Using a Law Firm's Licence to Exercise Politics Through Frivolous SLAPPs and Nastygrams (to Silence People, Remove Pages, Demand Fake or Forced 'Apologies')
Sometimes even forcing people to publish court decisions against their will; capitalising on fears of potential/prospective/projected financial expenses, they basically extort people and now they do this in politics (trying to take away people's dignity even in their own platforms, as happened to Linus Torvalds; he has since then been a corporate lapdog of the Linux Foundation's sponsors)
The 'SLAPP industry' or the biggest facilitators of it (unprincipled, unscrupulous lawyers/paralegals) are sawing off the branch beneath their buttocks. Social responsibility matters, profits are a side issue. This isn't about money; it's about justice.
The worst offenders are sawing off their own hands, too. If not properly insulated, everyone else will be harmed.
Because having killed a lot of what was left of the press (partly through SLAPPs and the chilling effect accompanying or preceding these SLAPPs), they're reaching/stretching for the bottom of the barrel, now with Microsoft stranglers of women as customers/clients (no filtering [1, 2] because they're desperate for money [1, 2]) while repeatedly refusing to say who funds it, then trying to reinvent as reputation laundering outfit or even plain politics (Trump, Farage etc.) - more so this month. When they picked on us over a year ago they had also picked on someone who had merely exposed white-collar corruption [1, 2]. He should receive awards, not SLAPPs. There's collective liability at stake here. Some people worry about the truth coming out. Some people already lost their jobs over material we published about Microsoft.
Things must be getting really bad when lawyers act for raving antisemites or acting for foreigners against locals, knowing what that may mean to accountability (for claimants; they hide in dad's home or some forest). It's really looking like they improvise, looking for new ways to use or abuse or misuse their legal licence/law degrees. It's becoming a "shitshow" or an utter embarrassment to the entire occupation of lawyers, not just media lawyers (a subset of the whole). Even here in Manchester, for instance, firms know the name "Brett Wilson LLP"; they know it as one of the worst firms out there in spite of it being very small (and shrinking, based on its very own filings), based far away, and practicing or focusing on entirely different domains/disciplines. It's hard to ignore the fact they're hardly involved in media anymore (almost no court cases defended or initiated this year; showing involvement is easy; it decreased at both ends). Is conveyance next (boring paperwork)? How about helping one politician scare the other with pre-action letters? Are they now stepping into politics, as if they want to do Sarah Palin's "modus" (fanatical attacks on the press because of her hurt feelings; she has just lost by the way). This was a very recent example (days ago):
They will eventually get a reputation of being a bully, not because being a bully is bad but because they actively choose to work for bullies. It's not libel to merely point out the bad reputation they have earned.
MoFo are vastly bigger than Brett Wilson LLP and they are not interested in this political mess. It's a risk to their reputation*, which they would like to keep (even if they're known to be very aggressive; we wrote a lot about MoFo in the past, sometimes due to patent cases and sometimes SCO, which lied a lot to courts).
Then there's this social control media 'gossip':
It's in the news, but what sort of context is that? They're now associating with fights over Trumpism and such (set aside the Palin reference above) [1, 2, 3, 4].
To quote the original: "I call on the party, Mr Farage, Mr Anderson and Mr Yusuf to do the right thing and retract these false allegations. In the event that they are unwilling to do so it is my intention to issue High Court proceedings. Whilst I have no desire to litigate, I will do what is necessary to ensure my reputation is restored." (Emphasis added by us)
So it seems like some falsely reported it - as usual these days because journalistic standards sank - as a lawsuit rather than mere threats (at the time), courtesy of "guns for hire" who love to bark (even for many months, without biting). Threats that aren't followed up (subjected to some condition/s) are abusive. If billionaires who abuse women are protected by the "chilling effect", more vulnerable women will suffer without available reprieve, only recourse. Prevention is possible only if the system works properly. No case was filed (we've even checked, but it's not infeasible that there's a delay), they're just doing what they did to us for a long time, making lots of empty threats for Microsoft people who previously begged (they made tacit threats to me and to my lawyer about half a dozen times before doing anything). To be very clear, repeated empty threats are abusive; lying about those threats and then signing a "statement of truth" is a very serious offence, too. Even if you come here on a plane from the US, you can get in very serious trouble for lying to courts. The UK term is perjury (Perjury Act 1911). The US has the same thing, which does not defy the First Amendment.
People who look for a "gun for hire" (even SLAPP-chaining) that barks a lot might settle for a cheap Brett Wilson LLP, but sooner or later there will be a stigma and they'll need to explain why they help serial stranglers bully those whom they abused or those who merely reported that the abuse happened.
The industry very well understands that tolerating such practices will doom its reputation and credibility, collectively. Lords are fully aware of this issue. We'll write a lot more about it. We'll also hold accountable the biggest culprits, who abused many others before us [1, 2]. The SLAPP stops now. █
Statement published 11 days before we filed our complaint: "Concerns remain about solicitors getting involved in abusive litigation aimed at silencing legitimate criticism – known as SLAPPs (strategic litigation against public participation). [...] We require solicitors to take steps to satisfy themselves that cases they bring are properly arguable. That means there are facts or arguments to test before the court. Solicitors must make sure they properly scrutinise a claimant's case and instructions in order to do this. And where necessary decline instructions to act where they are not satisfied that there is an arguable case. Despite this, a claimant could still seek to abuse the system, even if a solicitor is acting competently and in good faith. In summary, solicitors must bring cases properly and seek to challenge and scrutinise what their client is telling them, but it is the court's role to identify and strike-out SLAPPs. The main way to address the problem of SLAPPs is through a robust legislative solution that gives the courts more powers. [...] We will take action where we find solicitors acting inappropriately. Last year, we successfully prosecuted a case before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), resulting in a £50,000 fine, relating to a solicitor seeking to improperly prevent publication of correspondence. We have other ongoing investigations into abuse of the litigation process, with another case due to be heard before the Tribunal, and four where we have concluded our investigations and decisions on next steps are imminent."
From the letter they sent: (face-saving stunt after an obvious blunder and miscarriage of justice)
_______________
* What typically happens in such scenarios is, some politicians want to threaten or SLAPP or basically censor some other politician/s, but reputable law firms will decline to participate or advance such a "case" or even entertain with pre-action letters (as per protocols) because 1) it can damage their reputation or get them embroiled in online outrage; 2) it stands little chance of success or can even backfire, as they can frankly tell a person who inquiries. Honest lawyers can foresee things going wrong.
So reaching out to Brett Wilson is like the "last option", and due to their financial woes and already-bad reputation they'll just say "yes". As a local lawyer told us about them a year ago, they'll do just about anything "as long as you pay them" and they already lost their credibility anyway. It's similar to Shiva Ayyadurai with his "Trump lawyer".