 manifesto but which never materialised.

However, most voters will recognise there is little spare cash to be found down the back of the sofa to make this happen. One thing that would benefit the system which doesn’t cost £s is stability of the Minister for Justice position. Having someone stay in post long enough to grapple thoughtfully with the issues and offer meaningful leadership would be a welcome change.

Friday 14th June

As election campaign launches go, it was hardly the most auspicious start.
Drowned out by torrential rain and the Labour 1997 campaign anthem, D:Ream’s Things Can Only Get Better (cue myriad weather-related memes and media headlines), the optics were less than optimal, Rishi Sunak’s speech barely audible.

The overall impression was one of poor judgment and largely avoidable disarray, undermining Sunak’s attempt to portray the Tories as the safest pair of hands.

While he talked up his government’s track record in restoring economic stability and its commitment to ensuring the UK’s security, the nation – transfixed by the increasing sogginess of Sunak’s suit – just wanted to know why, oh why, he’d decided to deliver his speech exposed to the elements, and his rationale in calling a snap election now. Unless things really aren’t going to get any better for the foreseeable future.

It was a fitting metaphor for how washed up the government appears to many, if not most, voters – at least if the latest opinion polls are to be believed.

Contrast this with Keir Starmer’s slick (bar one hastily corrected typo) video and address, delivered inside – flanked by two Union Jack flags – calling for change and an end to Tory chaos.

Instead of trying to brazen it out and ignore the fact that it was raining – and raining hard – on his parade, had Sunak (and his communications team) had the wherewithal to plan in advance a quip about the inclement weather, then the response to his speech could have been so very different: respect (however grudging) rather than ridicule.

While we await publication of the political parties’ manifestos, with six weeks of election campaigning to ‘look forward to’, let’s hope – for Sunak’s sake, if nothing else – that his team learns from yesterday’s PR debacle and develops a more professional, fleet-footed approach to communications. And that they buy him an umbrella.

By Sarah Peters

23rd May 2024

Violence on the streets of London is something we have sadly become inured to. Reading Catherine Baksi’s article in Times Law this week about the proposal to offer jurors counselling if they are involved in traumatic trials however made us spare a thought for the members of the jury who will have to relive the recent brutal and senseless murder of 14-year-old Daniel Anjorin in a machete attack in East London.

The media coverage of the killing has been graphic and unsparing in the horrific details of how he died. That any victim, family and community should have to experience this is saddening beyond words. It is good to know that the jury who will preside over this case and the countless other dreadful and all too common cases of knife and sword crimes across the country will have access to support.

If you would like to donate to the appeal in memory of Daniel Anjorin, please visit: https://www.gofundme.com/f/daniel-anjorin?attribution_id=sl:2c08375f-f31c-4a0d-a485-f795d24ccc52&utm_campaign=m_pd+share-sheet&utm_content=ampSPPcontrol&utm_medium=copy_link_spp&utm_source=customer

‘Pilot scheme to provide counselling for jurors in traumatic trials’ (The Times): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pilot-scheme-to-provide-counselling-for-jurors-in-traumatic-trials-rwd3lqgml

How robust is our probe? That’s the question organisations may now have to ask themselves when they commission an “𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭” 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 in the wake of uncomfortable allegations being levelled against them.

Can employees, partners, clients, funders, regulators – let alone the general public through the lens of the media – really rely on the integrity of the following aspects of an investigation, when the business or firm’s alleged misconduct, systemic shortcomings or governance failings are put to the test?

–   independence of investigators;
–   sufficiency of investigation’s scope;
–   cooperation of all relevant parties;
–   reasonable timeframe of reporting and remedial action;
–   transparency of findings;
–   implementation of recommendations.

To what extent can the 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 of an internal investigation, let alone its recommended resolutions, be relied on to uncover all the facts? If you can’t handle the truth, why would you expect others to accept the investigation? If the process is flawed, rather than resolving an issue it’s likely to provoke even greater reputational damage.

The FT has neatly outlined some of the shortcomings within the industry of investigations, and the SRA is soon to publish guidance to help uphold confidence in the process. However, in Bell Yard’s view, transparency lies at the heart of a good investigation, and it’s transparency that will ultimately drive reputation restoration. Fortunately we’re here to help with that!

By Melanie Riley

There’s no denying that there’s been a marked decline in newspaper sales over the past decade or more, which corresponds with the growth in news’ digital presence, as our appetite for content on-the-go increases. However there appears to be a continuing battle between those who expect their news to be delivered for free, and publishers who understandably see cost and value in reporting which they are keen to recover and exploit.

The free/paywall divide appears most marked between not only the generations, but the type of content they view.  Hard paywalls appear to work for publications that already dominate the niche market in which they operate (e.g. FT / Economist / WSJ).  

According to 2023 research by Reuters Institute for Journalism, only 9% of UK consumers of news were paying for it – near on the lowest percentage of any of the top 20 richest countries. In contrast, Norway has 39% of its public paying for news content. Perhaps more concerning for publishers keen to expand or introduce paywall mechanisms, the same research found that about half of non-subscribers say that nothing could persuade them to pay for online news, with lack of interest or perceived value remaining fundamental obstacles. Generally, with regards to news, audiences say they pay more attention to celebrities, influencers, and social media personalities in networks like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat than journalists working for traditional media. 

Media brands themselves do not necessarily appear to attract news readers – only 22% say they go to a specific website or app for their news, with younger groups showing a weaker connection to news brands’ own websites and apps than previous cohorts, preferring instead to access news via alternative routes such as social media, search or mobile aggregators. Although Google and Facebook still account for about half of the traffic to news sites, there are signs that their platform position is becoming a little less concentrated in many markets, with more providers competing. Most people aged between 18-24 received their news via social media channels, with TV news being most important to those aged over 55.

Podcasts retain their popularity but only among a certain niche of individuals – upmarket young people.  In fact, only 34% of people have listened to a podcast, and then the most popular tend to be ones involving discussion between men!

Back to paywalls: publishers recognise that to attract new subscribers, content is key. They also value paywalls as a way of recovering the revenue once received from digital advertising but which is now under pressure as a result of ad blocking technology and the change in Google and Facebook algorithms. The new Mail+ paywall gives access to premium content across their most popular subjects – the royal family, special investigations, health, personal finance and certain columnists.  The Mail is confident of leveraging subscribers from its existing high-visibility website, being the second most commonly visited news website in the UK (after the BBC) and benefitting from high overseas traffic .  The introduction of paywalls is the antithesis of click-bait journalism, and models that look to reward journalists on the value of clicks their individual stories received, resulting in an emphasis towards the trivial.

However, perhaps the reality is that introducing paywalls mean that publishers will learn exactly how loyal their readership is, and as soon as the content value doesn’t outweigh the cost, then subscribers will walk. There is a concern also that paywalls increase the opportunity for siloed-thinking and echo chambers, if people align themselves to media that fit with their own viewpoint, thereby insulating themselves from contrary opinion. Most people (aside from those in the PR industry), would tend to seek out multiple sources for news only when it’s free to access. To subscribe to multiple channels is rare, so arguably the paywall game is one that will have few winners but many losers over time.  

The jury is out as to whether we’ve seen better journalism since the introduction of paywalls but it is fair to say that exclusive content from trusted media brands has value. Nonetheless, given the next generation’s declining appetite for paid-for news, the publishing industry may find itself needing another way of funding its output. In the end however, for the communications industry it’s really about what clients want from their media hits – volume in free-to-read outlets that can be readily amplified via their social media sites, or placement before fee-paying readers seeking quality contributions. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

By Melanie Riley

Match 2024

Bell Yard Director Louise Beeson reviews the past year in the world of legal PR and looks ahead to 2024 in the below article for Law360.

—

As we approach the year end, many law firms and public relations teams will be reviewing their external communications output for 2023: Which campaigns broke through, which legal experts did well in the media and why, opportunities missed perhaps, and which issues were defining for a firm’s reputation in the last 12 months. 

An analysis of this nature is wise housekeeping — it is useful to take stock and learn lessons to plan for the year ahead. It is also important to ensure that an eye is kept on whether a firm’s external profile activities are properly aligned with strategic communications aims and business plans.

In addition, it is prudent to be aware of the big topics that are driving narratives in the legal sector right now and to consider a firm’s positioning on these so as to be best prepared for 2024. 

Such a review exercise, involving a look at channels too, is critical to disciplined reputation management and, in turn, how a firm is perceived by its stakeholders — clients, referrers, recruits and staff.

What Does a Firm Want to Be Known For? 

While it is rarely possible to translate legal marketing slogans into sycophantic coverage in mainstream media — law firm brand straplines such as “A point of view like no other” and “Driving progress through partnership,” for example, are not phrases that reporters will likely ever reproduce except in brand-related articles — press effort and coverage should nonetheless ideally reflect a firm’s practice and management priorities.

One partner dominating the airwaves all year round can create a skewed impression of what a firm is about. Equally, an analysis of social media output should show a range of experts contributing to the reputation of the firm.

Topics should also be on-grid. Opportunistic comments on heart-on-sleeve subjects or areas the firm does not usually advise on may be quick wins or keep a journalist happy, but if they are off-piste in terms of what the firm wants to talk about, this will create the wrong impression of expertise and client focus in that unforgiving Google or LinkedIn archive.

Another question is whether external media coverage for 2023 has achieved the right balance of client expert versus employer brand content. Is it enough to showcase the firm’s ecological, pro bono, equality and diversity initiatives on a firm’s website and in socials, or do they deserve greater attention if a crucial part of the story?

If the latter, do efforts really stand out versus peers and is the right target U.K. Tech News, TikTok or the Financial Times?

Lastly, did an event or incident come along that sullied a law firm’s brand and reputation in the eyes of beholders? While it may pay to keep a low profile after a media storm in the short term, it is usually essential to fight back with commentary that promotes a healthier mix of topics and initiatives in the medium term.

Measuring Success

Of course, social media tools and website analytics make it easy to measure readership or listenership of posts, blogs and podcasts and that is a start. Engagement is harder to measure.

Also less easy to measure data-wise is whether style, tone and format of these efforts have been optimal and whether people feel they have the right skills to populate priority channels.

An accurate and rigorous measurement of press coverage output is also difficult to achieve. Media evaluation is expensive and time-consuming. External evaluation agencies can pore over press coverage and create charts and graphs showing positive messages conveyed, favorability of coverage ratings, share of voice in an article, audience reach, and the volume of hits compared to competitors.

Alternatively, a basic counting exercise can be carried out to measure coverage achieved by topic, practice area and publication, spinning this data into charts. For some, the regularity of firm name checks in the Financial Times will be important; for others, the measure of success might be the breadth of spokespeople quoted in an agreed list of priority media.

