Tag: legal pr london

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.

Dr Craig Wright, together with two of his associated companies, Wright International Investments Limited (WII) and Wright International Investments UK Limited (WIIUK), have filed and served a claim for infringement of database rights and copyright in the Bitcoin White Paper against all 26 individuals and entities involved in the promotion, development and use of Bitcoin Core (BTC).  

The Claimants assert that the Defendants in this claim have been developing, promoting, funding, trading – and encouraging investors and consumers to trade and invest in – digital cash known as BTC (Bitcoin Core), whilst throughout infringing the Claimants’ intellectual property rights in both the White Paper and the Bitcoin Blockchain on which these digital assets are based.

Dr Wright devised the Bitcoin System and issued the White Paper under the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto” on 31 October 2008.  A number of the Defendants to these proceedings proposed significant changes to the Bitcoin System in 2016, which deviated from the protocols as set out in the Bitcoin White Paper.  On 1 August 2017, the BTC Network was created without the authorisation of the Claimants.

By participating in the operation of the BTC Network, it is the Claimants’ case that the Defendants have infringed the Claimants’ Database right which subsists in the Bitcoin Blockchain and infringed Dr Wright’s copyright which subsists in the Bitcoin White Paper by copying Block 230,009 in the Bitcoin Blockchain whilst making copies of the BTC Blockchain. 

According to Dr Wright, the only digital asset that implements the protocols as set out in the Bitcoin White Paper is “Bitcoin Satoshi Vision” (BSV).   

The Claimants seek an injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing to develop and/or participate in the promotion of BTC.  The Claimants also seek a declaration from the Court that database rights subsist in the Bitcoin Blockchain and that copyright subsists in the Bitcoin White Paper and that Dr Wright is the owner of it.  

Damon Parker of Harcus Parker, leading this claim on behalf of the Claimants, said:

“At its heart, this litigation is straightforward, in so far as it represents a claim for breach of database rights and copyright in the White Paper.   

“My clients simply assert their rights to the intellectual property underpinning Bitcoin.  For the digital asset market to gain widespread credibility, users need confidence in a sustainable digital currency underpinned by enforceable laws and regulation. This claim, in parallel with other claims brought by my clients, may prove a step in the right direction.” 

ENDS 

Issued on behalf of HARCUS PARKER by: 

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

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

NOTES TO EDITORS

Dr Wright, WII and WIIUK are advised by Harcus Parker Partner, Damon Parker, alongside Associates, Olivier Altmeyer and Brad Pistorius.

If successful, the claim is likely to be worth several hundred billions of pounds when an inquiry into the full account of profits is undertaken by expert witnesses to the Court.

At a hearing on 3 February 2023, permission was granted by Mr Justice Mellor for the Claimants to serve the Defendants out of this jurisdiction, concurring there is an arguable case for the database claim.  Defendants are known to be based in USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK.  The Claimants are seeking permission to appeal a judgment of Mr Justice Mellor in which he declined to allow a claim in relation to copyright in the Bitcoin file format to proceed.  

Bitcoin (BSV) is the fastest, most scalable environmentally-efficient and regulation-friendly public ledger that exists whilst remaining fixed to Dr Wright’s original protocol.  Dr Wright is concerned to ensure that no other digital asset improperly advances itself on the basis of unauthorised use of his substantial intellectual creativity, skill and labour over decades.

Dr Wright was involuntarily outed as Satoshi Nakamoto by Wired magazine in December 2015. Since then, he has faced unprecedented levels of harassment and disparagement by those who have a vested interest in supporting BTC and BCH.

In response to this persistent and pervasive abuse both online and in print, Dr Wright has sought to uphold his and his associated entities’ rights to protect their intellectual property in the Bitcoin eco-system, as well as his reputation as the creator of Bitcoin.  

