Jeremy is a leading Senior Junior at the Commercial Bar and is a member of Essex Court Chambers. He specialises in complex and heavy commercial litigation, including insurance, banking and funds, all aspects of commercial fraud, shipping, and international arbitration. In 2020, Jeremy was the lead Junior for Arch in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch, the test case on business interruption losses resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. Since 2018, he has also sat as a Recorder of the Crown Court. Rob was called to the Bar in 2001 and went on to specialise in cases involving international fraud, money laundering and other forms of financial crime. Since 2014, he has been the eponymous judge in the reality courtroom series Judge Rinder and has also written a legal based discussion column in The Sun. He also came fifth in the fourteenth series of Strictly Come Dancing. Jeremy and Rob's experiences as judges From a young age, Jeremy had always wanted to be a criminal barrister, and when he’d accrued enough experience as a commercial barrister, he applied, and was appointed, as a part-time judge - known as a recorder. “And then you learn on the job. You get training, you do get very good training, actually. But you also have to go and do a lot of sitting in with all the judges, quite a lot of observing and watching.” While you don't always see the impact the criminal Legal Aid cuts are having on the front line in the court, says Jeremy, what is being seen is a rise in the number of people who are representing themselves. The issue with this is they simply don’t understand the law procedure in the way that trained counsel do. The importance of Legal Aid Legal Aid, says Jeremy, has always been a problematic area for the government. They haven’t been able to sell it to the public because people tend to see it as footing the bill for criminals. But Legal Aid isn’t just for crime. It’s vital in areas like immigration and asylum cases. “Legal Aid is actually incredibly important, indeed, fundamental to a democratic and functioning legal system under the rule of law.” When the Legal Aid and Advice Act came in 1949, about 80% of the country was covered. That has subsequently dropped to about 27% of people who were eligible by 2007. And now, under the latest reforms, there are only very small numbers of specific cases that can get funding. But, says Rob, Legal Aid represents everything. “It's about access to justice, without access to justice, there is no rule of law. And without the rule of law, our democracy is meaningless, simple as. But what governments have failed to do, or even us as lawyers, is to personalise it to give really good quality examples of how critical and how important it is, and to make it relevant to individuals.” And Rob has had significant first hand experience of people who desperately need Legal Aid, but for whom access to justice is completely beyond their grasp. The problem, says Rob, is that one - we have access to legal advice because we have money to pay for it as well the connections to help. Two - we can speak to power without fear. And three - we have the capacity and the resources to ensure that the law is executed on our behalf. That in itself is a privilege. “And for millions of our neighbours, even in the communities we all live in. That's just not part of their reach. And when we sit back and reflect on who we are as a nation, that's not just a problem. It says something deeply worrying about our nation.” The misunderstanding of Legal Aid “I think one of the reasons, historically, is that for some reason, Legal Aid has been synonymous in the public mind, whether through the reporting of it or otherwise, as being some sort of fund for criminals.” There’s a misunderstanding that what's happening is that all of these undeserving murderers, rapists, and thieves are somehow dipping into the public purse to employ clever barristers to get them off crimes. And that couldn't be further from the truth. First of all, says Jeremy, an incredible number of people are innocent of the crimes or wrongdoings they’re accused of. And that's possibly the most important protection of liberty we have as a civilised society - to give innocent people the right to defend themselves. But also, everyone is entitled to a defence. And that is a fundamental right, just like access to the NHS or the education system. How to improve the image of Legal Aid Cameras in court would in no way shape or form help the public understand the significance of Legal Aid, says Rob. “Look, we're lawyers and we know something which the public doesn't, which is most court cases, even criminal ones are incredibly boring.” What we need to do, Rob continues, as a legal community, is think about ways to broaden our capacity and reach into communities that don’t have access to justice. “We need to think of more corporately creative ways about how we are privileged with time, to ensure that we reach more people that would otherwise not have access to our quality advice. And one of the things that I've been thinking about, is [for lawyers to] give a certain percentage of time to Legal Aid work or to pro bono work.” Also, says Jeremy, look outside of the immediate cases that you are working on and remember you are part of a bigger justice system. Discussed in this podcast episode: Rob and Jeremy's experiences as judges The importance of Legal Aid Public misunderstandings about the Legal Aid system How lawyers can help improve the image of Legal Aid Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/services/litigation-and-disputes/ Jeremy Brier Robert Rinder MBE

