Tag: public relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are an individual in the public eye:

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

For companies under scrutiny for their tax affairs:

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

If you are a tax adviser:

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

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

By Louise Beeson

15/02/2023

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

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

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

Witnesses

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

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

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

The Information Gap

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

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

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

Solutions

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

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

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

By Melanie Riley

Tuesday 24th January 2023

When the multinational brewery and pub chain BrewDog launched an attack on the Qatar World Cup, referencing the Emirate’s alleged human rights abuses in a rather humorous advert, “First Russia, then Qatar, we can’t wait for North Korea”, it articulated the mood of the public perfectly. The mention of being a sponsor of the “World F*Cup” was also a nice, everyman touch. 

However, the murky reality is that despite their protests BrewDog are still showing the football competition in their many pubs, are providing beers to Qatar for the event, and aren’t exactly in the best position to be shaming anyone on their employees’ rights records given the countless accusations of a toxic workplace culture that have hung over the company and its reputation for years.

This raises the debate of whether it is hypocritical to seek to criticise others and by implication position yourself as a ‘purposeful’ organisation when your business behaviours don’t live up to that depiction. Doing so risks alienating your stakeholders and violating the trust and the authenticity of your firm’s mission statements. In these days of citizen journalism, with social media amplification at the touch of a button, if you don’t walk the walk, you’ll soon be exposed and judged for talking the talk.

Brand association is a real banana skin. British Cycling seeking the oil giant Shell as a sponsor and accepting its largesse in an eight-year deal has caused understandable outrage and disparagement for ‘greenwashing’ amongst their eco-aware audience. This indignation was further highlighted by Greenpeace’s heavy condemnation of the partnership. 

“The idea of Shell helping British Cycling reach net zero is as absurd as beef farmers advising lettuce farmers on how to go vegan.”

Law firms, just as any large brand, must ensure their actions, partnerships, and values align in any well-structured sponsorship strategy – as authenticity is key. Failure to practice what you preach risks betraying your brand message and causing unwelcome unrest amongst your stakeholders.   

It’s still unwise to throw stones in glass houses.

By Declan Flahive

Friday 11th November 2022

Channel 4’s recent documentary into the working practices of garment workers for ultra-fast fashion firm Shein was shocking, but hardly surprising.

The company, privately owned by Chinese marketing guru Chris Xu and loved by millions of millennials and Gen Z shoppers in the UK, said in response that it was extremely concerned by the allegations which “would violate its Code of Conduct agreed to by every Shein supplier” and promised to investigate the claims. However, it has said the same when faced with similar allegations in 2021.

Shein seems to attract regular bouts of negative publicity. It is regularly in hot water with high-end brands accusing it of copyright infringement and copycat designs – complaints from Zara and the owners of Doc Martens being examples. Only recently, its parent company agreed to pay US$1.9m to New York authorities for failure to notify all customers of the extent of a hacking and data breach incident.

Who will investigate Shein over the latest furore?  The company ships clothes to 150 countries. In the UK will we see them being investigated for breach of the Modern Slavery Act (MSA) 2015?

This law requires companies to prepare and make publicly available details of the steps taken to ensure slavery and human trafficking are not part of supply chains and the result of due diligence undertaken into business operations and suppliers. However the trouble with the MSA is the lack of teeth in the face of any contravention. Critics lament that it seems to be expected that reputational or commercial pressures suffice in doing the job of holding perpetrators to account in the absence of proper sanctions.

When he was Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab talked about the UK government’s intention to introduce fines for businesses that do not comply with their MSA transparency obligations. However precise details of whether this is in the latest Modern Slavery Bill are still awaited.

Meantime the meteoric rise and popularity of Shein amongst Gen Z shoppers suggests a passion for cheap fashion is more important to them in financially constrained times, than concerns about Shein’s link to questionable human rights and unethical working practices.

Nonetheless, potential investors in Shein’s proposed IPO will surely demand it does a better job of upholding its ESG responsibilities. There has been talk that the company intends to list in the US in 2024 and of an eye-popping $100bn valuation.

If Shein does have ambitions to become a global public company and wants long-term success, it would do well to learn a few basic lessons, namely:

• ESG principles can’t be dismissed as a mere tick box exercise.
• There is no point in having a self-designed Code of Conduct if it isn’t followed or policed. 
• Communication with investors and regulators is a totally different kettle of fish to communication with consumers on Tiktok.

