Taking the Schillings, part III

Big news today from the world of privacy. Schillings – every hack’s favourite law firm – is launching a “strategic alliance” with comparable firms in the US and Australia.

Clare Locke, North America’s leading defamation firm, it says here, and Giles George, Australia’s leading reputational risk law firm, are forming a threesome to protect the reputation of clients the world-over.

You can read Schillings’ own statement on the matter here.

What’s going on? Well, no money changes hands up front, they aren’t taking stakes in each other. They will just divvy up the (considerable) fees later.

The release is a little scary. “In a world in which reputation is being increasingly weaponised, this move comes as a coordinated response to the rise of complex and multifaceted reputational risks. Privacy threats, smear campaigns, and the spread of mis- and disinformation, demand ever-more sophisticated solutions.”

Like what?

Well, lawyers are good at getting fakery taken down from media platforms. They are less skilled at ensuring it doesn’t get there in the first place.

Schillings launched a comms business recently, led by George Pascoe-Watson and Victoria O’Byrne, names that, as we said at the time, suggest it isn’t mucking about.

It is serious about this.

Can Schillings and its partners make sure people don’t stand on landmines, or perhaps even clear the minefield ahead of time?

Digital advances – hacking, cyber security and other devices that AI hasn’t invented yet – mean PR is just a lot more complicated than it once was. Dealing with the media is just one bit of what’s needed.

That’s before you get to cancel culture and a fairly sophisticated community of activists who can hurt organisations that don’t deserve it, even if the boss does.

As a hack, my instinct is that all this is just another way for the super-rich to be protected in ways not available to ordinary folk.

Schillings doesn’t mention trying to stop stories that are damaging but true – I doubt this is a line of business it intends to forego. (Schillings would dispute it does any such thing.)

Insiders say you needn’t be super-rich or a global leader to get caught up in privacy threats or smear campaigns, and that such matters can reach into the lower ends of organisations that don’t know how best to protect staff.

In that instance, the boss pays the bill, even if they aren’t the target of the campaign.

Everyone is entitled to some level of privacy (even billionaires). The question will be whether along the way they also avoid legitimate scrutiny.

That three such big firms have linked up suggests there is a need in the market for an offer that never sleeps.

It will be interesting to see how rivals react to all this.