As a result, there is a series of pending legal claims issued by lawyers across jurisdictions on behalf of Dr Wright and his associated entities which include:  

• Tulip Trading Ltd, a trust beneficially owned by Dr Wright has been granted permission by the English Court of Appeal to bring an action against developers of the BTC network to restore the Trust’s access to Bitcoin stored in an encrypted private wallet that was stolen in a hack on Dr Wright’s computers in 2019.
• Dr Wright and companies owned by him last year issued passing off claims in the High Court against exchanges Kraken and Coinbase.
• Dr Wright is bringing a defence to the Crypto Open Patent Alliance’s (COPA) challenge to his authorship of the White Paper, which will be heard in the High Court in early 2024.
• In May 2023, the High Court in London will hear Dr Wright’s defamation claim against digital currency enthusiast, Mr Magnus Granath, in England.  
• In September 2023, the Court of Appeal in Oslo will hear Dr Wright’s appeal of the November 2022 judgment that determined Mr Granath’s campaign of disparagement of Dr Wright through social media was not defamatory under Norwegian law. 
• In 2022 the London High Court found that podcaster Peter McCormack had defamed Dr Wright – the costs awarded are currently being appealed.
• In 2021 Dr Wright, successfully brought a copyright claim against the anonymous digital currency enthusiast operating under the pseudonym “Cøbra”. Enforcement of this judgment is ongoing, with the court recently concurring with Dr Wright that no individual can take part in proceedings for detailed assessment of costs whilst declining to inform the court of their identity.

In addition, in December 2021 Dr Wright successfully defended a claim brought in Florida, USA, by Ira Kleiman, brother of Wright’s late friend Dave Kleiman, who predicated the claim on the fact that Dr Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, but that Wright created Bitcoin with the help of Dave Kleiman.  The jury rejected that allegation.

London, 14 March 2023

Contact Bell Yard today

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

Bell Yard advises ONTIER, the firm whose client, Dr Wright, authored the Bitcoin White Paper, under the pseudonym, Satoshi Nakamoto, creating the blueprint for a new digital asset over 15 years ago.

Having been ‘doxxed’ as Satoshi in 2015, he faced relentless online hostility from individuals and entities with a vested interest in alternative digital coins. Dr Wright soon determined to prove his identity through the courts, establishing and enforcing his copyright in the White Paper and numerous patents relating to the blockchain.

Bell Yard’s role has been to promote ONTIER’s incremental successes in the English legal cases being brought and/or challenged by the firm on Dr Wright’s behalf, so as to marginalise the online abusers and to achieve public recognition, through court judgments, that Dr Wright is indeed who he says he is.

We work in close conjunction with Dr Wright’s personal PR team, while remaining dedicated to our task of promoting the litigation outcomes. 

We are currently advising 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 support ONTIER in the various copyright infringement cases ongoing, as well as defamation actions in UK and Norway.  Running in parallel is 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.

Summary

Not only are these various litigations complex, involving multi-parties across multiple jurisdictions, they are also at the cutting edge of digital currency development, with Bitcoin gaining increasing traction towards mainstream acceptance.  There can be few litigation PR instructions of such novelty and magnitude and we remain fortunate to be advising such a creative and brilliantly innovative legal team and end client.

Bell Yard’s contact details can be found here.

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

“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”  

So said the ‘Oracle of Omaha’, Warren Buffet.  It’s a sentiment that would be shared by many who find themselves, unfairly, on the wrong end of a high-profile police investigation.

So who might have done things differently – Sir Cliff Richard, or the police and the BBC – when helicopters circled the showman’s house and the BBC live streamed footage from the air as dozens of Met officers began their raid following an allegation of historic sexual abuse, when no subsequent charges were made?

It is the impact on reputation that has caused the new Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, to propose banning the naming by media of an individual arrested and investigated, but ultimately not charged, of an offence. Braverman noted the very grave damage inflicted upon individuals in such circumstances.  Pre-charge anonymity is back on the agenda.

In response, The Times’ former Legal Editor, Frances Gibb, penned a spirited article last Sunday determining that regardless of the intrusion and reputational effect, the tenet of open justice must prevail.  She wrote that pre-charge publicity can be crucial in sex crimes and that a wall of silence around police activity would be a worrying shift towards secret justice.

Having counselled individuals experiencing the humiliation of a police raid only for no further action to be taken, I humbly beg to differ.

Many perpetrators of sexual violence, it is claimed, may not have been brought to justice had an initial arrest of a suspect not been publicised, thereby encouraging others to come forward with their experiences in the hope –  and reasonable expectation – that numbers would strengthen a prosecution and result in a conviction. But does that not lead to lazy policing, allowing for vexatious claims against unpopular figures to influence charging decisions? Just look at the Carl Beech case in which the high-profile accused were portrayed as guilty perpetrators by police and press alike, all on the say-so of a fantasist.  If the police and CPS cannot mount a case against an individual accused of one crime, is it right that others should be encouraged to come forward and add to suspicions of the defendant if the new accusers were not sufficiently motivated to bring their own claims?