Regulators and law makers may not be quite there yet on scrutinising companies over their environmental credentials and ethical practices, but this is undoubtedly an area of rapid development. If Shein doesn’t walk the talk or communicate authentically, it could soon lose its sheen and swiftly find itself no longer in fashion.

November 1st 2022

“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

If Liz Truss and her PR advisers thought that local radio would give her a much easier ride than national news programmes, then they were sorely mistaken. 

Breaking her silence after four days of turmoil in the financial markets prompted by Friday’s mini-Budget (which saw the IMF call on the government to reverse its tax-cutting plans, the Bank of England make an emergency intervention to prevent a run on pension funds, interest rates shoot up, mortgage deals withdrawn, and sterling collapse to record lows), Truss gave her first media interviews to eight BBC radio stations across the country yesterday morning. 

Allocated just five minutes each to grill the Prime Minister, and determined to reflect the concerns, fears and fury felt by their listeners, the presenters wasted no time in going for the jugular, contrary to the patronising suggestions by certain media commentators that local radio interviews would be a soft option. 

From Radio Leeds’ opener, “Where’ve you been?”, to a Radio Nottingham listener’s claims that tax cuts were “like a reverse Robinhood”, Radio Teesside’s questioning about dead crabs washing up on local shores, to Radio Lancashire’s focus on fracking, Truss faced a gruelling series of bruising interviews on a range of subjects dear to local radio listeners’ hearts. 

Determined to stick to her key messages and defend last Friday’s “fiscal event”, Truss would not accept any responsibility for Britain’s economic crisis, laying the blame squarely on Vladimir Putin. Sometimes she refused to accept the premise of questioning or simply avoided answering the question altogether. Hesitant and robotic in her delivery, at one stage she was lost for words for almost four seconds while attempting to justify her economic policies to Radio Stoke. It made for painful listening. 

“An utter shitshow”, “brutal”, “gaslighting” and “blind to reality” were just some of the reactions to her car crash interviews from media commentators and MPs across the political divide.

As The Guardian pointed out, the “PM’s eight short interviews produced more news than a typical slot on Radio 4’s Today programme”. 

Whatever you think about Truss and Kwarteng’s dogged devotion to trickle-down economics, the episode shows the importance of communication in averting and handling a crisis (although Truss’s team, of course, deny that it is a crisis). 

While Truss is by no means a natural communicator, there are still some fundamental principles that she, and her team, should observe: 

• Be prepared – don’t launch a new initiative until you’re ready, then provide a thorough and timely briefing of the policy or strategy, backed up by sound evidence, and plan for tough questioning. 

• Don’t shy away from or delay giving media interviews – a head-in-the-sand mentality simply compounds the crisis, giving the impression of arrogance, complacency or ineptitude. Or all three. But – crucially, as above – be prepared. 

• Know your audience – be aware of and ensure you can respond to the wide range of issues that might arise, particularly when giving local media interviews. 

• Show empathy – acknowledge, listen and respond to people’s very real concerns, rather than regurgitating scripted answers that evade the question. 

• Don’t be afraid to admit when you’ve got it wrong, take ownership, and adjust your strategy accordingly, rather than claiming everything is going to plan despite clear evidence to the contrary. 

Truss – who lest we forget was put in power by a mere 0.17% of British voters – now finds herself alienating not just the markets and the public, including many in the crucial Red Wall constituencies, but a large number of Tory MPs too – among them some of her supporters at the recent leadership contest. 

Unsurprisingly, Labour is riding high in the polls, positioning itself as the party of economic competence. 

With the term ‘fin de siècle vibes’ reportedly being bandied about Westminster, Truss will need all the communications skills she can muster if she, and her party, have any chance of surviving this self-inflicted crisis of confidence and leadership.

By Sarah Peters

Friday 30th September 2022

In the fast-moving digital age, organisations need to engage with social media on a professional level or risk falling behind the pack. Whilst social media marketing might be an intimidating venture to some, effectively using it alongside more traditional PR techniques will bring you a range of advantages that will help your business flourish.