Regardless of firm and evaluation budget available, the point is to have a defined set of objectives at the start of the year and assess how far external output supported those at year end. Only then can one consider whether the balance of activity — i.e., proactive versus reactive; mainstream media versus social media; data-led or news-surfing-led; expert lawyer versus managing partner firm spokesperson — should be adjusted in the year ahead.

The Big Beast Topics of 2024

The final prong of any law firm’s annual review and year-ahead planning exercise should be to compile a list of hot topics for the legal sector — whether or not the firm has been quizzed on them yet — and develop an agreed position on them.

This can help to inform on which topics a firm wants to be proactive or reactive going forward; what the managing partner says at a lunch with the new Financial Times legal correspondent; or, indeed, what a trainee recruitment manager puts in the crib-sheet for lawyers manning a stand at the university careers fair.

The list should, of course, be comprehensive and iterative, but below are examples of the questions it should include, and that law firms’ communications teams should have answers for right now in their so-called hot topic bible.

• Will there still be a firmwide Christmas party? 
• Are there any #MeToo incidents under investigation internally or escalated to the Solicitors Regulation Authority? 
• Are there any disputes with any clients over unpaid fees or negligent advice? 
• What is the current working from home policy? 
• Has the firm paid bonuses this year? Has the firm recently made job cuts or does the firm plan any such cuts in the next six months? 
• What is the policy on publishing profits per equity partner? 
• What percentage of lawyers in the firm went to Oxbridge and private schools? 
• How many black, female and LGBTQ partners respectively are there in the firm? 
• How much per square foot do you pay for space? How much space is being utilized? 
• Has the firm investigated its slave trade links, and will it be making reparations? 
• Have any Labour politicians been invited to meet clients? Does the firm fund the Labour Party, or is the firm preparing clients for a Labour election win? Are there any talks in progress to offer a job to any outgoing Tory politicians? 

Concluding Thoughts

There is no textbook manual as to how law firms can get external communications right: how to turn lawyers into amazing communicators; how to interest journalists in the right stories; how many LinkedIn posts are optimal to keep front of mind with contacts and how to maintain the perfect firm profile.

Reputation is a complex construct and reputation management is an art rather than a science. But the year-end point is always a good moment in the calendar to consider how best to enhance, protect and advance reputation, ensuring it is as controlled and planned as possible, and not left to the wrong people or, worse, chance. 

By Louise Beeson, Director at Bell Yard Communications

This article previously appeared here in Law360

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhDY74ykqD0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJu1Vb_FoQA

Edward Fennell, ‘The Legal Diary’ founder & editor and former editor of The Times’ ‘Law Diary’, delves into how law firms have changed their approach to PR and gives advice for lawyers in dealing with journalists in a Q&A with legal and litigation agency, Bell Yard Communications.

Edward Fennell began his legal beat when working at The Times where he memorably interviewed a Baker McKenzie partner in 90’s Moscow who described the scene of Russian tanks rolling past the window. Edward’s journey progressed to starting The Legal Diary blog and penning a medieval monastic murder story in semi-retirement.

Over the course of your career, how have law firms changed their approach to PR? Did their attitudes change? Any notable trends?

Yes, absolutely dramatic changes since I first started in 1987. Until shortly before there had been a ban on marketing and promotional activity and when this ended most firms were very unclear on how to handle it. A few went for immediate activity and made a botch of it. Others were very nervous with everything having to be handled by the managing or senior partner. In due course, they brought in PR firms but often expected unrealistic results. Besides, many were still reluctant to get drawn in. Famously, when Slaughter and May came top of the M&A table one year I asked for a comment. They replied that they would think about it. And much later in the day they simply got back and said they did not think a comment was appropriate!

The big catalyst for change was when firms suddenly started to open up offices all over Europe – especially Eastern Europe. They were desperate to get the news out and that prompted the development of a much more professional approach.

What inspired you to pursue a career in journalism?

From my early teens I became an avid reader of newspapers and news magazines and had a strong sense of vocation towards journalism. The Times, The Daily Mail (a very different kind of paper back in the 1960s) and The Economist were my big reads.

After university I started working as an Information Officer in local government. Employment and recruitment issues were my specialism and that gave me some expertise to start writing for The Times. Subsequently, I was on hand when The Times set up its weekly LAW section in 1987 and I continued to do that for 30+ years until a combination of age and Covid brought it to an end.

What was your best scoop/what’s been the most interesting story you’ve ever covered and why?

In August/September 1991, Russia was going through a terrible period of unrest. Some elements of the army staged a coup involving driving tanks into Moscow. I was aiming to write an article on the general situation from a legal perspective and was interviewing a Baker McKenzie partner in the Moscow office. As we started to talk the tanks began to roll past the building. He went to the window and gave me a vivid description of what was happening. It made the opening para a lot easier and more exciting to write!

How do you fact-check your work?

At The Times one was backed up by a fantastic sub-editing and legal service so one was saved from the worst errors. Just in the course of writing though I usually fed back to interviewees what I was planning to quote or say on their behalf. Many of the topics were highly technical, even for lawyers, so I had no hesitation in double checking that I had understood correctly.

Why did you set-up The Legal Diary?

After stopping writing the Legal Diary for The Times in Spring 2020, I thought it might be fun to continue it on a bigger basis, taking in some of the other material that I thought was interesting but had not been able to use. Besides, being now semi-retired I needed something to do with my time and keep in touch with the wider world. 

What is the best tactic for approaching you with storylines?

Usually best just to drop me an email as it is the best way to digest a story. Tuesdays are probably the best days to reach out because I publish on Friday so I need, ideally, to have my stories sorted in priority by Wednesday/Thursday morning. Getting them to me on Tuesday or Wednesday morning allows me time to digest them and get a sense of their level of priority.If I think they are ‘possible/probables’ I often come back with a query/clarification. Or a request for an accompanying image.

What advice would you give to lawyers for dealing with journalists?

Keep to the point – distill your expertise to the key points. Don’t blind with science. Bear in mind that the journalist is an intermediary to an interested audience – even, maybe, potential clients!

What advice would you give to aspiring journalists?

To be frank I feel so far removed now from what it’s like getting into the business today that I am not sure I can offer any meaningful advice other than the obvious:

• start writing about topics that fascinate you and develop some expertise and contacts in that field,
• try to get the pieces published somewhere/anywhere to show your abilities/expertise (and, one hopes, talent),
• then start extending and making the right contacts across the media,
• pray for a bit of luck

Tell us about your recent novel and how it came about.

I am a historian by background and am lucky enough to live in Winchester adjacent to the site of the medieval monastery – Hyde Abbey – where Alfred the Great was buried (it’s now a ruin, destroyed by Henry VIII). I am also very interested in Chaucer and was pretty convinced that Chaucer had known Hyde Abbey quite well. The clue is that the Tabard Inn in Southwark – where Chaucer’s pilgrims meet – was a real place and was actually owned by Hyde Abbey – and the abbot spent quite a lot of time there. So a medieval monastic murder story against the background of the Peasants’ Revolt was an obvious plot line, linking up real historical characters with Chaucer’s fictional ones. I thoroughly enjoyed writing it!

Order ‘CHARTER FOR MURDER’ by Edward Fennell here

Read/sign-up to ‘The Legal Diary’ here

Bell Yard Communications has vast experience working for clients involved in legal crypto issues that require expert litigation PR and crisis communications advisers.

ONTIER LLP

This has most prominently taken the form of Bell Yard working for the law firm ONTIER and their client Dr Craig Wright. Dr Wright chose to prove his identity as Satoshi as well as establishing and enforcing his copyright in the Bitcoin White Paper and numerous patents relating to the blockchain through the legal system.

Bell Yard advised ONTIER on how to promote the legal successes the firm had in the English legal cases brought by Dr Wright following the relentless online hostilities experienced by Dr Wright from individuals and entities online.

We advised on the communication around a ground-breaking action against 16 bitcoin developers to establish their duty to restore access to stolen/lost private keys to those who can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of a court, their ownership of the wallet in which digital currency is stored. We also supported ONTIER in the various copyright infringement cases ongoing, as well as defamation actions in UK and Norway.  Running in parallel was a huge case (brought by ONTIER on behalf of an entity beneficially owned by Dr Wright), against digital currency exchanges Kraken and Coindesk, valued in the hundreds of billions of pounds.

About Bell Yard Communications

We advise individuals, firms, chambers, companies large and small, charities and community groups – all of whom have one thing in common: the desire to communicate on matters relating to the law.

Bell Yard are consistently top ranked in Chambers & Partners’ Litigation Support Guide since 2018.

Contact London’s leading litigation PR and reputation management experts at Bell Yard Communications here.

Instructed the morning after Martin Bashir’s documentary ‘Living with Michael Jackson’ was aired in the UK, Bell Yard set to work devising and implementing a robust rebuttal strategy to overturn the initially hostile global media coverage and subsequent litigation PR work.

Using MJJ Productions’ own footage of Bashir interviewing Jackson, we focused media attention on the betrayal Jackson felt at the hands of Bashir. Working closely with Jackson’s UK & US legal teams, Bell Yard led the global media handling of Jackson’s claim for injunctive relief and damages from Granada.

Michael Jackson Litigation PR Media Statement:

Here is the full text of the statement issued today on behalf of Michael Jackson by Bell Yard Communications:

“Michael is devastated and feels utterly betrayed by the British television programme, Living With Michael Jackson, presented by Martin Bashir and broadcast in the UK on Monday, February 3, 2003, which he regards as a gross distortion of the truth and a tawdry attempt to misrepresent his life and his abilities as a father.

“In a number of crucial respects Michael is concerned that Martin Bashir and Granada Television have broken the trust he placed in them.

“In particular, he felt he had obtained their assurance that his children would not be featured in any way in the broadcast programme.

“Michael repeatedly asked Bashir to stop filming his children, and was promised by him that the footage of his children would be taken out in the final edit but, Bashir said, shooting should not be stopped because “it would break the continuity of filming”.

“Michael is deeply upset that the programme sensationally sets out to use two or three pieces of footage giving a wholly distorted picture of his behaviour and conduct as a father.

“Michael feels particularly devastated that he has been treated so badly by Martin Bashir, whom he let into the Jackson family home on a number of occasions over eight months, in the belief that Bashir wished to make a genuine documentary of his life.

“Michael believes that what was eventually broadcast was a salacious ratings chaser, designed to celebrate Martin Bashir, and which was indifferent to the effect on Michael personally, his family and his close friends.

“Michael originally consented to grant Bashir extended access to the Neverland Valley Ranch, his family and Michael himself, because he wanted to give the world a faithful representation of the truth about his life.

