When the Business Goal is to Protect the Image of Criminals From the Mainstream Media or Free/Independent Press (at Any Cost)
Even for Microsoft employees who live very far away in SLAPPland (USA)
WE recently wrote about letters that my wife and I had received from a debt-saddled firm with a poor taste in clients. Earlier this month I received some more. The latter SLAPP attempt shows that even when the victims of crimes act as sources, reliable sources, the publisher gets targeted. Basically, a mobster who attacked women (and got arrested for it) is now trying to ruin the lives of his victims who spoke about it and also the person who reported it to the public.
Why would any firm wish to represent such a person?
OK, consider how they advertise themselves. To quote their very own words: "Our criminal law department are called upon when clients need a bold and innovative strategy in response to a police investigation or criminal prosecution. Over the years, our team of criminal defence solicitors has successfully defended in thousands of cases. Our clients include corporates, public figures and professionals who prioritise the protection of their reputation and require proactive expert help. Typical clients are professionals or high-profile individuals facing prosecution for the first (and probably only) time in their lives and for whom the prospect of criminal conviction (even prosecution) is unimaginable. The department has particular expertise in dealing with highly sensitive allegations of a sexual nature. Our practice in this area is complemented by our expertise in professional disciplinary and regulatory investigations and proceedings, as well as media and communications law work. We genuinely care about our clients and our reputation depends on the outcomes that we achieve."
So they act "in response to a police investigation or criminal prosecution [...] prioritise the protection of their reputation" (even at the expense of freedom of the press or women's rights... or women's safety from abuse).
Hiding people's past helps them repeat the same crimes, no? Should society not be entitled to know who did what? When it's in the public record?
That's from public pages. Nothing we say here is privileged information.
The reputation laundering for criminals or people facing prosecution is the "Brett" (Nick Brett, "Head of Crime") in "Brett Wilson LLP". That's just how they present themselves, there's no room for bias here.
In our experience, they're also working in the UK to attack UK media on behalf of non-UK (not even the same continent) "clients" from Microsoft.
This is why 3 NGOs, at least 3 cops, and even media regulators are keeping an eye on this "Gift That Keeps on Giving".
So in a nutshell, what we have here is "guns for hire" in London (as British NGOs call it) fighting for men who strangle women... against people who merely mention that in the UK, even though the stranglers are in another continent and do not deny what they had done (arrested and charged for it).
What ever happened to the concept of "ethics" in this "legal" occupation? Won't that create a ruinous stigma for the occupation as a whole? Should this "industry" not get together and do something to prevent this stigma? It hurts everyone, including women facing violence (and who are particularly vulnerable).
Judging by everything I've learned from recent filings about Sirius (see wiki for background; it's a very long story), this law firm is likely in a really bad shape. The bank balance is lower than the salaries of some individual workers! Many of its workers are quite new and inexperienced, which means that veterans left, possibly to not be replaced or only be replaced by low-cost folks who receive/d compensation with job titles instead of increased/appropriate pay (that's a notoriously common tactic in the tech industry).
Firms come and go all the time. No firm survives for eternity. In Sirius I saw quality of service (for clients, staff, suppliers etc.) falling sharply due to bad hires, financial issues, and terrible decisions (including unethical clients that staff didn't wish to serve). It is the downfall of every company when it ceases to be picky about its clients, hires etc. Finally, a sign or a hallmark of doom is when some business wastes a lot of money trying to gag/censor critics instead of improving its own conduct. It's not only expensive; it tends to backfire. █