I was recently gripped by the moving investigation by Winifred Robinson, formerly at BBC Radio 4, into the desperate case of young Rikki Neave, killed aged six almost 30 years ago, in a 10-part BBC podcast series called ‘The Boy in the Woods’. You only have to listen to neighbours on the estate’s views of Rikki’s mother, Ruth, to understand why the police aimed their whole investigation towards proving her guilt in the murder of her son.  But they were wrong and it took 28 years to convict the real killer. During this time, Ruth falsely gained a reputation as a child killer that even her acquittal could not repair. Protecting reputations is not just a matter for the privileged – the impact on the most vulnerable in society can be equally, if not more, pervasive.  

And the reputational impact goes way beyond just the investigated individual – it’s their spouses, children, relatives and friends who arguably suffer as much damage – wholly unnecessarily so if the investigation never proceeds to charge.   Yes, there’s recourse to privacy laws – but you have to be well-funded and the breach egregious and quantifiable to have a chance at standing up a claim against the police or media in such circumstances. Very few in society would be in a position to do so.

If we have faith in our forces to properly investigate a crime, we should have no qualms in supporting Braverman’s resurrection of pre-charge privacy plans.  The media has huge power to influence opinion and thereby affect reputations, but this power must be used fairly for it to retain public support. The media may find that gross breaches of privacy have not only a financial cost, but a reputational one too.

By Melanie Riley

18th October 2022

Rt. Hon. Lady Justice Andrews DBE has granted permission for ONTIER LLP client, Tulip Trading Ltd, to appeal the judgment handed down by Mrs Justice Falk of 25 March 2022 denying jurisdiction over a claim for breach of fiduciary and tortious duties. Tulip Trading Ltd, a Seychelles registered company, whose primary beneficial owner is Dr Craig Wright, is seeking to bring proceedings in the English High Court against 16 bitcoin developer defendants, 13 of whom had challenged jurisdiction leading to Mrs Justice Falk’s judgment upholding their challenge.

However Lady Justice Andrews in granting the appeal recognised the importance of the issues in the claim, saying:

“The issue as to whether Developers owe duties of care and/or fiduciary duties to the owners of digital assets and if so, what is the nature and scope of those duties is one of considerable importance and is rightly characterised as a matter of some complexity and difficulty.  Given that in addition to its complexity and difficulty the underlying facts will play a significant role in determining that issue, it is arguable with a real prospect of success that it is not susceptible of summary determination in the context of a challenge to the jurisdiction, and therefore that the Judge fell into error in deciding that there was not even a serious issue to be tried and in the approach she adopted.”

Oliver Cain, Partner at ONTIER LLP comments:

“We are grateful that Lady Justice Andrews recognised the wider importance of establishing in law the responsibilities of developers of digital assets to end users. The complex and fact-heavy considerations, that characterise developers’ duties to those who have lost access to their Bitcoin, deserve to be explored and determined at full trial and not to be dismissed through a jurisdiction challenge.

“Individual owners of digital currencies will be grateful that leave to appeal has been granted as the outcome will set the precedent for others to follow, should they lose access to their private wallets.  We look forward to successfully presenting our case in full in due course.” 

ONTIER (on behalf of Tulip Trading Ltd) seeks to recover £3+ billion worth of Bitcoin 

Claim has significant implications for other users and the way Bitcoin operates

The defendants in this unprecedented action are the developers of BTC, BCH, BCH and ABC residing in various jurisdictions across the world including: Netherlands, Switzerland, Kitts and Nevis, France, Japan, numerous different states in the USA, New Zealand and Australia.

ONTIER was originally granted permission to serve all the developers out of the jurisdiction by the Business and Property Courts of the High Court in London, following a 173 page application submission detailing the claim.

Following the jurisdiction hearing, the Bitcoin Association, developers of BSV, has entered into a settlement agreement with Tulip Trading Ltd.

ENDS

In the Court of Appeal: Lady Justice Andrews DBE.

Legal Advisors:   Dr Wright was represented by Derek Stinson, Oliver Cain, Felicity Potter and Nicolas Dawson of ONTIER LLP.