Clarissa Coleman moved straight into litigation on qualifying. As well as several other positions, she spent 2 years in-house as Head of Litigation at Consensus Business Group (CBG), the property investment firm owned by businessman Vincent Tchenguiz. Today she’s a partner in the Complex Commercial Litigation and Disputes group at DAC Beachcroft’s London office. “Litigation is different. It's a different mindset. It's about clients and people and every case is different. The facts are different, the stories are different. It's constantly challenging and different and exciting.” David Speakman is a senior employment law specialist based at DAC Beachcroft’s London office too. He has considerable experience advising on contentious matters before the Employment Tribunal and High Court, regularly advising on high-profile disputes and discrimination issues. The dawn raid During her 2 years as in-house as Head of Litigation at CBG, Clarissa dealt with multi-million pound commercial disputes and a high profile dawn raid and fraud investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, following the collapse of Kaupthing Bank in Iceland. “I dashed into the office. I'd done some dawn raid training. And, as expected, everyone totally ignored all my training. So I was the only one who followed my own training.” Clarissa co-ordinated the response on the morning of the dawn raid and arrest of Tchenguiz, and planned the subsequent judicial review against the SFO, which later dropped its investigation and settled with Tchenguiz for an undisclosed amount. Reputation management After the raid, there were 1,350 negative press articles about Vincent and his brother, meaning PR was vital to him getting his message out there that he wasn’t in the wrong. “When we were planning our strategy, one of the biggest issues was an allegation of conspiracy between Vincent and his brother, because it's very hard to disprove allegations of conspiracy.” The SFO put their warrant together so quickly, it was full of mistakes and misinformation, and this was key to getting the press onside. “Bringing the press onside and working within the power of the press became an important part of our strategy and actually meant that the SFO had to drop all their charges.” Whistleblowing David was involved in a very high profile case himself, an employment whistleblower case. Dr Kevin Beatt was sacked by Croydon's NHS Trust for whistleblowing over concerns about patient safety. “I think it's a really important case about whistleblowing, clearly, because it went to the Court of Appeal and has now confirmed the law on whistleblowing. But I think it is really important as a tale to explain why an investigation into the underlying issues is vitally important.” Problems arise because so many people use whistleblowing as a way to raise a grievance or a difficulty, making it a very contentious and complicated area. Wider cultural influences on the UK workforce The workplace isn’t just somewhere you work, it can be extended to any time, anywhere you’re with work colleagues, even in a social context. When you’re with work colleagues, there’s a certain standard of behaviour that just isn’t acceptable. Employment law supports this and sees the workplace as being far wider than just the office. “The #metoo social media phenomena means that people feel empowered to speak out. Whereas 20 years ago, people felt they couldn't speak out, because they would have been blacklisted for their career.” DAC Beachcroft multi-disciplinary investigations department “We realised as a firm, that we've got a huge amount of investigators experience and a huge amount of litigation experience, but also that that experience is in a lot of cases, quite specific, as well as generic.” Their team is currently speaking to schools, to independent schools, universities, and carrying out investigations into sexual misconduct in schools. “We take a strategic approach. It's a bit like the Vincent story again. You don't just follow a path, at the very start, you take all the expertise you have as a firm and look at this question and say, ‘What is the best way to approach it?’ ‘Who has the real skills that can deal with this?’ ‘Can we think outside the box a little so that we can provide solutions?’” Discussed in this podcast episode: The dawn raid Reputation management Think about privilege from the outset Whistleblowing The FCA’s 6th question on D&I Career advice for new lawyers Links Clarissa Coleman David Speakman DAC Beachcroft LLP https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/

Tracy Alexander is the Director of Forensic Services for the City of London police. Tracy has worked in forensic science for 29 years, 17 years of which were spent within the Directorate of Forensic Services at New Scotland Yard, as Crime Scene Manager for the Homicide Command, and latterly as Head of Forensic Intelligence. Tracy is an advisory panel member and trustee of Inside Justice, a fellow of King's College London, and the current president of the British Academy of Forensic Sciences. From classics to forensics Tracy fell into forensics entirely by accident when she saw an advert at New Scotland Yard looking for people interested in becoming fingerprint experts. “I thought, that sounds good. And my parents would be so proud. Essentially, at that time forensic science consisted mostly, if you're thinking about biometric data, it was entirely around fingerprints.” The biggest changes in forensics The biggest change came in 1995 with the instigation of the DNA database. “The concept of being able to use that kind of biometric data in order to identify somebody at a crime scene was, I mean I hate the phrase, but it was a complete game changer.” The idea of being able to identify an individual by something unique to them, i.e. a fingerprint, had been around since 1897 when it was first used in Argentina, but the introduction of the DNA database meant identifying a person, and having their name available as part of an investigation for intelligence, or as part of a trial. About 10% of the UK population is on the DNA and fingerprint database, the biggest per capita database in the world. But has it had an impact on how crimes are investigated or how forensic services are run in the UK? “I love my police investigative colleagues to death, but they do rely on there being forensic leads a lot. And I know in other countries they don't, they're expected to pursue all leads, do your house to house inquiries, pursue the CCTV and all of the other things that you would normally do.” While that’s not necessarily a bad thing, says Tracy, forensic services in the UK were privatised a long time ago, and that in itself has influenced how the work is carried out. Because it’s now a case of doing how much you can afford to. The decline of forensic experts In 2012 when the coalition government closed the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS), one of the biggest impacts in the forensic science space was the reduction in the number of different experts that were available to police forces across the UK. “There are fibre experts in the UK, but they don't work for a company because companies won't pay to have them on the books.” The portrayal of forensic scientists by hit tv shows like Line of Duty are hugely misleading, because you simply can’t pop to the nearest lab and have a bit of rope examined, for example. TV portrayal of forensic scientists While some TV shows are inaccurate about what forensic science is capable of, Tracy did learn from