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:
1. Be realistic: Ask yourself key questions from the outset – “By whom do we want to be known?”, “For what do we wish to be respected”, and “Who do we have that can best deliver our message(s) to our preferred audience(s)?”
2. Be clear and concise: Use audience-appropriate and unambiguous language that is comprehensible to the intended recipient. If speaking to the general public, avoid legal jargon or technical terms that may confuse or intimidate readers of non-specialist publications. If speaking to peers in the profession, legal detail and nuance may not only be appropriate but a requirement.
3. Be professional: Consider your tone and avoid derogatory or inflammatory language (no matter whether using personal or work accounts as the two are increasingly considered indistinguishable). Always maintain a respectful demeanour irrespective of provocation and especially, when addressing controversial topics during interviews (whether on or off-record). It’s best to believe there’s no such thing as off-record these days, given the combined effects of pressure for scoops; the ease in which those with ‘off-message’ views can be cancelled and the omnipresence of self-style ‘citizen journalists’ armed with only a mobile but who can do their worst for clicks. One unfortunate slip-up can result in career-threatening consequences.
4. Be accurate: Ensure that all statements made to the media are accurate and verifiable. Avoid making unfounded claims or exaggerating the facts as this could come back to haunt you.
5. Be transparent: Where it is feasible to do so, be open about your law firm’s activities, goals, and values. Avoid misleading or unnecessarily withholding information from the media as this could lead to a breakdown in your relationship with the journalist/outlet should the full facts become known. In a PR prep call before an interview Learn to politely side-step an unwanted inquiry where appropriate – but, as a guiding light, consider authenticity as the best policy.
6. Be strategic: A strategy for building your reputation is important and it starts with knowing your audience and how to reach them. Thereafter it’s about being efficient, responsive and giving good counsel. A great example of a solicitor who has successfully utilized social media to build a unique brand is Akhmed Yakoob, the director of Maurice Andrews Solicitors in Birmingham. With his engaging personality and savvy use of social media, Yakoob has amassed an impressive following of 100,000 on TikTok. His distinct public persona, which includes driving a bright yellow Lamborghini and signing off his videos with the catchphrase, “So always remember: there is a defence for every offence,” has been effective in capturing the attention of his preferred audiences and conveying his own message. While Yakoob’s specific tactics are not for everyone, there’s an art to developing a specialist brand that speaks to your firm’s chosen goals and values. The strategic purpose is to differentiate yourself from the competition and attract both clients and talent.
7. Be agile: Be responsive to media inquiries and requests for information. Promptly address any inaccuracies or misunderstandings that may arise in the press to nip them in the bud and avoid a crisis unfolding. Understanding the prevailing media zeitgeist and proactively engaging through your own lens and experience, shows fleet of foot and encourages media to seek your counsel when the next opportunity arises. Repetition of the brand name in the public sphere helps with recognition and appreciation.
8. Position yourself as a thought leader: Demonstrate your expertise and knowledge through writing articles and speaking at industry events, to establish yourself (and by extension, your firm) as a credible and authoritative voice in your area of law. Applying yourself in this way, helps garner your reputation as an ‘expert’ in an area for which the firm wishes to be known. After all, people often google-search their prospective lawyer to get an understanding of their expertise prior to making the decision to instruct. And this media presence helps with directory listings too, which is never bad for an individual’s career prospects and benefits the firm more broadly too.
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.
We are recognised leaders in our field. We are proud to uphold the ethical and educational standards for the PR industry as members of the CIPR and PRCA.
English High Court Takes Reins in Unprecedented Bitcoin Database Rights Claim
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.”
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.
We are recognised leaders in our field. We are proud to uphold the ethical and educational standards for the PR industry as members of the CIPR and PRCA.
Salutary Tales at the BBC
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.
We are recognised leaders in our field. We are proud to uphold the ethical and educational standards for the PR industry as members of the CIPR and PRCA.
NFT Handbags at Dawn
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.
We are recognised leaders in our field. We are proud to uphold the ethical and educational standards for the PR industry as members of the CIPR and PRCA.
Courting Publicity – The Public’s Right to Hear
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!
We are recognised leaders in our field. We are proud to uphold the ethical and educational standards for the PR industry as members of the CIPR and PRCA.
Bell Yard recognised by Chambers in Litigation Support Guide 2022!
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!
We are recognised leaders in our field. We are proud to uphold the ethical and educational standards for the PR industry as members of the CIPR and PRCA.
ONTIER: Reaction to Bitcoin Developers’ Contesting Jurisdiction
Litigation law firm ONTIER LLP responds to the judgment handed down by Mrs Justice Falk today. This follows a successful application by 13 of the 16 bitcoin developer defendants to challenge the English court’s jurisdiction in legal proceedings brought by Tulip Trading Limited (TTL), a Seychelles registered company, whose primary beneficial owner is Dr Craig Wright.
