The potential for reputational damage from ongoing litigation is increasingly recognised across the legal sector. Even where the value of a dispute going through court may be relatively small, the reputational damage that can result from the hearings – particularly at trial – can be vastly greater. It is therefore vital to have a comprehensive strategy in place to manage any media attention that the case may receive, both to put the client’s narrative forward and to parry any talking points floated by the other side.
While it may seem advantageous to seek to minimise media attention at all costs during hearings that are likely to go poorly, this can often backfire. Seeking to push forward the client’s position and narrative only during positive parts of a case, and otherwise largely not engaging with the media, can cause long-term issues for credibility when working with those journalists relying on the parties for information around a case. Litigation is a contact sport both in the courtroom and in the press, and it is vital to have a team of experts advocating for you in both arenas. Continue reading “Sponsored briefing: The importance of maintaining a constructive media relationship throughout litigation”
The resounding message is that London is still booming. Fears surrounding its status as a leading jurisdiction for disputes being adversely impacted by Brexit appear to have gone largely unfounded, with not only the established players, but less traditional disputes practices and boutiques thriving. Martin Davies of Latham & Watkins sums up the outlook across the board, commenting: ‘There is a growing fragmentation in the London litigation market with some of the winners being at opposite ends of the spectrum, ie the international top tier who can serve clients worldwide, and the more niche boutiques.’ Continue reading “Bench strength revisited”
Google’s parent company, Alphabet, suffered a serious setback this week as the European Union General Court upheld a European Commission antitrust ruling against the company worth €4.125bn.
The case centred on whether Google has used its Android operating system to effectively bar competition. According to the original decision, in 2018 the Android operating system was installed on 80% of all mobile devices in Europe. It stated that Google required developers of mobile devices to pre-install its search engine and browser (Chrome) apps as a pre-condition of receiving a license to use its app store, Play.
Continue reading “‘A significant loss’: Litigation leaders convene as Google fails in critical €4.1bn antitrust appeal”