Here are a few tips on how to grow your business on social media:

1. Build a long-term relationship with your audience

Audiences of most traditional PR techniques tend to interact passively with content. In contrast, social media offers a two-sided relationship to its followers allowing ‘likes’, ‘shares’, and replies to a company’s online posts. This “relationship marketing” aspect is a powerful tool in making the brand more accessible. You can help to grow a committed following by nurturing this relationship with high-quality and relevant online content.

2. Be consistent with your online voice

Deviations and inconsistencies in your tone can lead to distrust brewing within your audience base. Avoid this pitfall by ensuring that your voice is clear, becoming recognisably ‘you’ which will help maintain and build a healthy online following – provided this voice is one that connects with your desired audience. It is also important to understand and adapt to the varied attributes that each social media platform offers. Twitter has a much more constrained character limit with shorter visibility, whereas LinkedIn caters to long-form written content and maintains its visibility for longer.

3. Utilise social media algorithms

Use the reward systems of social media algorithms to gain free promotion for your organisation’s online profile. Offer consistent content to your audience by following a content calendar that marks out how often and when you are going to post. As a result, the social media platform’s algorithm will recognise you as a reliable source of regular content and will promote your online presence for free. Ensuring that your content is truly valuable to your audience will likely boost its social media metrics of ‘likes’, ‘shares’, and ‘comments’. Once again, the algorithm will reward such engaging content with further organic promotion.

4. Sense an incoming crisis

Social media monitoring can be a vital tool in sensing a brewing storm before impact. As any PR professional will know, it is much easier to prevent a crisis from taking place than it is to get the toothpaste back into its tube, so to speak. Through early online detection more traditional crisis communication strategies can be deployed to reduce reputational damage. Be clear and concise if you are going to engage with a crisis online or else you risk worsening the situation, as was the case with Center Parcs and the hullabaloo surrounding their clunky reaction to the passing of Queen Elizabeth II.

5. Use analytics to monitor growth and shape strategy

Analysing the level and extent of online engagement in your content can help target all future content and key messaging. The vast analytics offered on social media platforms, such as impression rates, enables you to closely monitor the growth of your account and ensure that it remains on an upwards trajectory (within your preferred target audience) by recognising and doubling down on the types of content that have the best engagement rate.

Content is King

Traditional PR and social media marketing are powerful tools that can become even more profound when used in sync. Failing to utilise social media is to miss out on vast engagement with, and knowledge of, your audience. However, your social media presence should be taken as seriously as other elements of your business. Failure to ‘read the room’ or sense an impending crisis, for instance, can end in a social media pile-on, creating a disaster for even the largest and most robust of organisations.

In short, content is king – create it, target it, evaluate it and don’t be afraid to adapt it if circumstances demand it.

By Declan Flahive

29/09/2022

The Royal PR machine is an impressive operation. They don’t always get it right, of course, and have had their own share of slings and arrows to cope with, especially in the last few years, but overall, without doubt, the family’s contract with the nation has been nurtured by and has grown to rely on PR techniques that most business leaders – including at law firms – can’t ignore. Here are our top ten tips for successful PR Royal style:-

1. Planning – whether it’s diary scheduling or preparing for a crisis event, the Royal PR machine tries to spot clashes, scenario plan and anticipate – at a macro and micro level; 
2. Embracing technology – from radio to TV, from zoom and insta, the family have moved with the times to get their message out to audiences via an ever-evolving list of channels;
3. Face-to-face engagement – as we’ve seen in the last week in particular, direct and personal connection with stakeholders is key to keep it real and literally stay in touch;
4. Remember all your stakeholders – no one has a divine right to rule (any longer). Position and power derives from various sources and relies on keeping all stakeholder on side, if not ideally their positive support;
5. It’s about both words and actions – walking the talk, practising what you preach and living your values are all important for reputation;
6. Be authentic – there is no need to change yourself to up your appeal – staying true to your background, style and purpose wins out in the end;
7. Consistent yet flexible – a lot has been said about our former Queen’s consistency. People knew what to expect and that they could rely on her considerable commitment to duty, yet to be fair she and those around her were willing to be flexible and pragmatic sometimes too.  
8. Context and public opinion counts – seeking to operate in a vacuum is folly. Being sensitive to events, your audience and reading the room are essential for organisations, leaders and managers.  
9. Know your mission – don’t get deflected from your mission strategy and keep reminding yourself (and others) what you exist for and set out to do.
10. Play the long game – whatever road bumps arise to throw you off course, however tempting short-term gains might seem, always strive for the longer-term prize, even if it means difficult choices.