Rizzoli and Isles, an American forensic science show, that you can age blood. She’s also a fan of Amanda Burton in Silent Witness, although she says, as a forensic scientist, you simply can’t do all the work she does. “Amanda Burton can talk to the witnesses, she can comfort the victim's family, she can do the post mortem, she can examine the scene. [But] it's one of those unattainable things, you can't do all of those bits and bobs in just one hour all by yourself.” Investigating digital and cybercrime In Tracy’s current role, she’s involved in investigating digital and cybercrime, which she says, isn’t complicated by the complexities of the data, more so, it’s the sheer volume of data they have to deal with that slows them down. And there’s no budget to use machine learning, or AI, or any new technologies to wade through the massive volumes of data to uncover patterns or read through key documents. They can’t even hire more people. “We do an awful lot with what we've got. I turn out 30 terabytes of data a month. All of that data is actively used in prosecutions every single day. We're juggling tonnes of data in order to make sure that people are being prosecuted as best they can, on a daily basis. But it's not enough.” Inside Justice Tracy also sits on the advisory panel for the charity, Inside Justice, which investigates miscarriages of justice. “The joy of forensic science is that it does give you the truth of the matter. We shouldn't be an expert witness on one side or the other. It should just be looking at the evidence. And see where it leads you.” Tracy’s Montfort Maxim What advice does Tracy give to anyone interested in embarking on a career in forensic science? “I would definitely work on a prime science. Pick a specialism and be very, very good at that. And then potentially go and work somewhere else, maybe in the Netherlands, because they all speak English, and it's all government funded. Really learn your trade and then maybe come back to the UK and hopefully be able to have the influence and drive to push us all back on the right track.” Discussed in this podcast episode: The biggest changes in forensics The decline of forensic experts TV portrayal of forensic scientists Investigating digital and cybercrime Inside Justice Tracy’s Montfort Maxim Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ Tracy Alexander Tracy Alexander FKC Inside Justice

Jasper Helder is a senior partner at Akin Gump, and one of the most experienced and well named professionals advising on national security, trade policy and export controls issues in the country. In light of a number of recent controversies around the takeover of British companies, Jasper joined Kiran to discuss the 2002 Enterprise Act, and the forthcoming National Security and Investment Act, which is coming into force in January 2022. What the Enterprise Act 2002 was meant to do In 2018, merger controls were put in place to try and clarify the Enterprise Act 2002, because it was felt that the government didn't have any intervening powers in such transactions that might be relevant for national security. “Now, the biggest debate around all of this is going to be, well, what actually is national security?” For Jasper, this is fairly intuitive - key suppliers to the MOD, technology, energy etc, however the nuance now is because national security is starting to move away from just these things, as geopolitics shift. The problem with the merging control thresholds The problem with the introduction of these merging control thresholds is that people are concerned that by giving so much discretionary authority to the government, it might discourage investors from investing in the UK. You’ve also got to really understand the industry sectors you’re trying to define, says Jasper. For example, in July 2020, artificial intelligence, cryptographic authentication technology and advanced materials were three areas the government has said they want to focus their attention on. “But it's not industry sectors in their entirety, it's actually very well defined concise portions of specific technology that the government is zooming in on.” National pride versus national security “I don't think it's necessarily about national pride, I think it's more about wanting to have our own sovereign capability to manufacture things, or develop technologies without being reliant on anyone else.” Just look at the relationship between the UK and the EU, it’s never been so fraught. And if we were dependent on products or services exclusively generated in another country, that creates a dependency which could be a national security risk. National Security and Investment Act The key difference, says Jasper, between the Enterprise Act and the National Security Investment Act is the catchment area under the latter is much broader. But, he continues, we will see examples in future deals where it's not necessarily dependency on key technology for the UK Government, or key sectors of the economy, that becomes relevant from a national security consideration, more it’s about retaining that technology in the UK. “The National Security Investment Act allows a much broader range of national security topics to be brought in. I think we're going to see some interesting political debate.” How to mitigate national security concerns If there’s one thing English lawmakers are good at, says Jasper, it’s being creative with the law. “There's lots of things you can do to mitigate national security concerns. You can ring fence certain technology… when it comes to personal data of UK citizens, you could ring fence that… it's not a black or white zero sum game.” And for outside investors wanting to invest in a UK company, Jasper advises they first identify potential national security concerns up front. Then they need to be able to communicate their intentions with the deal, with their investment, effectively to the government to address those concerns. “You need to have lawyers who understand the regulations, the process. You also need people with a background in administration who understand how decision making in this area works. And you need to have communication experts that can help you to get the right message across to the right people at the right time.” Make your plan upfront, says Jasper, don’t plan as you’re going through the process. Jasper’s Montfort Maxim What would Jasper’s advice be for a client who may be about to become involved in a transaction that would involve the Enterprise Act, or the National Security Investment Act? “I would say step outside yourself, your own ideas, conceptions about your deal, and put yourself in the government's shoes. And then try to look at your contemplated deal objectively… and consider whether you think this transaction would warrant a calling or not.” Discussed in this podcast episode: What the Enterprise Act 2002 was meant to do The merging control thresholds National pride versus national security National Security & Investment Act How to mitigate national security concerns Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ Jasper Helder Jasper Helder Enterprise Act 2002 National Security and Investment Act