Oliver Cain, Partner at ONTIER LLP comments:
“We are disappointed the English Court has granted the various Defendants’ applications and found that TTL has not established a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim in relation to whether or not developers owe fiduciary and tortious duties to those who have lost access to Bitcoin held on the networks which they control. However, we note that the Judge did not reject TTL’s factual case. She held that the Defendants’ evidence was “certainly not sufficiently strong to enable me to conclude that TTL’s factual case was no more than fanciful”. She criticised the amount of evidence filed in respect of the facts of the case as “an unhelpful distraction”.
We further note that the Judge found that TTL had the better of the arguments on the jurisdictional gateways and that England was the appropriate forum for the trial of the dispute. In doing so, the Judge upheld TTL’s arguments that it is resident in the jurisdiction and that its Bitcoin is also located here. The Judge also rejected the Defendants’ allegations that there had been material non-disclosure by TTL in its application for permission to serve out.
“Nonetheless, the matter does not rest here. The duties and responsibilities of developers are issues of the highest legal importance in a rapidly developing field that need to be fully aired and determined by an appellate court. As such, Dr Wright on behalf of Tulip Trading will seek leave to appeal today’s judgment.”
The defendants in this unprecedented action are the developers of BTC, BCH, BCH ABC and BSV 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.
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 sought 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.
About ONTIER:
ONTIER has an established and growing practice for recovering stolen and hacked Bitcoin. Its Partners, Oliver Cain and Derek Stinson, together with Felicity Potter (Senior Associate) 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.
We are recognised leaders in our field. We are proud to uphold the ethical and educational standards for the PR industry as members of the CIPR and PRCA.
Tracey is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Australian Public Affairs – one of Australia’s largest independently owned agencies.
In her 26 years at the helm, she has developed a specialty in reputation risk and reputation management particularly in the legal and litigation, education and training, not for profit, and social policy sectors.
Her background is in media and communications roles.
On the political front she worked as a journalist in both the State and Federal Press Galleries, as a Ministerial media advisor in Australia, and also in the White House on the President’s personal staff during the 1996 Presidential Elections.
She has worked as a Director of Communications for a leading global law firm offering advice to the firm and its clients. She later served as the founding CEO of a health and aged care foundation.
Tracey holds a Graduate Diploma in Commercial Broadcasting, a Bachelor of Laws degree, a Master of Public Affairs and was awarded a Winston Churchill Trust Fellowship in 1996.
She is a director of the Association of Independent Schools of NSW and Knox Grammar School, and previously served for ten years on the national board of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust.
Ianika Tzankova
Holding the first European professorship in collective redress since 2007, Ianika is a pioneer in the field.
As a partner at the law firm Birkway, she combines academia with practice and is internationally recognised for her knowledge of strategies for resolving cross-border mass disputes, using innovative litigation and alternative dispute resolution approaches.
She was a partner with a large litigation boutique where she was member of the Financial and Commercial Litigation practice group and has also worked in-house for two publicly listed litigation funders. Having assisted corporate clients, claim vehicles, litigation funders, governmental and non-profit organisations, ‘bookbuild’ entities, case originators, Dutch and foreign legal counsel on all aspects of mass claim dispute resolution, Ianika is a ‘mass claims all-rounder’ who is sought after for legal opinions and the structuring and implementation of creative litigation strategies in multi-jurisdictional disputes, particularly in the areas of investor protection, competition, data privacy, product liability and consumer law. Additionally, Ianika assists high-net-worth individuals, family businesses, corporate clients and foreign law firms with litigation project management in complex high-profile commercial disputes, involving the use of PR and litigation financing. She has also a keen interest in multi-jurisdictional asset tracing and enforcement.
Ianika is alumna of Tilburg University and holds a PhD on Access to Justice in Mass Claims. She was admitted to the Bar in 1997.
Ianika was born and raised in (communist) Bulgaria and emigrated to the Netherlands in 1991, shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall. She was a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Stanford University in 2012 and has had a soft spot for California eversince. High on Ianika’s Bucket list is to make an absolutely perfect Pavlova…so far all her attempts have failed miserably (no foto’s attached).
Derede McAlpin
Derede McAlpin is a crisis management and Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) expert and trusted advisor to CEOs, attorneys, C-suite executives, and Boards of Directors, and public figures.
With a specialty in getting clients into and out of the news – but mainly out – her proven record of developing balanced news coverage has been invaluable to clients facing intense media scrutiny, DEI initiative challenges, bet-the-farm litigation, executive scandals, and other sensitive issues.
Ms. McAlpin also works with leading institutions and corporations to advance their DEI goals, shape Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Sustainability plans, and establish trust with their employees, customers, and community.
Ms. McAlpin currently serves as Senior Vice President and Head of Litigation Communications and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for LEVICK, a global advisory firm. Prior to LEVICK, Ms. McAlpin served as vice president and chief communications officer for the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), the world’s largest organization representing the professional and business interests of corporate lawyers. Her experience also includes work as a strategic advisor to AM Law 100 firms and positions with Howard University, Superior Court for the District of Columbia, 6ABC News (Philadelphia), and a clinical at the City of Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.