By Louise Beeson

Tuesday 20th September 2022

Communications during a crisis need to be clear, empathetic and sense-checked for rebound risk as any specialist PR expert will tell you. Sadly Center Parcs was one of a number of organisations who didn’t quite get these ingredients right in their clunky handling of a self-inflicted furore this week. 

The Center Parcs team caused anger and confusion when attempting to correct an earlier contentious position regarding the proposed closure of their facilities on Monday 19th September, out of respect for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. 

After an eruption of online outrage following the announcement that holidaymakers would have to vacate their lodges for the day, an inevitably swift U-turn followed. However, this wasn’t the end of the PR headache for the company which prides itself on providing relaxation and escapism for all. 

The team at the short-break holiday company took to Twitter to calm the brewing storm – only to provoke fresh backlash. Replying to one tweet of outrage, the company said: 

“We recognise leaving the village for one night is an inconvenience, we have listened and made the decision to allow guests to remain on village on Monday, however, the village will still be closed, so guests will need to remain in their lodges.” 

The prospect of guests being locked in their cabins led to further incredulity and required a follow-up tweet apologising for the miscommunication. 

Center Parc’s clumsy engagement was sadly not unique, as a similar blunder from the Met Office shows. Its Twitter account recently posted: 

“As a mark of respect during this time of national mourning we will only be posting daily forecasts and warnings.” 

What the national weather service meant to say was that it would not be providing additional lighthearted content during the national period of mourning, aside from its regular weather service. However, due to its lack of clarity, followers quite reasonably took the tweet to mean that the public would only be informed of the weather one day at a time. 

Whilst brands such as Center Parks were undoubtedly looking to support staff loyal to the Queen when formulating their original closure policies, it’s little wonder they faced ridicule having completely failed to balance this intention with consideration for the practical needs of their all-important customer base. The impact of corporates’ decisions on their consumers should be paramount, with plans stress-tested by the communications teams before any announcements are made. It’s simply PR 101. 

Failure to do so in these cases has turned an act of respect and reverence for the passing of the reigning monarch and head of state, into an exercise of alienation, from which it is hard to recover. We’re keeping our eyes out for smart Center Parcs advertising in due course – perhaps poking fun at itself in recognition of its right royal muck up.

By Declan Flahive

16th September 2022

The greatest and most popular football league in the world (arguably) turns 30 this week. In the space of a few decades, the English Premier League has blossomed into a global marketing powerhouse with all the theatrics and drama any sports spectator could dream of – from transfer deadline day to emotional local derby duels. But along with its success story, there exists a growing threat to its reputation. The Premiership is susceptible to accusations of a practice known as ‘sportswashing’ whereby club ownership is said to be used to clean up a tainted public image. 

The Premier League kick-started the celebrity era of football with the likes of David Beckham. When the dainty-voiced, floppy-fringed fella scored from the halfway line against Wimbledon for Manchester United in 1996, he lit the fuse for an explosion of his fame and the 21-year-old soon became a global superstar. His relationship with “Posh Spice” only served to augment his popularity credentials. 

This interweaving of football with mainstream culture has grown with icons such as Eric Cantona, Cristiano Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney, whose personal lives have increasingly taken centre stage.  Around-the-clock TV coverage and the emergence of the internet and social media has increased demand for every little morsel of the private lives of these very rich and famous athletes. Noticeably, this interest is no longer confined to the players. 

Since Abramovich took over Chelsea FC in the early noughties and in a similar vein the owners of Manchester City, Sheikh Mansour, and Newcastle United, Saudi Arabian-led Public Investor Fund (PIF), each have been accused of using the English game to not only advance their own net worth through marketing opportunities but also to enhance their public images. 

Football’s ability to cement a relationship between owners and fans is surprisingly powerful. When Roman Abramovich’s assets were seized and he was reported to have been chased out of the country for his alleged connections to Vladimir Putin following the unlawful Russian invasion of Ukraine, not all of the supporters of his club Chelsea F.C. were so keen to push him out of the door – due to the success his resources had enabled. Fans continued to chant the now former owner’s name in the stands well after the war had unfolded. It’s fascinating how a game of sport can warm the hearts of those unlikely to hold similar sentiments for others on the Russian sanctions list.

