Schillings-Reputation managers with a reputation problem?

[matgb]

Hmm, this is, I think, rather amusing. Those, um, impartial advisers acting as lawyers for Alisher Usmanov say on their site:

Using the law to protect reputations is our specialism.

Hmm. Well done guys, use the blunt instrument of the law to protect your clients reputation. What about your own reputation? Matt Wardman points out Defamation Lawyers now have a Public Relations Problem. Seriously, type Schillings into Google. Would you hire them?

If you want good online advice about reputation management, you probably want to go to someone who's actually quite good. In fact, you might want to go to one of the best search optimisation practitioners operating in the UK. Good idea when working on that sort of thing for a different client? Don't piss him off, ask Anne Milton...

ETA: liadnan in the comments here makes a very good, and informed point, from the perspective of a practicing barrister:

By and large the lawyer's (or at least the solicitor's -professional obligations are slightly different at the bar-) job is to advise -within the law- on possible courses of action which may achieve the client's wishes, and then, once the client has decided, carry out the chosen course, not to make decisions for their client based on their own political, social, or moral beliefs about what the law should be.

He's right, of course, the law firm itself can't be blamed specifically for acting on behalf of their client, but then, I've always known I'd make a terrible lawyer...

Comments

[eccles.livejournal.com]

Time to call Max Clifford :-)

[liadnan]

Oh for heaven's sake. I quite agree that the English law of libel needs reform (though an awful lot of what is being written about it in the context of this huha is simply wrong) and I quite agree that Usmanov and his ilk should not be able to use libel law to silence legitimate criticism. But I entirely fail to see why lawyers specialising in the law of defamation, an area of law which, whether you like it or not, happens to exist, are being criticised for using the law as it stands to the best advantage of their client.

They're a law firm. It's hardly an enormous shock that the weapon they choose to use in their chosen specialism is, err, The Law.

[matgb]

Well, yes (and I agree that some of the hyperbole/misinformation is getting silly, as usual), but in this case they've used the law, but not to the best advantage of their client--more people know the story now than were ever likely to before.

They advertise themselves as reputation protection specialists--given the size of the firm and the significance of some of their clients, surely a non-lawyer PR consultant could and should be around for just them?

But, y'know, I couldn't resist this one regardless, it's a search results story, I always like search results stories...

[liadnan]

None of us have the faintest idea what advice they gave on possible courses of action, and the potential risks thereof. In the end, it's the client's decision what they decide to do. Schillings may well have advised them of the risk that what has happened would happen. Since legal advice is privileged we'll never know unless Usmanov decides to waive privilege. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they gave proper advice in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

By and large the lawyer's (or at least the solicitor's -professional obligations are slightly different at the bar-) job is to advise -within the law- on possible courses of action which may achieve the client's wishes, and then, once the client has decided, carry out the chosen course, not to make decisions for their client based on their own political, social, or moral beliefs about what the law should be. I happen to think that the House of Lords' recent decision in Stack v. Dowden* is a godawful piece of social engineering, that doesn't mean I can decline to use it if it furthers my client's case.

*Which may sound obscure but is far more likely to have an effect on most people's lives than libel law.

[matgb]

Which is of course one of the reasons why I couldn't be a lawyer, really. I've amended the post and removed the 'morons' reference, that was OTT anyway. I'll keep the hyperbole with your amendment though, the point about it stands even if it's not their fault but his, they still have a problem for at least awhile.

[eccles.livejournal.com]

I think I know the point you are perhaps alluding to. Consider that lawyer whose name escapes me but he has made a career out of getting the rich and famous off speeding convictions. They were speeding quite clearly but because they were being chased by the paparazzi it's somehow ok. One tends to resent therefore that if you are rich and famous you can employ a lawyer to cleverly exploit every nuance of the law to your advantage. It fosters a disrespect for the law that it perhaps doesn't apply to rich people in the same way it does to others.

Schillings and Bloggers

[(Anonymous)]

Firstly, thank-you for covering the story - it is interesting to hear a legal view.

I'd accept that lawyers are essentially "hired guns", and that you are required to operate according to the law as it stands rather than to any morality. That's not an insult - just how it is (probably how it must be).

>I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they gave proper advice in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

They probably did give (in terms of the legal profession) proper and (and based on their declared approach) aggressive advice on how to close down unwelcome comment by use of "alleged defamation" sabre-rattling aimed at the weakest point in the chain - the webhost. I'm quite willing to acknowledge that. After all, Schillings have a high reputation.

But that does not make the way that Schillings operated (according to the law) - by threat and implication (i.e. FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt) rather than by confronting the allegations - acceptable to those of us who wish to be free to express our opinions.

On top of that the procedure where a webhost simply deletes an entire customer account (which they are entitled to do under without real justification under broadly drawn terms and conditions), purely on the basis of an UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION and without due process, is a severe problem - especially in the case where the well-funded corporation does it to an individual.

It may be legal - but can you argue that it is just or fair? It could be me next - or you. As you say, you are required to operate in an essentially "amoral" manner where the morality is defined by the terms of the law. So reform is needed in the principles and boundaries which define how you operate in this legal area - and that must come from us through Parliamentary processes, which it may well do so.

What is interesting is that the reaction is from across the political spectrum - libertarian, UKIP, traditional Tory, Lib Dem, all parts of labour and non-aligned bloggers. Everyone. That has never happened before on a political question.

I don't think this one is going away.

Matt Wardman
www.mattwardman.com

Re: Schillings and Bloggers

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry - bit of a struggle with your editing system.

Matt Wardman
www.mattwardman.com

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Whilst lawyers do only do what they are told, I also think that if Schillings wished to, they could talk their clients out of such precipitate behaviour.