“Michael believes that the programme Bashir has produced is a travesty of the truth. Michael would never have consented to participating in this film if he had been aware of how Bashir was going to falsely portray him.

“Michael believes that this programme was intentionally produced and edited with a view to broadcasting sensationalised innuendo.

“Michael feels deeply angry that the programme could have led viewers to conclude that he abuses children in any way. Michael Jackson has never, and would never, treat a child inappropriately or expose them to any harm and totally refutes any suggestions to the contrary.

“Michael would never betray the trust that a child, or their parents, might place in him.

“Michael was today moved to make the following personal statement: ‘I trusted Martin Bashir to come into my life and that of my family because I wanted the truth to be told.

‘Martin Bashir persuaded me to trust him that his would be an honest and fair portrayal of my life and told me that he was “the man that turned Diana’s life around”.

‘I am surprised that a professional journalist would compromise his integrity by deceiving me in this way.

‘Today I feel more betrayed than perhaps ever before; that someone, who had got to know my children, my staff and me, whom I let into my heart and told the truth, could then sacrifice the trust I placed in him and produce this terrible and unfair programme.

‘Everyone who knows me will know the truth which is that my children come first in my life and that I would never harm any child.

‘I also want to thank my fans around the world for the overwhelming number of messages of support that I have received, particularly from Great Britain, where people have e-mailed me and said how appalled they were by the Bashir film. Their love and support has touched me greatly.’

“These comments are excerpts from a videotaped statement from Michael Jackson, which shall be released after the airing of the Bashir television special in the United States.

“Debbie Rowe, Michael’s ex-wife and the mother of two of his children reacted today: ‘It breaks my heart that anyone could truly believe that Michael would do anything to harm or endanger our children: they are the most important thing in his life.'”

Contact

Get in touch with Bell Yard for any litigation PR/legal sector reputation management needs.

Bell Yard Communications is a leading litigation PR and reputational management agency based in London with over two decades of experience supporting high-calibre and ground-breaking clients.

Over the years we have helped guide HNW individuals, companies, law firms, finance houses, family-run businesses, celebrities and embattled employees through the challenging process of being in the public eye during times of dispute or difficulty.

Claimants or defendants may require media support on matters from fraud to divorce or from employment actions to personal injury cases. The media spotlight may fall on judicial reviews or sensitive coroners’ inquests. Perhaps intellectual property disputes or planning law reviews. Even administrative court proceedings and certainly some criminal prosecutions.

Bell Yard’s expertise in the field of litigation PR is shown through the continued inclusion of the firm and its Director Melanie Riley in Chambers UK’s Litigation and Support Guide in the Litigation PR & Communications category.

Bell Yard’s Melanie Riley, Sarah Peters, and Louise Beeson were also selected once again in the 2023 Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting list. This illustrious list, in its 9th edition, recognises the exceptional advisors who have played an instrumental role in the exponential growth of the legal industry by providing cutting-edge advice and strategic guidance to legal leaders.

Things to consider before choosing litigation PR:

• Can you control the information flow?
• Should you comment publicly and, if so, when?
• What can be divulged pre-trial?
• Should your shareholders know in advance?
• What do you tell employees without destabilising the business
  or risking leaks?
• If the other side is briefing, should you react?

Above all, how do you balance the public’s right to know with your desire for
confidentiality?

If even just one of these issues resonates, do get in touch as Bell Yard can help.

Litigation public relations (litigation PR), is a powerful means of communications management that can directly affect the outcome of any legal dispute or adjudicatory processing, or mitigate the impact on the client’s reputation.

Litigation PR relates to a legal dispute, which is vastly different to other forms of PR such as profile-raising. Bell Yard Communications is one of the very first litigation PR agencies in England and have assisted a range of clients in extremely important and impactful legal cases over the years.

This litigation PR service allows us to protect our client’s overall reputation and support their legal dispute. When looking for a PR company it is important to focus on a brand that can consider and deliver within the implications of communicating during any proceedings. Such as navigating any sensitive rules all while keeping to a strategic plan and approach.

Since the boom of social media and the internet the need for litigation PR has never been more important. Especially with the scale of consequences potentially being larger and the scale of coverage magnified.

Chambers Litigation Support Guide comments on Bell Yard:

“Bell Yard is a market-leading litigation PR boutique with a long-established presence in London. The firm represents defendants and claimants across a range of case types and sectors. Its services include media risk assessment, dispute profiling and public relations connected to trial, among others.”

Chambers Litigation Support Guide comments on Director Melanie Riley:

Melanie Riley is a co-founder and director of Bell Yard Communications. She is instructed by corporate clients, law firms, barristers’ chambers, charities and high net worth individuals in disputes ranging from white-collar crime to matrimonial matters.

“Melanie Riley is very personable and unflappable, which is needed for this job. She is incredibly knowledgeable. She knows all the courts and the system. Melanie is well connected and is my one-stop shop into that world of the courts and how to work through the system.” 

“She has probably the best book of journalist contacts of anybody in the business.”

If you are interested in finding out more about Bell Yard Communications’ litigation PR work then please click here to explore our various archived cases.

Contact Bell Yard Communications

Richard Burton, magazine editor/media consultant, shares his thoughts on what makes a good PR pitch and reflects on his own impressive career within the journalism profession in the below Q&A with Bell Yard Communications that will be of interest to anyone working in/with the media.

From being inspired by comic book characters to editing the Telegraph online on 9/11 and revealing the identity of a schoolgirl’s killer with a picture exclusive, the business editor and former Fleet Street journalist has plenty of stories to share.

What inspired you to pursue a career in journalism?

I’d love to say it was reading the Washington Post, but it was really looking at DC Comics in the back of my father’s car on long journeys. More specifically, Clark Kent. Seriously. At aged nine I wasn’t interested in his Super sideline, just the day job. I became hooked on working for an editor with a fat cigar and a disregard for anything resembling HR. The prospect of being kicked out on to the streets in search of scandal, meeting contacts in alleyways and whistle blowers in low dives sounded more enticing than “retails sales” which is what the careers people later said I’d be suited for. When I got a real job and my name appeared in my local paper, a curmudgeonly neighbour who used to disapprove of everything I did, suddenly became my best friend.

Why did you gravitate towards being an editor?

I spent 10 years in the provinces before I came to Fleet Street, actually starting as a tea-boy in the provinces, before moving from weeklies to agencies to dailies and, basically, stringing for the nationals on every patch I worked. Some of the papers back in the late 70s had lineage pools where we shared the spoils like waiters share tips. I always refused to join as I was pretty much on it 24/7 so I guess I needed greater ownership of the job. I took a news editor role purely for the money after Margaret Thatcher came to power and a sudden 17 per cent interest hike meant I couldn’t afford the mortgage I’d just signed up for. But it meant I was able to nurture a young team which I did until I fell out with the boss and got the sack.  I then went for a deputy editor job as, by then, I’d got a proper taste for management, and after about a year, two directors took me to a hotel too posh for my payband and asked me to step up. That job got me into Fleet Street. 

How do you fact-check your work?

Most stories are fairy linear and, if properly attributed, speak for themselves, but the fact that I do fact-check at all is usually a good start. So much I read these days clearly hasn’t been. Having spent years subbing on the Telegraph – querying and correcting – helps a lot. I try to use the best sources, aren’t afraid to say to someone’s face: ‘that can’t be true, I’m going to need more than that.’ I use the Deep Web a lot. I was an early adopter of CAR [computer assisted research] and never shy away from seeking an honest right of reply. I hate it when a reporter tells me they ‘saw it on the Internet.’ It’s like saying they read something in Smiths.

What does your daily/weekly schedule look like when crafting a story?

Depends. I’ve been on investigations that dragged on for weeks and involved hours of trawling microfiche files (oh, the memories), knocking on every door on the estate and,  even sitting in cars waiting for someone to arrive or leave. But back to the present: I write, edit and commission around three dozen a week, plus a bit of ghosting. Crafting is instinctive in 99 per cent of cases; I usually know where a story should be going by the time I’ve read the first few lines and I tend to edit as I read, a habit developed from years of filing ‘off the cuff’, dictating to copytakers from the scene.    

What is the best tactic for approaching you with storylines?

I’m not a huge fan of email for everything but it’s the only way when you’re editing six magazines and get 50-plus pitches a day. I get annoyed when people play games: a LinkedIn message reaching out to me to jump on a call (mind boggles) as they have something I’d be interested in. If it’s a pitch, just say so. I actively welcome them. I’ve had splashes and coverlines that simply came to my inbox. Go easy on the surveys (I get loads) and don’t offer me listicles or I’ll give you ten reasons why they’re outdated and a little desperate.  

So, I’d say pertinence, patience and persistence. By that I mean, tell me as simply and directly what it’s about, don’t expect an answer immediately and feel free to prod me – I’m old fashioned enough to be shamed into the courtesy of an eventual reply.   

What makes a good story/quote?

Emotion – in both cases. Something that moves a reader who’s short on time and has lots of media competing for their attention. The problem is, so much is hyped online these days, readers are rightly sceptical of anything too dramatic. 

In terms of quotes specifically, I find people are often reluctant to express themselves. I get offered thought leadership pieces a lot and love it when I can hear the voice of the writer. When I get something marked Approved: 4^th and final revision, I know it wont be.   

What is the best/worst part of being a journalist/editor? 

The anecdotes. Hate to sound trite, but that sort of sums it up: If you spend every day seeking out something that (you hope) others will pay to know about, especially if they involve people and places they’ll pay to see or listen to, you’ll have them in abundance. Not sure there are many other jobs where a crown court judge would delay sentencing until he saw me in my seat, a rock group would ask me to drive them home to avoid crowds and a Question Time panellist would text me from the car afterwards to ask how I think they did.

I can’t honestly think of a worst part, other than the odd hours, the occasional drudgery (I couldn’t always choose my subjects) and the odd time I found myself in the night lawyer’s office struggling to reconcile what I’d written with what I could prove.   

What advice would you give to aspiring journalists?

Do it because it’s a calling and you believe in people’s right to know and the importance of an open, honest media, not because you want to “find your voice”.  That’s what blogs are for. It’s not about you. It’s about what you can impart. Also, absorb all media. Read the tabloids for word economy, the broadsheets for context and do learn the language. Few use it correctly, you’ll need to at least make a decent fist of it.

How do you consume media/stay up to date with the news?

Its easy these days. It’s all brought to your phone. But I subscribe to a few aggregators, have Sky News or CNN on constantly while I’m on the Mac in my home office, a habit I picked up during my Mirror days when TVs hung from the ceiling while we worked and I have access to news wires so it’s pretty full-on. 