For further information please contact:

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

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

Notes to Editors:

Dr Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin who set out his vision for the digital currency in his famous White Paper under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. 

The litigation seeks to examine, for the first time, the nature and extent of legal duties conferred upon and owed by developers resulting from the control they exercise over their respective blockchains.

As detailed in the Particulars of Claim, TTL requested that the individual developers enable TTL to regain access to and control of its Bitcoin on the grounds that they, the developers, owe Bitcoin owners both tortious and fiduciary duties under English law as a result of the high level of power and control they hold over their respective blockchains.

In February 2020, Dr Wright’s personal computer was hacked by persons unknown and encrypted private keys to two addresses, which hold substantial quantities of Bitcoin belonging to TTL, were stolen. These assets were, and continue to be, owned by TTL. 

Other litigation involving Dr Craig Wright

There is a series of successful or pending legal claims issued by lawyers across jurisdictions on behalf of Dr Wright and his associated entities, to uphold his right to protect his lawfully-held digital assets, his reputation as the creator of Bitcoin and his associated intellectual property:

·         Earlier this year, Dr Wright’s UK lawyers, ONTIER LLP, on behalf of Dr Wright defeated a strike-out attempt by Magnus Granath, following Dr Wright’s English defamation proceedings against Granath.  This trial will heard by the High Court in late 2023. 

·         On 12 September 2022, the District Court of Oslo will hear Granath’s application for a Negative Declaration to determine that his campaign of disparagement of Dr Wright through social media is not defamatory. This is challenged by Dr Wright, who will give evidence in person in Norway during this trial.

·         Earlier this month, influential digital currency podcaster, Peter McCormack, was found by the English High Court to have defamed Dr Wright in 14 tweets and 1 YouTube video, in which McCormack decried Dr Wright’s assertion that he invented Bitcoin.  This judicial ruling came not long after McCormack withdrew his reliance on a defence of truth to his publications.  Aspects of this judgment are under consideration by Dr Wright and his lawyers with a view to launching an appeal.

·         In 2021 Dr Wright successfully brought a copyright claim against the anonymous digital currency enthusiast operating under the pseudonym “Cøbra”. Enforcement of this judgment is ongoing.

·         ONTIER LLP and Harcus Parker LLP are advising companies owned by Dr Wright in their passing off claims against exchanges Kraken and Coinbase, filed in the High Court earlier this month.

·         Dr Wright is also advised by ONTIER on his defence and counter-claim to the Crypto Open Patent Alliance’s (COPA) challenge to Dr Wright’s authorship of the White Paper, which also will likely be heard in 2024.

·         In December 2021 Dr Wright successfully defended a claim brought in US by Ira Kleiman, brother of Wright’s late friend Dave Kleiman, who predicated the claim on the fact that Dr Wright is Nakamoto, but that Wright created Bitcoin with the help of Dave Kleiman.  The jury rejected that allegation.

About ONTIER

ONTIER has an established and growing practice for recovering stolen and hacked Bitcoin. Its partners, Oliver Cain, Derek Stinson, Felicity Potter and Nicholas Dawson (Associate), are advising TTL and instructed John Wardell QC, Bobby Friedman and Sri Carmichael of Wilberforce Chambers as Counsel on this matter.

This litigation is the latest in a series of legal claims issued by ONTIER LLP on behalf of Dr Wright and his associated entities to uphold his right to protect not only his lawfully-held digital assets, but also his reputation as the creator of Bitcoin and his associated intellectual property.

The firm is well known for its high-profile Bitcoin related litigation and has a highly regarded dispute resolution team. Its work is almost exclusively international and multi-jurisdictional in nature, focused on complex, high value international litigation, insolvency matters and arbitration in a wide range of financial and industry sectors. 

The firm acted in successful English High Court proceedings against Reliantco Investments Ltd, a digital asset and securities exchange, which blocked and seized a substantial amount from a client’s trading account. ONTIER LLP was able to recover the client’s full investment, its unrealised gains and loss of profit (that the client would have earned from intended investments had its funds not been unlawfully withheld).

ONTIER is recognised in the UK Legal 500 for commercial litigation, international arbitration and civil fraud.

The firm has offices in 18 cities in 13 countries, giving a truly international capability. 