Buying a football club can be seen as a chance to revolutionise not just your own public image, but even that of your country. After purchasing the blue side of Manchester, Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi has enabled City to accumulate title after title. The investment from the oil-rich Sheikh is undoubtedly part of a wider plan to present the Abu Dhabi state in a positive light in the West.  In fact, since 2014, the ruling family has invested outside the club’s doors and tapped into the wider Mancunian area through the Manchester Life project. A joint partnership between the Abu Dhabi United Group and Manchester City Council, it has a £1 billion goal to transform 200 acres surrounding the Etihad Stadium from a derelict wasteland into a hub of modern real estate. 

Other resultant developments include the regeneration of an 80-acre brownfield site into the City’s state-of-the-art training facility. The club has also donated 5.5 acres of land and at least £12 million towards Beswick Leisure Centre, the sixth form Connell college and the Manchester Institute of Health and Performance. Furthermore, the club’s ‘City in the Community’ programme has invested thousands of hours of work into noble causes such as disability football teams and mental health support for the younger generation. 

Whilst cynics might question the motives of these actions, the benefits to the recipients are undeniable. The Emirati State’s human rights record is well-documented but its largesse in Manchester seemingly allows many to turn a blind eye. 

Wider public disapproval (ie from those not directly benefitting) of alleged ‘sportswashing’ seems to provide little of an actual roadblock to investment. Newcastle United is the latest high-profile English Premier League club to be bought out by an overseas investor with a controversial history. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund invested in the takeover at St. James’ Park on October 7^th 2021 costing a reported £415 million. 

At the time, Amnesty International was very critical of the move with its UK’s chief executive officer Sacha Deshmukh saying: “The Saudi buy-out of Newcastle exposed the glaring inadequacies of English football’s ownership rules – with no bar for those complicit in acts of torture, slavery, human trafficking or even war crimes – yet it hasn’t led to the change we urgently need to see.” 

Deshmukh continued: “When Saudi Arabia swooped in and bought Newcastle, it was one of the most glaring examples of modern sportswashing the world has ever seen. “With Mohammed bin Salman now effectively Newcastle’s owner, the Saudi state will see the club as another means to try to shape Saudi Arabia’s international image and distract from the country’s appalling human rights record.

“The Saudi authorities clearly see Newcastle as a long-term sportswashing project, but for now we’re seeing Eddie Howe and sections of the fanbase dodging questions about Saudi human rights abuses – neither of which is healthy for football.” 

One wonders whether those responsible for English club ownership rules will decide to introduce more strident checks and balances to prevent such future allegations of ‘sportswashing’ being levelled.  Or perhaps, to better protect ‘the beautiful game’, the introduction of majority fan-ownership such as that deployed in Germany will instead take root as the preferred future investment model. 

Conclusion:

The expansion of the Premier League in the most popular sport on the planet suggests it will only continue to attract those looking for a public relations revamp. The question is whether the sport chooses domestic social benefits over its international ESG responsibilities. 

While more stringent regulation could be implemented to prevent allegations of ‘sportswashing’, revelations of FIFA corruption show that a root-and-branch clean-up of football management is unlikely. Women’s tennis is one major international sport that has begun to put the defence of human rights before play. Unfortunately in football, just as we’re now seeing in golf, money still rules.

18th August 2022

Declan Flahive

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founder Nicole Daedone said:  

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

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

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

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

ENDS

For further information, please contact:

London: 

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

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

Notes to Editors

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

Counsels’ Skeleton will be available on opening on request.

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

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

(6 July 2022)

Whether you own or trade in them or think they’re little more than a speculative bubble, you can’t deny that NFTs – or Non-Fungible Tokens – have entered the public consciousness in recent times.

What are NFTs?

Firstly, what even are these strange digital tokens that have been causing such a wave of interest across popular culture? 

Non-fungible tokens are essentially unique and irreplaceable digital tokens containing valuable information stored on a blockchain – essentially a database of transaction records – with the Ethereum blockchain being the most popular. Think of them as a digital asset that represents real-world objects like music, digital trading cards, in-game items, and videos – but the real craze has been for NFTs in the digital art format which has taken the art world by storm. 