What was your best scoop/what’s been the most interesting story you’ve ever covered and why?

I was editing the Telegraph online on 9/11. We ran 148 stories in one six-hour period alone  and I catnapped on a physio table at about 4am attempting round-the-clock updates. Other than that, too many to say: doorstepping a young Lady Diana Spencer in Northampton had a sense of history in the making, revealing the identity of a schoolgirl’s killer with a picture exclusive gave me notoriety and enough money to move house … but the most rewarding was unashamedly using the Mail’s massive reach to expose a couple’s agony at watching an incurable gene defect gradually take their children’s lives. I tracked down the one clinic in the world which had had any, albeit experimental, success and, even though it was massively oversubscribed, got them to agree to see them if I had them flown out. Their daughter survived another six years and the son is now symptom-free.   

Richard Burton: LinkedIn

Richard Burton is a former Fleet Street journalist who manages a range of digital titles in the UK and across Europe. His main London title is the business magazine, Director of Finance. 

Bell Yard Blogs

Responding to the news from the Infected Blood Inquiry today that Sir Brian Langstaff and his team now expect to publish their Final Report in March 2024, rather than this autumn, Des Collins, Senior Partner of Collins Solicitors who represents some 1500 individuals and their families impacted by the infected blood scandal, comments:

“This is another devastating blow for our clients, although the delay is understandable for the reasons Sir Brian has outlined. We, of course, respect Sir Brian’s wishes to follow due process and produce a thorough and considered report, however, today’s news does beg the glaring question of whether the Government will continue to stick to its line of compensation after delivery of the Final report.

“Victims are dying at a rate of one in every four days so another 6 months plus will be too late for many and given this week’s announcement of a compensation scheme for wrongfully convicted Postmasters, ahead of the Final report into that scandal, it seems doubly unfair that infected blood victims are still being made to wait.*

“We call upon the Government to implement a proper compensation scheme for infected blood victims as soon as possible, as recommended by Sir Brian in April this year. If the Government fails to do so, we fully expect to be instructed by our clients to restore the Group Action against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and ask that the question of compensation be referred back to the Court.”

ENDS

*See Des Collins’ statement about the inconsistent treatment of infected blood victims and wrongfully convicted postmasters here: https://collinslaw.co.uk/post.php?s=2023-09-19-media-statement-date-19-september-2023-stark-contrast-between-government-response-to-post-office-horizon-victims-and-infected-blood

Media enquiries

Bell Yard Communications: BellYard@bell-yard.com 

Louise Beeson: Louise@bell-yard.com / Mob: 07768 956997 

Declan Flahive: Declan@bell-yard.com / Mob: 07944 629485

Notes for editors

The Infected Blood Inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, is the UK’s largest ever statutory inquiry, established to investigate how men women and children were given infected blood and blood products by the NHS from the 1970s. Following an intervention by Sir Brian, the Government made interim payments of £100,00 last October to those victims of the infected blood scandal still alive and a small number of widows. This left other victims of the scandal such as orphans and relatives still in limbo. On 5th April 2023, Sir Brian published his Second Interim Report recommending that interim payments of £100,000 should be made in respect of deaths not yet recognised to “alleviate immediate suffering”. His report said: “These interim payments should be capable of being made through the support schemes after registration and of being achieved reasonably quickly. They can and should be achievable before the compensation scheme itself is operational.” There has been no official Government response to this to date. In answering questions in the House, Ministers have said the matter of a compensation for infected blood is complex and victims need to wait on details of a compensation scheme until after the Inquiry Final Report is published.

Bell Yard was delighted to attend the House of Lords this week to mark the launch of the law reform and human rights organisation JUSTICE’s latest report, ‘The State We’re In: Addressing Threats & Challenges to the Rule of Law.’

This report addresses the significant regression of the rule of law in the UK and the threats this poses to the democratic fabric of our nation. Bell Yard helped to secure media coverage for this landmark report’s release in both print and broadcast media.

Further details about JUSTICE’s report can be found on its website.

You can also read about it in: 

The Guardian, 

Law Society Gazette, 

Solicitors Journal,

And The Telegraph Online, amongst other outlets.

Climate change is gearing up to become a key election – and legal – battleground. 

‘Just Stop Sunak’ screamed Tuesday’s Daily Mirror in response to the government’s confirmation on Monday that it would grant more than 100 new North Sea oil and gas drilling licences, while The Sun led with the launch of its ‘Give Us A Brake’ campaign, urging politicians to “protect hard-up motorists from expensive net zero policies”. The Times, meanwhile, reported that the government will ask the heads of major UK energy companies to reconsider their investment strategies following Rishi Sunak’s call to “max out the opportunities” in the North Sea.

Emboldened by the Conservatives’ recent Uxbridge by-election victory, in which opposition to the expansion of London’s ultra-low emission zone played no small part, the Prime Minister insisted that plans to expand North Sea drilling, said to be essential for the UK’s energy security, were “entirely consistent with our plan to get to net zero”.

The new North Sea licensing round – which will be accompanied by two more carbon capture and storage projects – drew condemnation from environmental groups, opposition figures, the renewable energy industry, investors and some former Tory ministers.

Lambasting the plan as “the wrong decision at precisely the wrong time, when the rest of the world is experiencing record heatwaves”, Chris Skidmore, the former science minister who led a review into net zero, said it was “on the wrong side of modern voters who will vote with their feet at the next general election for parties that protect, and not threaten, our environment.”

The North Sea plan follows the government’s approval in December of the UK’s first new deep coal mine in thirty years, recent changes to the UK’s carbon trading scheme that cut incentives for industry to reduce emissions, a planned national review of low-traffic neighbourhoods, not to mention a damning progress report from the Climate Change Committee in June, which claimed that the UK has lost its global leadership position on climate change and risks failing to meet legally binding emissions targets made at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

Meanwhile, a coalition of nature groups, including the National Trust, RSPB and RSPCA, have threatened to mobilise their 20 million or so members, should the government “use the environment as a political football” by watering down its climate commitments. 

The net zero fallout comes amid a continuing rise in climate litigation. According to research published last week by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University and the UN Environment Programme, the number of climate-related lawsuits has more than doubled in the past five years to 2,180 court cases globally.

And a report by the LSE’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, published in June, found a significant increase in legal challenges to the climate policy response of governments and companies, particularly outside the US. It also reported a surge in greenwashing cases relating to climate mis- and disinformation, and an increase in litigation concerning investment decisions – a fact of which the energy companies summoned to Number 10 will be only too aware. 

While both reports highlight a growing ESG backlash with a rise in lawsuits that seek to delay climate action or obtain compensation for government climate policies, in the overwhelming majority of cases, “People are … turning to courts to combat the climate crisis, holding governments and the private sector accountable and making litigation a key mechanism for securing climate action and promoting climate justice,” according to Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP. 

Indeed, Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and Good Law Project are taking the UK government to court for the second time in under two years over its plans for tackling climate change. They claim that the government’s revised net zero strategy – the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan – is unlawful and are seeking a judicial review. It follows the organisations’ landmark legal victory last year, with the High Court ruling that the government’s net zero strategy breached the Climate Change Act and required revision to show how key emissions reduction targets would be met.

Greenpeace, meanwhile, was in court last week to challenge the government’s “reckless decision to greenlight a new oil and gas licensing round, without properly checking the damage it will do to the climate”.

The UK government’s climate climbdown and vocal support for motorists, while clearly a calculated risk, is a polarising issue, pitting as it does short-term energy security against long-term green investment, economic self-interest against the ‘greater good’, and – as the Financial Times suggested yesterday – individual freedoms against statutory diktat. 

But whatever the ultimate impact on UK voting intentions of the net zero pushback, especially in light of the prolonged cost of living crisis, the increasing appetite for challenging governmental and corporate climate policy response in the courts as we enter the “era of global boiling” means that these latest lawsuits are unlikely to be the last. 

With more than half of climate litigation cases having direct judicial outcomes favourable to climate action, including prompting policy changes, according to the LSE report, Rishi Sunak – and the energy companies – better take note.  

By Sarah Peters

03/08/2023

Hopefully our young intern Sadie has gained some useful experience from her week spent in the world of litigation PR chez Bell Yard. Whilst she was with us, we asked her to share some of her insights into how she and her generation (Z in case you were wondering) consume and interact with traditional and social media platforms. Here is what she had to say, some of which chimes with the recent OFCOM report on News Consumption in the UK which may also be of interest:

1. Where do you usually get the news from and why?

All my news consumption is from free online sources, whether that be the BBC News app or social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok. Not only are they free, but they also tend to cover popular subjects and are easy to use with content being in video form or short, punchy articles. Additionally, I look to be entertained rather than purely informed which is typical of my generation and which these sites often achieve.

2. How much news-related content do you consume per week?

I rarely consume day-to-day news unless a particularly interesting headline from BBC News pops up. A growing number of teenagers just aren’t interested in the daily government dramas and frequent royal spats – it’s too much of the same thing we’ve heard before.

However, during “big” news scandals, like the recent implosion of the Titan submersible, I tuned in a lot. News-related content on this was everywhere online and I liked the way platforms turned it into a captivating drama through vivid storylines and the unravelling of the facts. 

3. Do you listen to podcasts? If so, which ones? 

I rarely listen to podcasts, I’m more a music listener. However, historical podcasts on Greek Mythology interest me as they align with my reading interests. If I were to listen to more podcasts, they would be about escaping the real world, exploring a new passion or curiosity. 

4. What social media platforms are you on and which do you use most actively?

I use Snapchat, WhatsApp and occasionally Instagram and TikTok due to their addictive, scrolling-for-hours nature. Many my age use Snapchat to meet new people with whole relationships being formed online. So much of a young person’s life is on their phone that it makes sense this is where much of their news is consumed. 

5. What is your favourite trad media outlet, and why?

I prefer BBC News – the notifications of enticing headlines draw you in, and information is given in short, snappybursts.

6. Do you trust the media old and new? 

I trust BBC News, as its primary role is to distribute reliable news. I do not, however, trust social media because its role is to keep users on their screens as long as possible and to make as much money as possible. This is achieved largely through their algorithms pushing “clickable” posts that are controversial and usually fake or soaked in opinion. There is also a real danger of misinformation, especially when there is no counterargument or impartial voice of reason.

7. How do you avoid misinformation?

I use social media less than most of my peers, and I rely on BBC News or Apple News for information. On social media, I remind myself of the importance of stepping back to remember that, despite how it may seem for a lot of young people, the online world isn’t the real world and that truth is to be found in the real one. 