Karlia Lykourgou is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. She was called to the bar in 2013 and specialises in criminal defence cases. However, in 2020, she founded Ivy & Normanton, the first legal outfitter specialising in legal attire for women. “The struggle that women experience is different to the struggle that men can experience in the same industry. And I want to celebrate our contribution and assist those who don't come from the backgrounds that are traditional to the bar, to feel welcome, to come and flourish in it.” Ivy & Normanton Ivy & Normanton takes its name from Ivy Williams and Helena Normanton respectively, the first and second women to be called to the bar. But why do women need separate legal attire outfitters? In 2016 Karlia went shirt shopping and was confronted with a limited selection of legal shirts for women, compared to the rows of shirts for mens. “I just wanted to look as smart as they did, to feel as professional as they did when I was in court… I tried on a shirt, and it didn't fit like a woman's. It fitted like a school shirt, you know, straight down from the armpits, lots of volume.” And to add insult to injury, it was expensive. So she left the legal outfitters without a shirt, but with the idea to set up a legal outfitters specialising in court dress for women. “And that idea grew, the more time I spent in advocates’ rooms observing what the issues were with women's legal dress and simple things like having a collarette with velcro all the way up to the top meant that women's hair would often get caught in the velcro, it's very uncomfortable.” Launching “I didn't overthink it. I just knew it needed to be done. And I knew that when I started it, I would be very busy. I didn't appreciate the response I would receive when I launched and I was totally overwhelmed when we launched in June last year, and it just sort of blew up in an afternoon.” Their range is very customer-led, they listen to what female barristers want and they start to fill the gaps with what’s missing. “It's a very niche product, legal dress. We just want to make sure that we're providing what isn't there already, so that everyone can get on with the important job that they're doing. And no one has to feel excluded or uncomfortable or less than.” The importance of court wear “Legal dress serves a purpose in highlighting the formality of proceedings in a society that is increasingly casual. Having legal dress reminds us of how serious the issues we are discussing are.” Before Ivy & Normanton, there was court attire for women, but it wasn’t diverse and it wasn’t comfortable. With Ivy & Normanton, Karlia has enabled women to express themselves through their court clothing choices, and to do the job while dressed appropriately, and look better while they’re at it. “There's that old adage - the clothes maketh the man. And when you feel good, when you look good, when you're comfortable, your mind isn't considering your discomfort, it is focusing on the things that are at hand.” Because if your brain is even 1% thinking about your attire, then it’s not doing the job it’s being paid to do, and that’s not fair of you, and it’s not fair of the client you’re representing. The other reason Karlia feels so strongly about court attire women is that you have to dress a certain way to sell yourself to your professional client. You want them to put trust in you, to have faith in you because you’re their voice in court. And when you don’t look the part, you’re starting from a disadvantage because people will make assumptions about you. “If you are looking ramshackle, if you look disorganised then it might lead your client or the jury to think that your arguments or that the rest of your case is going to be disorganised or unkempt as well.” Launching a hijab for female barristers Ivy & Normanton have recently launched their court hijab. It’s made of sustainable bamboo silk so it's breathable, it's hypoallergenic. It's not too thick to make you hot, and it's not too thin so it doesn’t show your hair. Because it's bamboo silk, it's got a texture to it so it doesn't slide off your head either. You can tuck it in your collarette or over your collar or under your suit. “For us to put out a product that was really trying to help women express their religion and who they are in this very traditionally white male privileged industry, meant a lot to a lot of people.” Karlia wanted to portray real women and a diverse image of what it means to be a woman in law. “There's this image of what it is to be a barrister. You’re meant to be almost godlike, and always fearless and just always putting up with everything, and we are real people.” Karlia’s Montford Maxim Karlia’s advice for any young women coming behind her to the bar: first of all, never be less than you are. Secondly, find someone or something that inspires you and carry it with you through difficult times. “Sometimes you need someone else's words to give you a nudge back onto the track, but it can be extremely effective, even if it's just a Beyonce song, which works fantastically.” Discussed in this podcast episode: Launching Ivy & Normanton The importance of court wear What it means to be a diverse woman in law Let Beyonce inspire you Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ Karlia Lykourgou Ivy & Normanton

Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe is the former Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police. Currently he’s an adviser to the Financial Crime department at city law firm Rosenblatt. What you might not know is that he has made an arrest at every single rank, has ridden a horse at the Grand National, and has ridden a police horse at every London football ground during his term. The relationship between the police and the media Lord Hogan-Howe began his illustrious career with the South Yorkshire Police Force, joining them in the hunt for the notorious serial killer, Peter Sutcliffe. At the time, the entire country was captivated by ongoing events, but how important was the relationship between the police and the media during that hunt? “Vitally important, really, if you remember, there were 16 women who were murdered, and this went on over a period of years.” The police were overwhelmed by the amount of information they received, there were so many lines of inquiry. And the media were essential to providing this. “In any inquiry, there's only three ways to detect crime, you either get forensics from the scene that matches the suspect, you catch them doing it, [or] someone tells you who did it. And by far, that's the most effective way. The press are vital in putting you in touch with the country. 60 odd million people who will help you solve the crime.” The evolving relationship At the time, there was suspicion on both sides that both parties were withholding information. And to some extent that was true. But in order to successfully investigate a case, people have to trust that information they share to the police isn’t going to be made public. “There was a presumption [at that time] that the police wouldn't share any information with the press rather than the reverse. Now, on the whole, that presumption is reversed. The police will share as much as they can, unless there's a good reason not to.” There have been times since, when both sides have been deceived, when the press were too close to the police or vice versa, for both of them to do their job properly. “The press need to be independent, and to hold the police to account. And the police might need to investigate journalists. There is always going to be a proper distance. However, broadly speaking, it is a far better place than it’s ever been.” The rise in private prosecutions Private prosecutions, in particular in financial crime, have coincided with austerity. Economic crime is a difficult area to both investigate and prosecute because it plays on the fringes of criminal law. “To prove that you've actually got a crime compared to a bad business deal, or a misunderstanding, or anything else can be quite difficult. When you've got multi jurisdictions, this means a huge amount of cost around investigations at a time.” This is where Rosenblatt’s specialisation in Private Prosecutions comes to the fore ensuring that victims of crime can get to trial. And with law enforcement agencies tied up with their priorities around violence, there’s only so many resources they can throw at it. Through gathering evidence, drafting witness statements and making sure the Defendant attends court to answer the charges, Rosenblatt ensures that it can effectively pursue the most intricate of cases. “One of the benefits of pursuing a private prosecution is that you do an awful lot of the legwork, and eventually an independent prosecutor may step in and take over.” Managing the narrative around the 2011 London riots In the days around the riots, the media narrative wasn’t good. But it was vital that the reputation of London and the UK came out unscathed. First the police had to calm things down, then take a look at the rioters involved and thirdly, make sure it didn’t happen again while projecting a positive image of London. “In the succeeding 18 months, we had a team of 800 people who arrested 5500 rioters, 70% of who were charged, of which 90% pleaded guilty. 7 out of 10 of that group who were found guilty, were well known frequent offenders.” At the same time, the Metropolitan Police had to find £600 million of savings from a budget of £3.6 billion. And they did, while maintaining police officer numbers at 32,000. “We tried to get over the explanation that we were effective at doing our job. We were efficient. We were doing more with less. And in fact, during that time, over the next four years, we reduced crime by about 20%, including lots of murders.” How to handle the media as a senior police officer Be open with the press, be straight with them, agree to disagree, don’t do subterfuge, don’t do any Machiavellian tactics, don’t hide things, explain things and do your best to improve things. Take criticism on the chin and accept you’re playing a big boy’s game, and never complain. “Do your job. Just do your job, according to the law, do your job according to your best efforts. And if you're doing your best, what more could anybody criticise you for?” Discussed in this podcast episode: The relationship between police and media while hunting Peter Sutcliffe Introduction of lawyers into police interviews His work with Rosenblatt Dealing with cryptocurrency Handling media around 2011 London riots How US police and DAs use the media Handling the media as a senior police officer Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ Rosenblatt appoints Lord Hogan-Howe as an adviser to its White Collar Fraud & Financial Crime division Lord Hogan-Howe

David Marchant is an investigative journalist, the founder and editor of OffshoreAlert, the leading online news portal for insolvencies, disputes and other problems in high value cross border finance. He started his career working for the Gwent Gazette before leaving Britain for sunnier climes. “It was a great grounding as a young journalist. But within six years I was living in Bermuda, which had zero unemployment and was a microcosm of capitalism.” He initially took a job with the Royal Gazette daily newspaper, covering business. “And I knew nothing about business. I mean, nothing, right? I mean, much less the highly specialised international business that was conducted in Bermuda.” Getting kicked out of Bermuda Concerned his career wasn’t going anywhere, David refocused his efforts on investigative journalism, and was kicked out of the country while writing about a $65 million fraud committed by the who’s who of Bermuda. “When I say kicked out, I was no longer able to have a work permit to continue living and working in Bermuda. I’m the only journalist that I'm aware of that has been denied that right.” It was then he launched OffshoreAlert. OffshoreAlert While David’s initial motivation may have been to prove to the Bermuda authorities that he would not be silenced, he became interested in offshore financial centres more generally. David realised that although these were jurisdictions where major international business was being transacted there was very little news coming out about the companies and individuals that were based there. Much of what David reports on Offshore Alert s is around potential fraud, in particular white collar crime. As such, he's been on the receiving end of a lot of lawyer’s letters. He’s been sued in Canada, in the US at federal and state court, in the High Court