Art World

The prevalence of NFTs can perhaps be attributed to the continued endorsements of high-profile names, mainstream media coverage, and social media hype which boosts a market whose products arguably have no actual intrinsic value. However, the seismic shift this new art form is causing can be clearly seen through nearly $41 billion being spent on NFTs by the end of 2021 – making the market nearly as valuable as the global art market. One of the most well-known NFT artists is Mike “Beeple” Winkelmann, whose NFT “Everydays: the First 5000 Days” sold for an astounding $69 million at Christie’s in March 2021.  According to Christie’s, the sale put “Beeple” “among the top three most valuable living artists,” behind only David Hockney and Jeff Koons.

Popular Culture

Celebrity endorsements for NFTs and such collections as “The Bored Ape Yacht Club” has been a significant catalyst in the explosion in popularity of NFTs. “The Bored Ape Yacht Club” is one of many exclusive NFT digital art collections, with only 10,000 Bored Apes NFTs in existence. Access to an exclusive club known as “the swamp club” is also granted to each owner of one of the rare ape-themed NFTs. Owning NFTs from an exclusive collection usually grants access to prestigious real-world events or Discord group chats with the world’s elite, thus increasing their value beyond mere aesthetic appeal.

Many influential people display their allegiance to their NFT community by changing their social media profile picture to a cartoonish picture of their colourful animated ape NFT, for example. Such celebrity endorsements range from billionaire Elon Musk, Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey, and footballer Lionel Messi to artist Damien Hurst, online personality KSI, and former One Direction singer Liam Payne, to name a few.

Companies are also jumping on the trend, with Spotify recently announcing plans to add blockchain technology and non-fungible tokens to its streaming service, a move that many are optimistic will help to boost artists’ earnings. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit are also some of the latest social media heavyweights to announce plans to enable the trading and displaying of NFTs on their platforms. Snoop Dogg has also emerged as a prominent player in the market, selling more than $44 million worth of NFTs over the course of five days in support of his new album, sending shockwaves across the music industry in the process. For context, the album would have needed to amass 7.3 billion streams to earn him that same amount of alleged revenue. 

Concerns & The Law

NFTs have, however, prompted security concerns that need to be addressed if they are to convert the doubters. These issues include such scenarios as if the platform an NFT is built on goes out of business the NFT might not be accessible and thereby lose all value. Also worth noting is the rise in NFT fraud with one of the simplest forms of fraud coming in the form of people selling NFTs from artworks that they do not own the right to use. Litigation PR skills could be needed to convince a sometimes sceptical mainstream media that the theft of NFTs by unanimous individuals acting online is as damaging as the misappropriation of real-world assets. To ensure such online characters are held accountable for their actions there will also need to be an adaption of the law for a new third category of legal “things” to exist – a tertium quid – to sit alongside those of ‘chose in possession’ and ‘chose in action’.

The NFT market has also been unsteady in recent times with a significant slowdown in the market seen through the number of accounts buying and selling NFTs falling from 380,000 at its peak in November 2021 to 194,000 currently, along with a startling drop of 48 percent in the average selling price in the same period, according to NonFungible – the world’s largest NFT data resource. This also correlates with the cryptocurrency market which widely peaked in November 2021, such as the Ether cryptocurrency which uses the Ethereum blockchain upon which many NFTs are positioned, issuing a stark reminder of the digital assets market volatility.

Ukraine

The war in Ukraine has seen a significant flow of cryptocurrency and NFT donations coming into the country to help fund its war efforts against the invading Russian forces. The Ukrainian government is even releasing an NFT collection to add to this unconventional fundraising vessel, with each token carrying a piece of art representing a story from a trusted news source documenting the war. This opening of the door for media-related NFTs could mean that in the future we may well see a collection of NFTs released by broadcasters on our own shores. NFT collections of archive footage from the two World Wars and later conflicts to fundraise for Remembrance Sunday, or famous newspaper front pages from the past could be just a few of the copious digital products on the horizon. If it makes money it makes sense. Rather than just reporting on the subject from the outside looking in, the media world would be interwoven with it. You would reasonably assume that this would cause a greater sense of seriousness and urgency to develop around the reporting of the subject, particularly around allegations of fraud.

Final Note

Do NFTs represent the future of the internet as it edges towards its new phase of the “Web3” and the metaverse which will transform a myriad of industries, or are they just a huge digital pyramid scheme that is yet to implode? Whatever the outcome, there is something to note from a PR standpoint and that is the power of the endorsement and hype in bolstering the emergence of NFTs and cryptocurrencies in the past couple of years. 