8. If you wanted to hire a lawyer for an issue (e.g. allegations of sexual harassment, academic misconduct, recruitment discrimination), how would you go about finding one? 

I would research on the internet, look at different options, and ask trusted adults who know more about the subject than me.

9. Do you think Meta’s Threads will be a success or is it a passing fad?  

For myself and my peers, Threads doesn’t feel important. In my head, the only thing different about it is a different rich man running it!

10. To what extent has Twitter fallen out of favour with your generation?

I don’t know many people my age who even have Twitter, let alone actively use it. With the heavy stimulation and escapism of short video footage available on TikTok and Instagram, Twitter seems less exciting. In fact, there is almost a stigma around using the app for my generation.

27/07/2023

A new free pub finder app “Pub Club” has launched this week which promises to revolutionise the way thirsty, but discerning, Londoners search for their ideal pub experience.

Conceived last year by ‘new-to-London’ friends Tom Ireland-Life and Freddie Bermingham, when flat sharing in Wandsworth and seeking a good local in which to watch the footie and enjoy a Sunday roast, Pub Club is an app designed to match its user’s preferences with their perfect venue.

Pub Club already has 350+ pubs across South and West London on their app, which is now available to consumers in both the Google Play and Apple Stores. The founders’ ambition is to grow this footprint to cover around 2,000 pubs across London by the end of the calendar year, with further UK coverage in the following year.

Users can select pub attributes using filters in the app ranging from affordability to wheelchair accessibility, from beer garden availability to cocktail and music offerings, with many more options in between, allowing them to swiftly identify suitable pubs within their preferred geographic radius.

Pub Club also benefits pub owners by helping to market their establishments, menus, and entertainment to regular customers and prospective visitors, encouraging increased footfall. Pubs can also track the number of views their pub is getting through the app, the number of people scanning their QR code at the pub and respond to reviews from their customers.

Freddie says: 

“Our idea came about on a gloomy November Sunday morning when we wanted to find the perfect pub for a roast, with sofas and a fireplace and, of course, Sky Sports. After countless dead-end Google searches, we were convinced there had to be a more efficient way for people to find their desired pub.”

Tom adds: 

“The British pub scene has suffered a great deal recently due to the pandemic; 150 pubs in England and Wales permanently closed within the first few months of 2023. We are hoping that Pub Club helps not only punters but the industry itself by providing a new way to put cash in the till for both chain-based and independent pubs.”

Pub Club aims to offer more than search engine functionality. A sleek promotional section of the app, known as ‘The Chalkboard’,iswhere pub landlords and managers can advertise events such as live music, comedy nights, and drink offers to clientele within a chosen radius. Customers can also rate the pubs they visit and share their top recommendations with friends online. 

To mark its launch, Pub Club is running an inaugural ‘Golden Ticket’ campaign starting in July and running throughout summer. Lucky app users who check into pubs between July and the end of September by scanning the bar-side QR codes, will have the chance to win an enticing prize of £100 bar credit.

Looking ahead, Pub Club has plans to expand its features to include meticulously curated bar crawls and a convenient table booking function, all seamlessly integrated into the app’s user-friendly interface.

Carly, manager at The Four Thieves in Battersea, says: 

“The Pub Club app is brilliant! It allows us to connect with customers in a way that’s not been possible before. It is great that more people are aware of what the Four Thieves has to offer, and The Chalkboard makes advertising what’s going on at the pub seamlessly easy.”

The App is free to download and use for pub-goers and there are no subscription fees for London pub owners until mid-September 2023.

ENDS 

Media enquiries

Declan Flahive:       declan@bell-yard.com       Mob: 07944629485

Notes to Editors:

Until earlier this year, Freddie Bermingham worked at a recruitment firm in the City while Tom Ireland-Life works in External Affairs. They met through mutual friends while Freddie was at Bristol University and Tom at Bath University.

Seed funding was provided by Freddie, Tom, and their friends and family.  

The current anticipated subscription fee for pubs, levied from September, is expected to cost £30 per month with second-tier membership also offered as an option for pubs.

20/07/2023

The Crisis and Litigation Communicators’ Alliance (CLCA) is pleased to announce fresh partnerships that will further strengthen the network’s international footprint.

KARV Communications, based in New York (United States) is a globally recognized strategic communications and advisory firm with a focus on corporate and litigation communications, crisis management and public affairs/issues management. With experience across the globe, KARV helps clients achieve their communications and business goals through its expertise in crafting and honing often complex messages to a variety of stakeholders.

KARV has received recent international recognition for its work, including a Chambers & Partners ranking for both its Litigation Support and Crisis PR & Communications capabilities.

Andrew Frank, founder and CEO of KARV Communications said on joining CLCA:

“As KARV celebrates our tenth year with a reach far outside of our New York home, we welcome the opportunity of CLCA membership. With our growing book of clients often having interests outside of the United States, we are greatly anticipating meaningful and impactful collaboration with other CLCA members across the globe.” 

HilburgAssociates, domiciled in Canada is a pioneer in both crisis leadership and litigation communication/trial services.  Its principal, Alan Hilburg, has been personally involved in more than 100 trials (both criminal and civil) across multiple sectors such as tobacco, chemical, hospitality, transportation, manufacturing, telecommunication, consumer products, pharmaceutical and healthcare.

Since the 1980s Alan and his colleagues have provided a range of services with a focus on trial strategy including co-authoring openings and closings, daily trial services, witness preparation, media relations, executive and employee communication, post trial trust recovery, and even incorporating jury science in the psychological profiling of prospective jury members, which would not be permissible in many jurisdictions outside of the US.  

HilburgAssociates established its crisis leadership credentials in 1983 with its management of the Tylenol crisis, which became the Harvard Business School’s platinum case history on crisis management and human-centered design.

Alan Hilburg, CEO said:

“The CLCA offers the gold standard of communication counseling excellence when company or executive brands are under threat. We’re honored to be part of such an important global resource.” 

The CLCA Chairman, Martin Jenewein adds:

“Our Alliance once again demonstrates its best-in-class position as a network for litigation communicators offering clients litigation support services, each of whom are at the forefront of rapidly developing markets in their individual jurisdictions. The recognition our members receive internationally and in their home markets, through legal industry rankings, is proof positive of their capabilities.

“We are particularly honoured to have attracted both a pioneer in trial management and strategic communications such as Alan Hilburg as well as an award-winning specialist agency such as KARV to join our network. We look forward to working with them to build ever stronger alliances across our member firms and sharing best practice for the benefit of the network and all our clients.”

Issued on behalf of CLC-Alliance by:

Bell Yard Communications          +44 (0)20 7936 2021     BellYard@bell-yard.com

Melanie Riley                                 +44 (0)7775 591244      Melanie@bell-yard.com

Louise Beeson                                +44 (0)7768 956997      Louise@bell-yard.com

Notes to Editors

About CLCA 

The Crisis and Litigation Communicators ́Alliance (CLCA) is a global network of owner-managed PR consulting firms who are each leaders in the areas of Crisis Management and Strategic Legal communications in their respective markets. Clients can benefit from the collaboration of members on cross-border matters and the CLCA’s specialist expertise in international disputes (especially competition law and cartel cases, cross-border litigation, class actions, regulatory enforcement cases, fraud and employment related disputes).

Our constituent firms can be found here. For membership enquiries in jurisdictions not already covered, please contact chairperson@CLC-Alliance.org.

Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are poised for a significant showdown in the app store with Meta’s Threads, a Twitter replica, scheduled to launch today (July 6th). Following Musk’s acquisition of Twitter last year, internal turmoil at the company has increased the likelihood of a successful challenge to its dominance in the text-based social media realm, offering fresh opportunities and terrain for social media marketers. While previous attempts to overthrow Twitter have failed, the current tumultuous circumstances at Twitter HQ since Musk’s purchase present a more realistic threat.

Mark Zuckerberg has a history of imitating rival social media platforms to capitalise on their popularity and innovation. Instagram’s adoption of Stories during Snapchat’s heyday and the introduction of Reels to compete with TikTok are prime examples. Given the growth of Twitter users seeking alternative platforms in the wake of Musk’s leadership, the time is ripe to employ the tried and tested strategy of mimicry to challenge the well-established Twitter behemoth.

Recently, Musk’s Twitter has faced intense scrutiny due to controversial measures that have tested user loyalty. Restrictive actions have targeted non-paying users, including limiting unverified accounts to view a maximum of 600 tweets per day (later increased to 1,000). Additionally, TweetDeck, the platform’s list-based product, has become accessible only to Twitter Blue subscribers. Controversial decisions, such as lifting bans on alleged right-wing accounts, coupled with Musk’s erratic behaviour, have dampened advertisers’ interest and spending on the platform. Twitter’s lack of a press department does little to counter the impression of a chaotic situation. If the turmoil persists, it would not be an overstatement to say there is a genuine risk of Twitter fading away in the long term.

Should Threads gain traction, it will offer a new channel for global social media marketers and businesses (including law firms) to explore, strategize, scrutinize, and populate. However, the new app is not without flaws, as it allegedly collects sensitive user data, including health information, financial details, contact information, browsing history, location, and purchase records, which may raise concerns for some users. Interestingly, Threads was initially intended for release in 2019 as a response to Snapchat’s popularity but was subsequently pulled. Its launch now is very timely to take on both Snapchat and Twitter. However, successfully attracting the next generation by projecting a “cool” image will be a crucial challenge for Threads. Nevertheless, leveraging fellow Meta-owned Instagram’s existing user base of 2 billion active monthly users and simplifying the transition by allowing users to preserve their Instagram usernames on Threads provides the app with easy customer acquisition advantages and a fighting chance.

Only time will reveal whether Threads becomes a fleeting trend or emerges as a major player in the social media landscape, surpassing the achievements of previous endeavours like Jack Dorsey’s BlueSky, Donald Trump’s Truth, and the decentralized Mastodon. Elon Musk may find himself reconsidering the $40 billion purchase from last year or at the very least, feeling the pressure as competitors sense an opportunity for success.

By Declan Flahive

06/07/2023

The flurry of #MeToo-related allegations that recently have rocked high-profile individuals and business organisations shows the fuse of non-financial misconduct still burns fiercely post-Weinstein. Reputational impact reaches far and wide in the face of an investigative journalist’s pursuit of targets to name, and publicly shame, after an allegation has been made.

For the individual involved, if arrested and charged, there’s not just a trial under the public spotlight to endure, but the many months of professional paralysis beforehand, let alone acute pressures on their private life and endless sleepless nights taking their toll. Yet, as nightmarish as legal proceedings are, they at least have a clear endpoint. There is a court process and, importantly, one starting with the presumption of innocence. There’s a forensic examination of evidence, a verdict and potentially a sentence. Society puts faith in the expertise, checks and balances involved in establishing the truth. Sometimes the court gets it wrong – but it’s the most reliable system we have in this country of exposing fact and reaching a just determination.