in London and at least twice in Panama and in Grenada. He’s also received death threats. So how does he stay unemotional in the face of all this, and still carry on reporting? Dealing with being sued “I had to earn my spurs, I had to make people afraid to sue me. And you've got to go through the battles to earn that fear.” The first person to sue David for libel was Marc Harris, an American accountant based in Panama. He was running a criminal enterprise, helping drug dealers conceal their money, while simultaneously stealing their money. “He [Marc] was later arrested in Nicaragua, put on a plane to the United States without any extradition proceedings, he was just deported. And he was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison.” David has subsequently engineered a situation where he believes criminals are afraid of him, they’re afraid to even send a letter of complaint, much less sue him, because his attitude now is, ‘you want to sue me? I’m going to be your worst nightmare’. The Speech Act of 2010 “Prior to 2010, any time I or the company got sued outside the United States, I would defend the actions. And trust me, that's an expensive process. I got sued in the Cayman Islands, my legal fees were $350,000.” Now, if he gets sued outside of the US he doesn’t have to spend one single cent as opposed to potentially having to spend millions of dollars on fighting what he terms ‘a lost cause’. Ethical boundaries David categorically states he wouldn’t touch large data dumps that were obtained illegally, such as the Panama Papers. It would make him incredibly uncomfortable. “With the Paradise Papers, I really didn't see that much evidence of criminality, it was more where we don't think this is right, which is a subjective opinion.” As the organiser of conferences, he has to have a commercial relationship with the big offshore legal companies, some of whom he’s written stories about. So how does he continue to uncover wrongdoing and accept their money to sponsor his events? “Our clientele are sophisticated. We cover high value cross border finance. And I think sophisticated people are more inclined to accept the fact that we are an independent company, we are a news organisation, first and foremost, that also holds conferences.” Advice for future investigative journalists First off, David wouldn’t recommend anyone enter the realm because the obstacles are so extreme. “But if despite me deterring them from going into it, they still wanted to do it, they would have passed the first test.” Secondly, you’ve got to be emotional to want to do it, to be really pissed off at fraud, but you have to be able to leave emotion to one side. “If you can't prove something with documentary evidence, don't write it. Before you publish anything, you have to imagine yourself in court, defending to a legal standard what you're about to publish.” Discussed in this podcast episode: Getting kicked out of Bermuda Founding OffshoreAlert Dealing with death threats The Speech Act of 2010 The Panama Papers The Montfort Maxim Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ OffshoreAlert OffshoreAlert Fintel Conference

Susan Dunn, the founder of Harbour Litigation Funding, is one of the most experienced and well-known professionals in the global litigation funding sector, in particular, for pioneering the way for litigation funding in the UK. Susan has been instrumental in shaping public policy about funding, and was a founding member of the Association of Litigation Funders of which she was appointed chair in September 2019. Susan had planned to be the senior partner of the law firm she joined as a trainee, but life intervened. In what she describes as her ‘Sliding Doors’ moment, a chance meeting with a barrister on a tube train in 2002 set her on the path into litigation funding, and she hasn’t looked back. The change in opinion around funding For a long time, the upper echelons of the legal market believed that funding wasn't something they needed to trouble themselves with, believing that their clients would pay their bills. Today, the lawyers who don’t access funding are the ones who are behind the curve. “In the beginning it was very much, ‘please have some of my money, wouldn't you like to have my money?’ I found it weird that I was having to ask people, ‘who wants to take money from me?’ Now there isn't any type of client or any type of law firm that isn't using funding.” The cases she’s most proud of Susan is very proud that Harbour was involved in the funding of the business interruption insurance claims brought last year, for businesses where the insurers weren’t paying out at a time when they needed cash for survival. “Now we're seeing those claims being paid, hopefully these businesses will then emerge from lockdown and survive.” Harbour also helped 15,000 Indonesian seaweed farmers when a negligently maintained oil rig spilt oil that destroyed their seaweed crop. They are funding the high profile employment status claims on behalf of Uber drivers who have not been paid minimum wage or holiday pay. They are also funding the equal pay claims on behalf of thousands of women working for supermarkets who are not being paid the same as their male colleagues in the warehouses. What she looks for in a claim When Susan started in litigation funding, Harbour was the only funder in the market. Now it’s a complex arena with lots of players. So what is it that she looks for in a claim, in the current environment? “The criteria for what makes a good case hasn't changed in 20 years. You always have the same starting points: Who is the party you're asking to pay and their ability to pay? Where are they located? What's the value of the claim? What's the realistic minimum value of the claim? What's the realistic budget for the claim?” Essentially, how you’re going to get paid is the key concern in a case, it’s only once you’ve established that, do you dig into the legal strengths and weaknesses of the case. Because if a case ends up costing more than initially thought, no one will be happy. They’ve turned down cases where they think they’ll win, but they know there won’t be sufficient funds for everybody to walk away happy. The class action space How are Harbour prepared for the class action space that is coming, with data breach cases, cases around privacy and other similar issues? How will they get people to join classes when there are multiple claims being run to choose from? Cautiously, says Susan, while the case law is developing. They don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket. “We receive many applications