London, 12 August 2022

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)

ONTIER LLP client, Dr Craig Wright, the inventor of Bitcoin – the world’s first functioning and successful electronic cash system – welcomes today’s judgment in so far as it finds that McCormack has defamed Dr Wright and caused serious harm to his reputation in all of his tweets and YouTube interview in issue. 

Dr Wright sued in libel over 14 Tweets published by Mr McCormack and words spoken by him in a YouTube video between March and October 2019.  Dr Wright claimed that the publications alleged that he fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin.

In finding that each of the publications complained of were likely to have caused serious harm to Dr Wright’s reputation, the Judge found that “the fact that [Mr McCormack] was willing to state his views so brazenly in response to threats of libel proceedings is likely to have made those who read [the publications] more, not less, likely to believe them..”

Mr McCormack had initially sought to defend the action on the grounds of truth, public interest and abuse of process; however, he abandoned those positive defences shortly after the parties exchanged disclosure in September 2020.

Dr Wright says:

“I have endured, and for the large part ignored, extreme and offensive online trolling for many years. But there comes a point at which the orchestrated trolling has to be confronted. It has a severe impact on me and my life’s work. Where requests to cease and desist are ignored or rebuffed, I have little choice but to seek legal redress.  

“The defendant abandoned the defence of positive truth months ago – in other words he accepted his words were untrue – and chose to defend only on whether his Tweets caused me serious harm or not.   McCormack was wrong when he said I am not Satoshi Nakamoto.  His Tweets caused me harm both personally and professionally. 

“As anticipated, bit by bit the independent courts across various jurisdictions, including those with juries with the benefit of an examination of all the evidence, are concluding I am who I have admitted I am, since I was outed as Satoshi by media in 2015. However too little regard is paid to the impact my Aspergers has in my communications. I intend to appeal the adverse findings of the judgment in which my evidence was clearly misunderstood.

“I will continue legal challenges until these baseless and harmful attacks designed to belittle my reputation stop. This is not for financial reward, but for the principle and to get others to think twice before seeking to impugn my reputation.”   

Simon Cohen of ONTIER LLP says: 

“The defamation laws in England are increasingly challenging for claimants but Dr Wright has successfully exposed the damage Mr McCormack’s deliberate campaign has caused to Dr Wright’s reputation. Social media provides no hiding place for libellous comment and nor should it. In fact, we have demonstrated in this trial that its use often exacerbates the harm, given its capacity for the swift and exponential spreading of a false narrative which can fly around the world in seconds leaving the truth far behind. We are pleased that this has been recognised by the court today, but are reviewing the judgment carefully with a view to appealing the interpretation of Dr Wright’s evidence.”

ENDS

Trial judge: Mr Justice Chamberlain

Legal Advisors: Dr Wright was represented by Derek Stinson, Simon Cohen, Sara Saleh and Joe Woodward of ONTIER LLP, Adam Wolanski QC, Greg Callus and Lily Walker-Parr of 5RB Chambers.  

Issued on behalf of ONTIER LLP by:

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

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

Notes to Editors

The trial to determine serious harm with McCormack was heard over 3 days (23-25 May 2022) at the High Court in London.   

The judgment is the latest outcome in a series of legal claims issued by ONTIER LLP, on behalf of Dr Wright and his associated entities, to uphold his right to protect his lawfully-held digital assets, his reputation as the creator of Bitcoin and his associated intellectual property:  

·       In 2021 ONTIER successfully brought a copyright claim against the anonymous digital currency enthusiast operating under the pseudonym “Cøbra”. 

·       ONTIER has recently defeated a strike-out attempt by digital currency enthusiast, Magnus Granath, following Dr Wright’s defamation action, the trial of which will heard by the High Court in late 2023.  

·       Last year ONTIER also launched a landmark claim against the developers of BTC, BCH, BCH ABC and BSV to restore control to addresses containing Bitcoin and other digital assets. The defendants’ jurisdictional challenge to this claim is currently being appealed by the claimant, Tulip Trading Ltd.

·       ONTIER is advising companies connected with Dr Wright in their passing off claims against exchanges Kraken and Coinbase, filed in the High Court earlier this year.

·       Dr Wright is also advised by ONTIER on his defence to the Crypto Open Patent Alliance’s (COPA) challenge to Dr Wright’s authorship of the Bitcoin White Paper, which will be heard in 2024. 

(1 August 2022)