Frequently quoted as an authority on complex DEI, legal, and business issues, Ms. McAlpin is sought after by organizations to speak on the challenging issues confronting corporations and has contributed commentary on global business and crisis issues to such media outlets as NBC Nightly News, the Washington Post, and Thomson Reuters.
Ms. McAlpin received her Juris Doctor degree from the Temple Beasley School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts in Communications from Howard University. She has also received leadership training at the Yale School of Management Executive Education program.
Her additional career highlights:
Derede McAlpin provided executive level counsel and direction for the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) and its global board of directors.
Successfully executed the launch of a first-in-class research division for ACC, as well as a broad range of benchmarking and survey products, and data analysis services.
Ms. McAlpin currently chairs LEVICK’s litigation and DEI practice groups. With more than 20 years of communications and legal experience, she represents clients facing high profile crisis and litigation issues, including government investigations, lawsuits, sensitive race issues, corporate scandals, and sexual misconduct allegations, among others.
She also advises clients on class actions, tribal sovereign immunity cases, and Multi-District-Litigation.
A former member of the press, Ms. McAlpin conducts professional development, DEI, and media training workshops for executives and lawyers.
Some of Ms. McAlpin’s most memorable projects include leading international communications on behalf of the nation’s first full face transplant recipient, working on the landmark US Supreme Court First Amendment case Snyder v. Phelps, and providing pro bono support for underrepresented groups and individuals.
During her tenure at Howard University, she launched an amicus curiae campaign in support of respondents in Grutter v. Bollinger, a landmark Supreme Court case on affirmative action in student admissions.
Kate Hartley
Kate Hartley is a crisis communications consultant and trainer, and the author of ‘Communicate in a Crisis’ (Kogan Page, 2019), a book that explores the changing way people behave in crisis situations.
She is the co-founder of Polpeo, a crisis simulation company that helps some of the biggest brands and agencies in the world prepare for a crisis, and she is a visiting lecturer for various universities. She is a member of the CIPR and a Fellow of the PRCA, and was named in PRovoke Media’s Innovator 25 EMEA list in 2021.
Caroline Sapriel
Caroline Sapriel is the founder and Managing Partner of CS&A, a specialist risk and crisis and business continuity management consulting firm with offices in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Belgium, The Netherlands, Singapore, and the United States.
With over 30 years’ experience in risk and crisis management, Caroline is recognized as a leader in her profession and acknowledged for her ability to provide customised, results-driven counsel at the highest level.
Over the years, Caroline has advised senior corporate executives in high-risk industries internationally. Her multi-disciplinary background and experience has enabled her to provide clients with an in-depth analysis of their crisis management capability as well as help them develop effective risk and crisis response organizations and stakeholder and reputation management strategies. She has been directly involved in helping clients manage crises in the oil and gas, chemical, transport, shipping, aviation, pharmaceutical and consumer product sectors.
Caroline is an accomplished trainer, facilitator and coach in risk, issues and crisis management as well as in communication skills. As such, she has coached many senior executives at leading multinational corporations internationally. Caroline regularly speaks at international conferences and seminars on risk and crisis management. She is a guest lecturer on corporate crisis management at the University of Antwerp and at the graduate school of public administration of Leiden University.
Caroline is a member of the Business Continuity Institute, of the International Association of Business Communicators and serves on its global ethics committee, and of the European Association of Communications Directors. In 2011, she received a Gold Quill Award from IABC for her firm’s 10 Commandments of Crisis Management. She has authored many articles on the subject of crisis management and co-authored two books – Crisis Management – Tales From the Front Line and 25 years of Crises in Review: The Good , The Bad and The Ugly – with CS&A Senior Partner Dirk Lenaerts. Prior to establishing her own consulting firm, Caroline held various senior management positions with international communications consultancies where she helped clients respond to crises and enhance their crisis communication capabilities.
Caroline is fluent in French, English, Spanish, Hebrew and Mandarin, and holds a BA degree in Chinese Studies and a BSc degree in International Relations.
Sarah is a Senior Consultant at the leading London-based Litigation PR and legal sector reputation management agency, Bell Yard Communications.
Sarah has more than twenty years’ experience in professional services communications, spanning media relations, issues management, corporate and crisis communications.
Before joining Bell Yard Communications where she focuses on profile-raising for law firms as well as advising on litigation PR and reputational issues, Sarah was Global PR Manager at leading law firm, Linklaters LLP.
She was previously a Director at international communications consultancy, Citigate Dewe Rogerson, where she developed reputation management and thought leadership campaigns for a diverse mix of financial, legal and corporate clients.
Sarah began her public relations career at Spada, a specialist professional services communications agency, following a stint as a journalist.
She holds a degree in French and German from the University of Oxford and a Masters in Photography Arts from the University of Westminster.
We are recognised leaders in our field. We are proud to uphold the ethical and educational standards for the PR industry as members of the CIPR and PRCA.