If convicted, you pay your dues and subsequent rehabilitation is possible.

In contrast, paradoxically, should the allegations appear insufficient to warrant a criminal charge, the accused arguably faces a worse reputational position from which to defend themselves.

Investigations by Tortoise Media, The Guardian, FT and others, while no doubt painstaking, cannot possibly replicate the analysis and impartiality of a court case. The drip feed of innuendo, untested assertions, anonymous briefings and breaking of NDAs to reveal a person’s ‘truth’ is nigh on impossible to counter, let alone defeat, in the height of the media maelstrom. Coupled with a knee-jerk reaction by employers suddenly under intense scrutiny, a full pile-on can be triggered, with investors and intermediaries swiftly seeking to distance themselves from any perceived scandal.

Of course objectionable behaviour should always be called out. However, not all stories are quite as clear cut as first painted. #MeToo trials by media involve journalists acting as judge and jury, with nuance and mitigation too often left by the wayside. Few complainants actively seek public vilification of the perpetrator – an honest apology, cessation of the unwanted conduct coupled with improved, robust processes for prevention in the workplace can represent the necessary and appropriate resolution.

For those caught in the cross-hairs of a media pursuit, the prudent course is to let calm heads prevail and avoid the temptation to rush to act on every emerging new detail. Gather together a small but experienced team, share the facts, listen to advice, determine a strategy, consider the professional and personal ramifications, stick to a consistent narrative and allow others to go into bat on their behalf at the appropriate time. 

This may not immediately stem the tide of suspicion while the storm rages, but will likely prove sustainable, allowing for a more balanced and fair appraisal of the facts as they emerge over time.

By Melanie Riley

15th June 2023

This article previously appeared in PR Week

Bell Yard Communications is proud to once again be recognised by Chambers and Partners in this year’s Litigation Support Guide.

Our founder and director, Melanie Riley, continues to be listed in Band 1 of the individual rankings, as she has been since the guide’s inception in 2018.

This accolade is a welcomed recognition of the quality of service given to our clients that puts Bell Yard amongst the leading litigation support specialists in the UK and the world, coupled with our recognition in the US’ Lawdragon awards once again this year.

Bell Yard has achieved 20 years of interesting instructions and wishes to extend a huge thanks to all our colleagues, clients and contacts alike for this commendation. Here’s to the next 20!

We are delighted to have helped Kingsley Napley scoop Gold in the Best PR category of the CityWealth Brand & Reputation Awards 2023.

Our client was recognised not only above other law firms but also wealth managers and accounting firms for their impressive press profile and use of the media to support their BD & Marketing effort.

The firm is a deserved winner given the commitment throughout the firm, top down and across all practice areas, to talking to journalists, writing expert articles and commenting on newsworthy topics, cases and developments. In the last eighteen months they have also got great exposure in target sector based publications by commenting on ONS statistics to build expert profile in the regulatory space.

Kingsley Napley acknowledged Bell Yard’s decade-long contribution to this success in their Linked In Post here.

Congratulations to everyone not only at Kingsley Napley but also to our very own Louise Beeson for this well-deserved award – a truly collaborative effort of which we are very proud. 

Thank you Kingsley Napley for continuing to value our services, and long may the awards flow!

ITV’s reputation has suffered greatly following revelations concerning Phillip Schofield’s behaviour with a junior work colleague almost forty years younger. Key errors escalated this exposé into a crisis, though arguably one that could simply have been characterised as an inappropriate workplace relationship had the truth been outed much earlier. Instead, ITV’s reputation and internal processes have been brought into disrepute.

Here are some tips for handling problematic issues that might prevent a similar hullabaloo:

Extensive and effective investigation: ITV’s internal investigation by its HR team in 2020 – when the media company was made aware of the swirling gossip regarding the high-profile presenter and a young programme runner – was clearly inadequate. Hiring an independent legal team to conduct an external investigation from the outset would have provided a more robust and extensive assessment of the situation and identification of any policy, contractual, or ethical violations. This would likely have included recommendations and so have led to the situation being addressed before it erupted to the extent it did. Saying that the media company “did not find any evidence of a relationship beyond hearsay and rumour” has allowed a festering distrust in ITV’s ability or willingness to get to the truth and act on it.

Delayed response: ITV’s inadequate and slow reaction to the seriousness of the situation became a significant aspect of the narrative. It took over a week to appoint an external investigator and in the meantime rigid adherence to a single media stance, all whilst the bosses were reportedly on holiday, allowed the information vacuum to be filled by those with scores to settle. If the TV company had maintained a watching brief on the issue earlier even if no allegations were proven at the time and had been alive to cultural issues internally (rather than permitting an in-favour few to dominate and call the shots), perhaps more supportive voices would have come out to present a more positive image of ITV’s workplace, enabling the media company to minimise the fall-out and steer the narrative more effectively. The light Schofield’s affair has shone on the wider issues at This Morning has intensified the public interest in the story, and fuelled the fire across other media outlets.

The playbook has changed: Scrutiny surrounding workplace culture, interpersonal relationships and conduct has been a prominent issue for several years now, in light of the #MeToo movement. As a media company regularly reporting on this shift, ITV should have recognised the importance of demanding the highest standards from its own team and been alert to the potential for abuses of power. They should have known viewers would expect this and that their competitors would be lining up to hold them to account. After all journalists like little more than to report on other journalists and especially problems at a rival. Take for example the criticism The Guardian has received for its alleged insufficient investigation into sexual harassment complaints against its now former star columnist Nick Cohen.

While it is still too early to determine the long-term fate of This Morning – which has been on air since 1988 – the show’s legacy is at stake. That ITV’s chief executive, Dame Carolyn McCall is soon to be hauled before a parliamentary committee, to answer questions on the media company’s approach to safeguarding and complaint handling, inevitably adds to the intensity of the situation. Although there too ITV has failed to take control of the narrative. ITV representatives have been called by the Committee to answer questions that focus on recent events. Let’s hope Ms McCall does a better job in presenting the story next week.

As the oldest commercial network in the UK, ITV finds itself in a deeply challenging period while offering a salutary lesson to other media outlets for whom this scenario may not be as far-fetched as their executives wish to hope.

By Declan Flahive

07/06/2023

Since the Law Society of England and Wales first allowed lawyers to advertise in 1986, the UK legal sector has grown to become the largest legal services market in Europe, valued at £41bn in 2021, second only to the US globally. As competition intensifies, law firms need to catch the eye of clients and stand out from the crowd, making effective PR and communications more critical than ever.

This begs the question; how can a law firm establish itself a positive reputation? Here are a few tips:

The media establishes a law firm’s reputation: positive coverage enhances images and increasing visibility, while negative coverage can erode public trust. 

A law firm can only build and then maintain a positive reputation in the public eye by putting in the hard yards.  But the benefits are self-evident: as it attracts clients and talent while setting itself apart in a highly competitive industry.

By Declan Flahive

15/05/2023

Judging by the reaction to the Law Society’s latest guidance note, Impact of climate change on solicitors, released yesterday, the “milestone climate change guidance” has got lawyers hot under their white collars.

Said to be the first guidance of its kind in the world, the 28-page note seeks to “enable the profession to be at the forefront of responding to the challenges of climate change which impacts all areas of legal practice,” according to Caroline May, chairwoman of the Law Society’s climate change working group.

While the note provides guidance for law firms on how to manage their business in a manner consistent with the transition to net zero, such as avoiding greenwashing in marketing and communications and taking into account employees’ stance on climate change, it also considers how climate change physical and legal risks may be relevant to client advice and how climate change issues may affect both solicitors’ professional duties and the solicitor-client relationship.

It is this final point, in particular, that provoked such a flurry of commentary.

The Law Society guidance states: “Some solicitors may … choose to decline to advise on matters that are incompatible with the 1.5°C goal [of the 2016 Paris Agreement], or for clients actively working against that goal if it conflicts with your values or your firm’s stated objectives.”

“Woke, virtue-signalling nonsense”, “reckless” and “‘landmark guidance’ but for all the wrong reasons,” were just some of the reactions, with the Law Society accused of meddling in green politics and representing the interests of climate change activists rather than solicitors.  

The Law Society emphasises the importance of access to justice and the right to legal representation, by stressing that solicitors are not obliged to represent every prospective client that knocks on the door (unlike barristers who are bound by the ‘cab rank rule’).

However, in stating that “climate-related issues may be valid considerations in determining whether to act”, the guidance could further empower climate change protestors to take direct action against law firms and solicitors acting for big energy companies. Moreover, according to Iain Miller, regulatory partner at Kingsley Napley, it raises the prospect that in time firms may face regulatory action for representing clients that damage the environment. The existence of this warning to the profession, he says, may in due course be relied upon to demonstrate that this risk was known about.  

The guidance was also criticised for suggesting that law firms may want to consider accommodating employees who identify climate change as a ‘recognised philosophical belief’ – a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act.

Furthermore, as one of its detractors pointed out, in highlighting the impact of climate legal risks on solicitors’ professional duties, the guidance could increase the risk of law firms being sued for professional negligence.

Whatever your take on the Law Society’s guidance, one thing is clear: law firms need to be alive to, plan for and mitigate the increasing reputational risk related to climate change – whether from greenwashing allegations, employment claims, professional negligence cases, the representation – or even non-representation – of energy clients.  

Meanwhile, the Bar Council’s Climate Crisis Working Group is crafting draft ethical guidance for the Bar, liaising with the Law Society. It follows last month’s declaration by some 120 lawyers, among them prominent KCs, that they will not prosecute peaceful climate protesters or act for companies supporting new fossil fuel projects. Could this herald the beginning of the end of the cab rank rule?

Written by Sarah Peters, Senior Consultant at Bell Yard Communications

21/04/2023

Congratulations to Bell Yard’s Melanie Riley, Sarah Peters, and Louise Beeson for their continued selection in the 2023 Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting list.
 
This illustrious list, in its 9th edition, recognises the exceptional advisors who have played an instrumental role in the exponential growth of the legal industry by providing cutting-edge advice and strategic guidance to legal leaders.
 
Bell Yard, in particular, has earned plaudits for its remarkable expertise in the field of crisis communications, showcasing an exceptional ability to craft narratives that help trials succeed, while mitigating risks that lead to failure.
 
We express our gratitude to Lawdragon for this recognition and extend our warmest congratulations to all the outstanding listed individuals.

The BBC/Gary Lineker crisis was avoidable in more ways than one. 