for funding every month. That puts us in the luxurious position of being able to choose which cases we want to do.” How to get funding from Harbour If you’re a lawyer, listening to this episode and wondering what you need to do to get funding from Harbour, Susan has this advice for you: She will know nothing about your case, so give her your shortest elevator pitch: A short summary of the claim, is it against someone who can pay?, why you think the claim is worth what you say?, how much funding you need?, what the legal strengths and weaknesses of the claim are. Do not, under any circumstances, present her with huge reams of documents, and remember, her least favourite words are: “Here’s a link to my data room”. Make it interesting, and don’t give her bad cases hoping Harbour will make them good. “I can't make a 20% chance of success case better. That's not what we do. So think about it. From our point of view. If you wouldn’t fund this case, if you were a funder, we're probably going to agree with you.” Discussed in this podcast episode: Changing opinion around litigation funding The cases Susan’s most proud of What Harbour look for in a claim The class action space How to get funding from Harbour Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ https://harbourlitigationfunding.com/ Susan Dunn

Tracey Dovaston is a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, with over two decades experience in financial services regulatory investigations, and corporate investigations and disputes. Having been Head of Litigation Investigations and Enforcement for Barclays in the UK and EMEA, and holding an equivalent role at GE Capital for the EMEA region prior to this, and now as a partner in private practice, Tracey has deep experience and a detailed rounded perspective of this traditionally male-dominated area of law. Regulatory Corporate Investigations “I’ve spent a lot of time advising clients on regulatory expectations, when they need to notify the regulators, and improvements that can be made to their systems and controls.” A few week’s prior to lockdown 2020, Tracey joined Boies Schiller Flexner as a partner, coming back to her roots, dealing with high value, high stakes litigation. “My work now covers exactly what I've covered over my whole career. Complex banking and finance disputes, regulatory advisory and investigations. And I'm currently advising both firms, and also senior executives in these kinds of investigations.” Regulating the regulators In recent years, regulators have changed their communications strategy, taking a more proactive stance in some instances, something they’ve not done before. “The regulators definitely appear to be communicating more widely, more often and more proactively. I think they've come under attack, particularly in the last couple of years, by not doing enough to protect consumers.” Like the firms they regulate, the FCA also wants to protect its reputation from coming under attack, yet the press release that was issued, in respect of the Gloster Report doesn’t seem to have been sufficient to protect it. “A lot of effort is put into the press releases that accompany final notices of an enforcement investigation, for example. And they can be revealing.” In fact, they can be a significant reputational issue for a firm, and in some cases, the damage to a firm’s reputation can be more severe than the penalty suffered by the firm. All this interest around the regulators stems from much deeper media coverage and general public understanding of investigations. Leading to a recent debate around whether there should be a regulator of regulators. “They're talking about creating an office for responsible financial regulation. It's going to be like a new statutory body to join the ranks of Ofgem, which will scrutinise the regulators.” Reputation management More and more of Tracey’s clients are coming to understand where reputation management fits in. “From my in-house experience, [I gained] a real insight into working with the media and understanding when it is appropriate, and when it isn't, to provide comments, but also the nature of the comments when provided.” Then there’s the issue of what happens if people make the wrong comments, and if you need to make an announcement to the markets, what’s the communication strategy? Plus, there’s the undeniable situation of leaks. Even with regulatory investigations, with corporate investigations, with investigations relating to High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI), or senior executives, leaks are becoming more and more commonplace. Which forces corporates and HNWI to the fore, to take jump before they’re pushed. How can individuals protect their reputation from the outset? “You may find yourself under investigation when you haven't done anything wrong, or innocent before proven guilty. This isn't just for criminal investigations. This is for the regulatory investigations. Often investigations have started just as an exploration exercise, it doesn't mean that people have done something wrong.” Working in a male dominated area of law What has been Tracey’s experience working in the traditionally male dominated area of investigations? And why is it mainly men who are attracted to it? “More women are willing to enter into this kind of work if they see other women doing that work. I'm pleased to say a growing number of women are now making names for themselves in the white collar investigation space.” If you can’t see it, you can’t be it. So how can firms attract more women into these roles? “The culture at firms makes an enormous difference. Introduction of working from home policies, flexible working, properly thought out mentoring programmes, and development and training programmes targeted for women.” Tracey’s top tip for women in law “I've said yes to every opportunity. Particularly in the early stages of my career, if I'd been nervous or scared. I've still said yes, you need to put your fear behind you.” Don’t overthink and wait to see, put your hand up, volunteer, take on a new challenge, you never know where it may take you. As Richard Branson said, if someone offers you an amazing opportunity, and you're not sure you can do it, say yes, then learn to do it later. Discussed in this podcast episode: Regulatory Corporate Investigations Regulating the regulators Reputation management Working in a male dominated area of law Barclay’s mindful business charter Tracey’s top tip for women in law Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ Tracey Dovaston Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Charlie