This familiarisation and repackaging of NFTs to make them appear “cool” to own – and smart to invest in – by some of the most influential people on the planet have fanned the flames of society’s interest and allowed the NFT train to continue down its uncertain tracks. 

Is this the start of a new era? We’ll have to wait and see.  

By Declan Flahive

Follow Bell Yard on LinkedIn

Of all the PR and marketing initiatives launched on International Women’s Day on Tuesday this week, one in particular stood out – for all the wrong reasons. 

The London Dungeon decided to change the gender of Jack The Ripper to mark the day, unveiling a “Jack becomes Jackie” exhibit played by a female actor and questioning whether the “notorious killer [was] actually a woman”. The serial killer, who was never identified, murdered at least five women in Whitechapel in the late 1880s.  

The special International Women’s Day exhibit told the story of convicted murderer Mary Pearcy, who was named as a possible Jack the Ripper suspect by author William Stewart in 1939.

In a now deleted press release, The London Dungeon said: “With men often stealing the spotlight when it comes to the ghastly and gory crimes, we wanted to give ladies their dues for International Women’s Day … Rather than the usual honouring, we’ve given the day a London Dungeon twist while telling a story that many may never have heard before.”

Not surprisingly, The London Dungeon’s actions were greeted with incredulity and outrage on Twitter.

In a strongly-worded rebuke, Refuge, the domestic violence charity, branded the initiative “a cheap marketing stunt” that “trivialises the systematic murder of women by a serial killer”.

Following the social media backlash and subsequent mainstream media interest, The London Dungeon deleted its communications on Jackie The Ripper and was forced to issue a statement apologising for any offence caused. 

Controversially exploiting and sensationalising violence against women by recasting a serial killer of women as a woman in a cynical and blatant bid to boost ticket sales – on a day meant to celebrate women’s achievements, a year after the murder of Sarah Everard, and amid a high-profile campaign to make misogyny a hate crime – was never a good idea.

Tasteless, offensive, ill-judged (if, in fact, any judgement was shown at all), the sorry episode highlights just how out of touch The London Dungeon was with the public mood, putting commercial considerations above all else and underestimating the risk of reputational damage.

Burger King similarly made a whopper of a PR blunder on International Women’s Day last year, tweeting “Women belong in the kitchen”.  A supposedly humorous teaser for a campaign promoting a cooking scholarship for female employees, most people did not read beyond this initial Tweet, with many taking to social media to express their disgust at the use of such a sexist trope, on International Women’s Day of all days.

A subsequent Tweet provided much-needed context: “If they want to, of course. Yet only 20% of chefs are women. We’re on a mission to change the gender ratio.” But by then, the damage had been done and Burger King’s PR team spent the day firefighting – responding to media queries, explaining the campaign, apologising for getting the initial message wrong and promising to do better next time, and eventually deleting the offending Tweet. 

PR Lessons To Be Learned

So, what lessons can be learned? Do your research. Know your audience. Understand the wider context. Be aware of potential pitfalls and sensitivities. Test your ideas – and not just within your immediate team, to avoid groupthink. Be careful when using humour to promote an issue with the potential to cause offense or upset. And if you get it wrong and a PR debacle ensues, ‘fess up – take swift action to apologise, engage with the media and your followers, and learn from your mistakes.

 By Sarah Peters, 11/03/2021

The news that Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel are leaving the BBC is the latest in a line of senior journalist departures for the Beeb. It comes hot on the heels of business reporter losses precipitated by moving the R4 Today business team from London to Manchester and rumours that Amol Rajan was given the much-maligned interview with Novak Djokovic as a sop to avoid his defection to ITV. All this, of course, at a time when Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries is questioning the BBC funding model and when the Government, not to mention swathes of viewers, are concerned our once-loved national broadcaster has become too woke for its own good.  

So what does all this ‘trouble at mill’ mean for us PRs? 

Well, it merely confirms a trend that has been emerging in recent years. The BBC is no longer necessarily the golden ticket to getting your PR campaign away. It may no longer be the most coveted medium your clients want to cover your story. It may not, in fact, deliver the audience you need to address.  