The saga hardly needs recapping such is the attention it has attracted in recent days. But in short, when the   Match of the Day presenter compared the rhetoric used by the Government in its rollout of an anti-immigration bill to that of 1930s Germany, he found himself in hot water.

There was an outcry from those who disagreed with his language. There was consternation from BBC bosses that he had crossed a line by compromising its impartiality. Yet various colleagues supported his right to free speech, especially since he is not a news & current affairs journalist nor BBC employee. The BBC’s decision to take Lineker off air left Saturday night’s favourite sports programme in chaos when its whole presenting team refused to appear. Many predicted as inevitable DG Tim Davie’s subsequent climb down, but what could the BBC have done differently to avoid this crisis brewing out of control?

Consistency is key:

The approach taken in this instance seemed at odds with the (lack of) treatment meted out to others at the BBC taking an overtly political stance online (see below).  The guidelines seem poorly drafted, poorly communicated and, historically, inconsistently applied, lending weight to the Lineker support camp.  If BBC managerial consistency starts now – requiring new emphasis and implementation – they first have to game the consequences of the situation, and only then place a marker and stand their ground, or risk having rings run round their decisions.  The broadcaster’s history is littered with BBC insiders talking publicly about their management’s shortcomings – so the Lineker problem was never going to be resolved quietly once his suspension was announced. 

Suspend now and investigate later:

By going for the ‘suspend now investigate later’ approach, BBC bosses exacerbated the situation. It turned a saga into a circus that dominated public discourse and put the BBC under massive scrutiny for several days. Perhaps swifter decision-making would have prevented the situation from snowballing as it did. 

Anticipation leads to the best cure:

Clearer social media guidance for contracting presenters would have left no room for ambiguity. There had been earlier situations (for example Lord Sugar criticising transport union boss Mick Lynch over recent strike action) which had already exposed high-profile presenters’ expressions of personal political views as a tricky grey area. That the BBC’s social media policy will now be subject to independent review does demonstrate action (though clearly after the horse nearly bolted). 

Choose your battles wisely:

Lineker’s fierce army of fans (personified by his 8.8 million Twitter followers), put him in a category above and beyond the popularity of other BBC staffers. He would be an attractive talent for other sports channels. Despite rumours in some quarters that he regretted his extreme language and had admitted privately that he had perhaps gone too far, he has immense power (enhanced by his privilege of hosting a flagship BBC programme). He put to the test the widespread football notion of no player being bigger than their club. His criticism of a Government already unpopular among much of the Twitterati was likely to receive a mainly positive reaction on that particular platform.  However, the general furore is simply further recognition that the media like nothing better than a drama involving one of their own – early acknowledgement of which might have helped the BBC realise this was never going to play out discreetly.

Conclusion:

Whilst the crisis appears to have abated with soothing and mutually respectful statements from both sides, this peace is fragile. All Lineker’s future tweets will be pored over by media and commentators looking to reignite the issue. Let’s face it, he has already, seemingly purposefully, given them new fodder.  It strikes us that both sides have emerged with reputations somewhat tarnished.

Savvy BBC observers await the untreatable lesions to appear in this relationship, given a mere sticking plaster has been administered to an already festering wound. What are the sporting odds on which will come first: Lineker forced into issuing an unreserved apology for his social media antics and resigning or the end of Chairman Sharp and/or DG Davie’s respective tenures?  Reputations linger despite a spotlight that fades.

By Declan Flahive

16/03/2023

The latest battle of the handbag, aka the high-stakes lawsuit brought by French luxury design house Hermès in the US against the artist Mason Rothschild over his ‘MetaBirkin’ NFT collection was hardly going to go unnoticed. Not only did the subject matter offer great headline and photo opportunities for business, tech, crypto, art, fashion and legal news outlets alike, but there were important principles at stake for the burgeoning world of NFTs and luxury brands. 

Some say Hermès took a risk filing such a dispute to be heard before a jury and taking on the so-called artistic community. However, its success in protecting its brand was a legal and reputational triumph setting a precedent for other brands and NFT creators in the relationship between digital art, NFTs and the physical fashion it purports to replicate. 

The Birkin handbag

Hermès was established in 1837 and, inter alia, they are known for designing and producing the iconic and highly sought after Birkin handbag. The Birkin handbag has been synonymous with high fashion, exclusivity and wealth since it burst onto the cultural scene in 1984 with its value being seen through the two-year-long waiting list and the hundreds of thousands of pounds each one can fetch at auction. Unsurprisingly, Hermès owns trademark rights for the “Hermès” and “Birkin” marks as well as trade dress rights in the design of the handbag.

‘MetaBirkin’

The artist Rothschild, whose real name is Sonny Estival, began selling ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs in 2021 that portrayed the highly coveted Birkin handbag adorned with various eccentric items like fur, tusks and even a Santa hat, rather than the typical leather of the genuine Hermès handbag. He intended this as a comment “on the animal cruelty inherent in Hermès’ manufacture of its ultra-expensive leather handbags”. The NFT collection proved a hit with fans shown through the range reportedly making over $1 million for Rothschild through online sales. 

See you in court

Hermès filed a lawsuit in January 2022, arguing that consumers only purchased Rothschild’s NFTs because the Birkin name wrongly led them to think the product was endorsed by Hermès.

In response, Rothschild argued that his ‘MetaBirkin’ NFT project was an “artistic experiment” that commented on society’s adoration of luxury goods and its displays of wealth. He adopted a fair use defence in line with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, referring to the example of Andy Warhol’s depictions of Campbell’s soup cans. 

Furthermore, Rothschild relied on the ‘Rogers’ legal test from the landmark Rogers v. Grimaldi case from 1989 that allows trademarks to be used without permission being granted so long as a) the title of the work has some artistic relevance to the underlying work and b) that the title is not explicitly misleading as to the source of the content of the work. However, Hermès claimed that these NFTs were not only created purely for financial gain and not protected under free speech as an artistic expression but they also diluted the Birkin name and violated Hermès’ trademarks. Hermès further argued the ‘MetaBirkin’ experiment had damaged its future prospects in the NFT world where other luxury brands are already active. 

Hermès wins

On February 8, the jury in the Southern District of New York reached its finding that Rothschild’s unauthorised versions of the Birkin handbag constituted trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting, since Rothschild used the ‘MetaBirkins.com’ domain name that was deemed confusingly similar to that of the luxury fashion house. Hermès was awarded US $133,000 in damages.

Interestingly, the jury also found that Rothschild’s unauthorised use of the Birkin handbag as an NFT was not a protected form of speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it was explicitly misleading to consumers. The jury found that the ‘MetaBirkin’ was more akin to consumer goods, which are subject to trademark regulations, than free speech-protected works of art, and that Rothschild did this to profit from Hermès’ goodwill.

NFT legal precedent

Whilst Hermes can now claim that it fiercely defends its brand from replicas in both the real and virtual worlds, this lawsuit also has implications for the wider world of NFTs. The ruling has been reported as a blow to creators looking to use online space to sell replications of established brand products for financial gain, representing a win for IP protection for luxury brands in general. One headline even went so far as to report that the judgment meant NFTs are not art.

Clearly, there will be further cases in this new frontier where technology and art – and the legal principles to be applied – collide. Meantime, this case offers various other lessons and consideration points.  Commentary in established media was, unsurprisingly, more pro-Hermès than the spectrum of debate on social media, where the David v Goliath battle was sometimes viewed more sceptically. It highlights not only the threat to big brands but also the potential for a new realm of customers that this new technology can bring.

Crypto Experience

By Declan Flahive

22/02/2023

Tax is back as a theme and a story to groans and cheers, depending on your perspective. Mrs Sunak’s non-dom saga laid the ground. Liz Truss’ low-taxes-for-growth campaign and Kwasi’s kamikaze budget got everyone talking about it last summer. Dan Neidle, formerly of Clifford Chance and now an unencumbered independent expert, has since pushed the envelope further with his revelations about Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs and, more recently, his tie-up with the i-newspaper to ask questions of former Labour party Chairman Ian Lavery.

Given the Spring Budget is only a month away and the end of the tax year looms in early April, there will be no let-up on tax-related stories in the media. And with this specialist subject taking centre stage on the political battlefield once more, with calls for a windfall tax on energy companies, a wealth tax and effectively a tax on public schools, we can expect tax to remain a hot topic for the foreseeable future.

Tax advisers have long had a PR tightrope to walk. On the one hand, it’s great to be seen as an expert in CGT, DPT, IHT, IR35 and the like. On the other hand, advisors will wish to avoid giving away the crown jewels of advice mechanics or teeter into territory that could be said to encourage tax avoidance.  The last thing any firm wants is a spotlight for the wrong reasons on its modus operandi or heaven forbid its clients, either from the media or HMRC. Mr Loophole may be able to trade on his nick-name, but not many can do the same.

There are also litigation funders increasingly willing to take on the tax expert fraternity. Just ask Andrew Thornhill KC and Jonathan Peacock KC who, separately, found themselves subject to negligence allegations from film-finance fund investors left out-of-pocket when HMRC tightened their rules. Both cases eventually settled without admission of liability but not before a fanfare of publicity and arguably dents to their hard-earned reputations.

HMRC may be attracting its own bad press at the moment for slow responses and low prosecution rates but on matters of tax denied to public coffers the media is on its side.

So what is good PR advice to anyone caught in the cross-hairs of a tax story?

If you are an individual in the public eye:

• Try not to make tax ‘mistakes’ in the first place! Make sure you understand the steps you are taking, or advisors are taking on your behalf. If you are investigated or required to pay a penalty to HMRC don’t obfuscate. Worse – don’t bring in reputation lawyers to ‘kill’ media interest.
• If you get into dispute with HMRC be prepared for this process to play out in public. Eamonn Holmes has talked about the stress he experienced during his case.
• If the wind changes on what is legal or ‘within the rules’, apologise and swiftly pay back any tax owed.  This isn’t a panacea to all ills, but it’s a start. Gary Barlow found that ‘the smell’ of a tarnished reputation doesn’t easily dissipate, but the passage of time helps.
• If what you are doing is legal but ‘a bad look’ and you’re in the public eye, think twice. Jimmy Carr spoke of his regret at investing in a perfectly legitimate offshore tax scheme (Jersey based K2) after media exposure, a public outcry and his investment decision being branded ‘morally wrong’ by David Cameron. He has actually dealt with the issue quite well in repeated media interviews since, admitting his ‘terrible error of judgment’ and promising to conduct his financial affairs ‘more responsibly in future.’  In contrast Nadhim Zahawi was criticised for apologising to his family but not the wider public for his ‘careless mistake’, which resulted in a deficit to the public purse – far from optimal for a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, however short-lived in the post.

For companies under scrutiny for their tax affairs:

• Apologising and changing behaviour can be unrealistic in a world where corporate profits are king and the tax system is usually the issue. Yes, Amazon is known to pay minimal direct taxes on its UK based profits, for example, but it can do this legitimately within the tax rules and with clever structuring of its global business operations. Media messaging should therefore emphasize an assiduous adherence to UK tax rules and the fact allowances are available to all UK companies.
• It also makes sense to catalogue the total £s spent on investment in the UK, number of people employed here and any UK CSR initiatives for which the company can claim credit, to mitigate critical stories.
• Whilst companies on the backfoot may find customer loyalty isn’t seriously impacted as a result of tax exposés, this may well change with the purpose-led attitudes of Gen Z, who seem much more willing to act on their principles when it comes to consumer purchasing decisions.
• In a general economic slow-down, an increasing number of think tanks and lobby groups (such as TaxWatch and the Fair Tax Foundation) will look to expose the tax affairs of big corporations. They feed their calculations to the media and by doing so aim to keep the pressure on the Government to review the rules and on HMRC and consumers to hold these companies to account.   

If you are a tax adviser:

• Be aware, there are downsides as well as upsides to commenting in the media.
• Focus expert marketing-oriented commentary around tax deadlines, winners and losers, obvious top tips and common mitigation steps.
• Work with your clients if the media spotlight falls on them to ensure consistent messaging with your firm and that technical accuracy and emotional intelligence underpin reactive responses. 

High-profile clients dodging their tax paying responsibilities makes great media copy, and never more so in this climate of a cost-of-living crisis. There is rarely a reputational ‘win’ in such tax-matters, merely damage limitation.

By Louise Beeson

15/02/2023

Last week saw the release of a Justice Committee report on a subject close to our hearts – Court Reporting in the Digital Age.  The report examines the barriers to open and transparent justice and the public’s right to learn of, or personally experience, cases heard across the justice system.

Its findings will come as no surprise to those of us, whether members of the media or general public, who seek access to civil and criminal court proceedings. The process of availing oneself of the written documents in a case to allow for a comprehensive understanding of the facts is truly antediluvian and seemingly deliberately opaque – made worse by the introduction of online only hearings. Finding out if reporting restrictions apply in a case can equally prove problematic.

Parliament deserves credit for at least recognising there is still, in 2023, an access and transparency problem in our judicial system and so commissioning the study. The principle that justice should be administered in public was rightly recognised throughout the report as paramount, to be restricted only in limited circumstances: “Fair, accurate and contemporaneous media reporting of proceedings should not be prevented by any action of the court unless strictly necessary” [para 5] and recognising “the media are the ‘eyes and ears of the public’ in court proceedings” [para 21]. 

Witnesses

Thoughtful and constructive submissions were received from representatives of all interested parties – the judiciary (from magistrates through to the Lord Chief Justice); representatives from HMCTS; journalists; academics; trade bodies; justice charities; media standards and investigative organisations; commercial legal information providers; solicitors and barristers.  

Together, they helped the Committee form a detailed set of conclusions and recommendations – that are likely to be totally overlooked by the MoJ for lack of funding.  Was it ever thus.

However, were they enacted in a parallel universe, the proposals may not solve all ills but would certainly improve the public’s exposure to justice meted out in its name. In the process, they might improve the public standing of both the judiciary and the media itself, tasked with reporting complex or disturbing cases but these days hampered by a combination of ignorance or antipathy to the rights of the public.  

The Information Gap

Witnesses gave troubling evidence that publishers have significantly cut back on funding for reporting court cases, both locally and nationally, despite the obvious interest in their outcomes.  Few can afford to send reporters to attend court daily throughout a trial, without a guarantee that copy will be filed.   

This, of course, means the information gap can usefully be filled by litigation PR experts – our job is sometimes to alert media to, other times to educate journalists on our clients’ cases, highlighting the positive, mitigating the negative, not just through trial or post judgment, but most usefully throughout the litigation timetable. 

Sometimes, and rather less welcomingly, this information gap risks being filled in criminal cases by the police and CPS, whose press releases, we are told, are not always wholly accurate, despite an increased reliance by journalists on their content [para 28].

Solutions

So what should be done to improve transparency? The most obviously pressing recommendation is the improved use of IT in both recording and disseminating information on hearings, case files, judgments and appeals.  

• A single digital portal is recommended which the media and public could use to access information. The US PACER (public access to court electronic records) system should be its model. It should include a centralised database of reporting restrictions on cases.
• AI-powered transcription could be piloted to see whether this could reduce the cost of producing court transcripts. Sentencing remarks in Magistrates Courts might be routinely transcripted but all Crown Court sentencing remarks should be.
• The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice should publish a paper setting out the public’s right to witness court hearings and have access to relevant documentation in the digital age.
• MPs and education establishments should be encouraged to visit their local courts to develop a truer understanding of how they operate.
• With respect to the family courts, there should be a review of section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Section 12 should be replaced with a much more targeted measure that respects the principle of open justice.
• Care must be taken in the digital age (particularly given the rise in citizen journalism where individuals are not trained in the specialism of court reporting), to uphold the principles of fairness and quality of justice.
• The new Reporters’ Charter is welcomed, but there should be a similar one for the public setting out social rights and responsibilities when it comes to accessing information from the court.
• His Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service should ensure that the requisite resources are provided to enable the establishment of an anonymisation unit that facilitates the publication of at least 10% of Family Court judgments without the risk of identification of the parties involved.

So there’s much that could, and should, be done to maintain the public’s right to witness personally, or by proxy, the vital work of the courts in England and Wales. Until then, if you want your case heard and for it to have half a chance of being accurately reflected, give us a call!

By Melanie Riley

Tuesday 24th January 2023

Bell Yard Communications is once again delighted to have been recognised by Chambers and Partners in this year’s Litigation Support Guide. 

Our founder and director, Mel Riley, is again listed in Band 1 of the individual rankings, as she has been every year since the guide’s inception.

As Chambers records: “They are a proactive, personable, but also professional outfit that always puts us at ease with the media. They have a flawless record of shaping the media message in very difficult circumstances. They don’t shy away from tackling aggressive media attacks with pre-emptive and reactive poise and tact.”

Bell Yard has (almost) chalked up 20 years of interesting instructions and wishes to thank all our colleagues, clients, and contacts alike for this latest and very welcome recognition of our efforts – but in truth, we do it all for the love of the challenge! 

(6 June 2022)

A High Court hearing is scheduled for tomorrow (Thursday 7 July) involving Nicole Daedone, the renowned American relationships expert, author, motivational speaker, originator of the Orgasmic Meditation practice known as “OM,” and founder of the OM-advancing organisation “OneTaste,” together with former OneTaste Sales Director, OM Life Coach, teacher and addiction counsellor Rachel Cherwitz and OneTaste Inc itself.  

Nicole, Rachel and OneTaste will seek to persuade the High Court to exercise its discretion and allow their libel claims against the BBC to continue alongside other existing defamation claims, even though the three of them brought their claim outside the one year deadline. The claim [QB-2021004135] against the BBC, was originally filed in November 2021 by the Institute of OM, a related organisation formed to advance the practice of OM. 

The claims arise from a BBC podcast entitled “The Orgasm Cult,” which aired in November 2020. This 10-part series purported to introduce listeners to OneTaste, which is a women’s wellness education company, founded by Ms. Daedone in the mid 2000s, to promote the practice of OM.  

However, the podcast saw the BBC introduce a series of distressing, false and fully refutable allegations, some loosely based on other false allegations originally published by Ellen Huet of Bloomberg Businessweek almost four years ago. The BBC’s coverage appeared to have been crafted to titillate and shock, and was not an accurate and editorially sound portrayal of the company and community of OneTaste, organised around the practice of OM, which operated within strict and safe boundaries among consenting adults.

The BBC’s depiction of the company’s ethos and policies is far removed from the reality of the community of over 16,000 people who have learned the OM practice, and another 35,000 people who came through the doors of OneTaste over the period of its operation. OneTaste grew progressively and steadily professionalised its organization during the 18 years since its founding in 2004.  

OneTaste has thoroughly investigated the appalling allegations of abusive practices and interviewed dozens of practitioners and former OneTaste staff members. The investigation has confirmed that the allegations are false. The BBC has since been directly informed of the falsities and misrepresentations in its own output, and has been sent evidence which contradicts the allegations, yet it continues to publish access to the misleading podcast.

Many in the OneTaste community have been appalled by the way the false stories, as presented via the podcast, were manipulated and that some of the most serious allegations contained in several podcast episodes were never put by the BBC to those accused. The community at large has been supportive of the legal action being taken.

Founder Nicole Daedone said:  

“The truth should matter to the BBC. I always recognised that the very nature of our pioneering work made us vulnerable to attack by those who would choose to misrepresent it. Still, I firmly believe in freedom of expression, and I loathe the very idea of bringing defamation proceedings. However, when an influential broadcaster such as the BBC, with its unparalleled international reach and repute, continues to publish serious allegations even after being presented with voluminous evidence that they are false, we have a responsibility to mount a formal challenge.

“The principle of consent has always been at the heart of our work, making it deeply distressing to hear these stories, all of which strike at the essence of who we are, and each of which we know to be demonstrably false. Women have inestimable power. Together, we hold the world. Furthering this solidarity is my life’s work. This is what is under attack.

“Whatever the outcome of these proceedings, we will continue to encourage women to recognize the power of their honest self-expression, while contesting falsehoods that discourage them from standing in their capacities and strengths.”

This interim hearing is scheduled to determine whether Daedone and Cherwitz, along with OneTaste, can claim for the personal reputational damage they have endured, arising from defamation in this jurisdiction, though outside of the one year limitation which would otherwise shut out their defamation cases.  Their claims for misuse of their private information and unlawful processing of their personal data continue and are unaffected by this hearing. 

ENDS

For further information, please contact:

London: 

Bell Yard Communications  BellYard@bell-yard.com                  O: +44 (0)20 7936 2021

Melanie Riley    melanie@bell-yard.com                                    M: +44 (0)7775 591244 

Notes to Editors

Daedone, Cherwitz, OneTaste Incorporated, Institute of OM LLC, OM IP Co are represented by Sara Mansoori QC and Zoe McCallum of Matrix Chambers, instructed by Alexandra Whiston-Dew at Mishcon de Reya.  

Counsels’ Skeleton will be available on opening on request.

The application hearing is listed for 1 day.  Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz will be attending.

Further information on the practice of OM is available at: https://instituteofom.com/learn-to-om

(6 July 2022)