That is not to say the BBC is no longer important. Don’t go writing the corporation off just yet. On the world stage, the BBC brand still shines brightly.  But with other media outlets and a proliferation of mediums growing loyal listeners and followers, from Global to You Tube to Podcasts, and with many of those outlets devoted to a preferred agenda, the media landscape is now so diverse that targeting content is a far more precise art these days.  Associating your brand and its experts with the agenda of your preferred media outlet by offering appearances/pitching articles increasingly requires consideration of the risk:reward ratio.  If the BBC can no longer hold itself up as the bastion of impartiality, then it becomes just another player in the influence game. 

Ms Dorries described the BBC this week as “a polar bear on a shrinking ice cap”.  That makes life more complicated for us PRs but also arguably more interesting too.  

Louise Beeson, 24/02/2022

Few among us could genuinely deny having made errors of judgment, whether inadvertently or otherwise. To err is human, as we are told. But so often these days otherwise forgivable missteps by public individuals captured in the omnipresent lens of social media are made infinitely worse by their first reaction to exposure of the initial wrongdoing. Molehills become mountains, challenges crises from which it can be truly hard to recover, if not already fatal to both career and reputation.

It strikes Bell Yard Towers that 2022 has begun with a flurry of high profile misconduct that might so easily have been prevented had the protagonist made better decisions in the wake of their original misdemeanour. The Prime Minister is obviously a case in point. Why obfuscate when asked the seemingly simplest of questions – “did you attend a party during lockdown?” It was surely inevitable that photographic evidence would emerge, let alone credible testimony by others, given the numbers of people also in attendance on each occasion and the politics involved. A swift admission, recognition of wrongdoing, reflection and public apology would have allowed many voters to put the issue to bed. Sadly, decisions taken once the first party was exposed have led us all down a rather bumpy garden path.

Sporting supremo, Novak Djokovic would have known that tennis aficionados, let alone casual observers, were well aware of his stated aversion to inoculations, his desire to determine what he puts into his body let alone his refusal to confirm publicly his unvaccinated status.  So when the Australian Open announced its all-player vaccination requirement all eyes were on Novak to see if he’d be withdrawing or whether a controversial route would be found for him to compete. As it was, the late confirmation of his medical exemption came as little surprise. Equally predictable was the swift public scepticism as to its validity. But the real astonishment was his tone-deaf social media posts proudly confirming his voyage to the southern hemisphere – waving his immunity in the face of a pandemic-hardened local population. This red rag to the bull that is Prime Minister Morrison, someone fiercely in election-campaigning mode, was unlikely to end well. But even then there remained the opportunity to recover his pride and reputation by returning to Monte Carlo acknowledging the errors made.  Sadly, he double faulted.

Prince Andrew’s decision to front public disquiet with a sit-down interview with one of the country’s most high-profile and able journalists was, perhaps predictably, a disastrous move, not least because of the implausible ‘evidence’ he gave which he believed would enable him to disprove the serious allegations he faces. Were you the complainant, you might well consider this decision to ‘tell-all’ a deeply provocative act that might fuel the determination to have your day in court rather than consent to a quick and quiet pay-off. The failure to show empathy for the victims or offer any apology for his relationship with Epstein compounded the situation. Sadly it has been left to the Royal Family to act decisively.

The common theme throughout these errors of judgment is a lack of awareness of the right thing to do from the outset: tell the truth, acknowledge the perception of past acts and say sorry. In other words, own the difficulty. In some of these cases, the sting may not have been fully eased by these three seemingly obvious steps, but they may have gone a good way towards pacifying an increasingly disillusioned audience. Of note in at least two, if not all three of these cases, public opinion swayed wildly as bit-by-bit more facts have emerged. But reputations are rarely enhanced by the drip feed of titbits that give oxygen to the controversy yet raise more questions than answers. 

In our line of work we surprisingly still see circumstances in which an early apology and recognition of the hurt or difficulty caused could have prevented the descent into contested and costly litigation. The power of an apology to take the wind out of the sails of even the most ardent opponent remains widely underappreciated. An apology is not necessarily an admission of liability, rather an expression of empathy that, provided sincerely expressed, can be a route to forgiveness and mutual understanding.  

People in the public eye could certainly benefit by taking counsel from diverse and objective advisers prepared to speak truth to power, telling it as it is. 

By Melanie Riley, 17th January 2022