Holt is a lawyer for Greenpeace International. Prior to joining the legal unit at Greenpeace as Legal Counsel Campaigns, Charlie was a legal consultant in Somaliland, working on justice sector reform. “I found the development sector to be quite a frustrating sector to work in. But it was one of the reasons I was so attracted to Greenpeace. [There’s] something enormously empowering, I think, about working with a group that engages in direct action, confrontational campaigning.” Greenpeace International Lawyers Charlie’s work for Greenpeace International involves working on top level strategy across the whole Greenpeace network, as well as working to support national and regional Greenpeace offices. Charlie is a campaign lawyer who advises campaigns on defensive legal strategy and strategic litigation. “So in terms of how we divide that up, we have different lawyers that work on different campaigns. So for example, I was working on deforestation, on climate and energy policy, and on toxic pollution when I first started.” While Greenpeace International will often bring lawsuits, they aren’t always the claimants, Charlie says they recognise that sometimes it’s better if they’re simply there in a supporting role behind the scenes. Strategic communications Strategic communications in the media is one way in which Greenpeace International fights environmental legal cases, and it’s something that Charlie has seen evolve during his time with them. “This isn't unique to Greenpeace. But whenever we pursue a strategic lawsuit, we aim for it to have an impact that goes beyond that particular case. That's what makes it strategic. Our goal is to inspire others to challenge the impact of environmental destruction in court.” This strategy has been particularly successful in the context of climate litigation, for example. “Climate litigation was something of a novelty. And that's definitely not the case. Now, in fact, there are currently around 600 legal cases filed by individuals and NGOs that assert the rights of people impacted by the climate crisis.” And one of the things that has happened as a result of these cases gaining more profile, is the rise of SLAPP actions, Charlie’s speciality at Greenpeace International. SLAPP lawsuits Charlie encourages people to think of SLAPPs as a form of backlash against successful campaigning and advocacy. He defines a SLAPP as an abusive lawsuit designed to silence or shut down critical speech. In his opinion it is essentially a form of censorship. Put simply, says Charlie, SLAPP stands for: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, where public participation is defined broadly to encompass all sorts of campaigning advocacy activity, as well as public interest journalism. “It works to silence speech or public participation, for example, peaceful protest, not through the outcome of the lawsuit, but through the litigation process. [Which] is used to intimidate and harass the target.” How have SLAPP lawsuits affected work at Greenpeace International? Charlie says they’ve been targeted by SLAPPs from all around the world. “These lawsuits took an incredibly aggressive form, in the sense that we were sued using anti-racketeering RICO laws for the most obscene amounts of money. In one case for over $300 million US dollars.” By using RICO in this way, Charlie argues that Greenpeace International’s opponents are arguably attempting to make everyday advocacy activity, such as signing petitions or letter writing, a criminal activity. Protect the protest Charlie’s work at Greenpeace International has led to the creation of a strategy which can be extended to smaller groups, to help them fight SLAPPs. This strategy is called Protect the Protest. It’s an anti-SLAPP coalition with a tripartite structure: “Part of it deals specifically with legal response. Part of it deals with a campaign response. And the other one deals with communications.” Discussed in this podcast episode: Charlie Holt’s journey to working at Greenpeace International The work of lawyers at Greenpeace International Strategic communications and environmental litigation The rise of SLAPP lawsuits The use of RICO against campaigning organisations in the US Protect the Protest Montfort Maxim Links https://www.greenpeace.org/international/explore/about/legal/ https://www.greenpeace.org/international/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlie-holt-6bb204b1/ https://protecttheprotest.org/ Robert Reich - SLAPP - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlhVHiWM4yk John Oliver - SLAPP - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU

This special episode delves into the complex world of whistleblowing with an impressive panel of experts from the truth seeking frontline. Constantine Cannon’s whistleblower lawyers, Mary Inman and Henry C Su, alongside investigative journalists, Martin Wright and Katherine Eban, paint a stark picture of the US and UK legal and social landscapes within which whistleblowers have to survive. From a $48 million whistleblower reward to the new Officials Secrets legislation in the UK, the panel are clear – with reporting under siege, whistleblowers must be protected and valued more than ever before. Media attacks “I think we need to put a health warning on this, because our traditional media is under fire. Its traditional financial models are crumbling….it’s unlike anything we have seen before, and this is a huge challenge to the democratic process”, warns British journalist, Martin Wright. So, as it stands, whistleblowers ‘have become the fourth branch of government’ and the ‘watchdogs’ of society. They are in need of improved legal protection on both sides of the pond, Mary proclaims. Why? Well, becoming a whistleblower can mean ruinous repercussions of perpetual unemployment and physical threats for the whistleblower and their family – and, all for the greater good of society as a whole. In the case of the pandemic whistleblower Rick Bright for example, it was the public health threat posed by the corrupt funding of hydroxychloroquine production companies by the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency which drove him to sound the alarm. Much like, as Catherine describes using her first-hand knowledge of the case, the whistleblower Dinesh Thakur who denounced India’s largest pharmaceutical company, Ranbaxy Laboratories. Both cases lost them their jobs. US and UK protections The panel agrees that the ideal legal system should encourage whistleblowers to come forward, preclude prosecution and enforce action to be taken to right the wrong for which whistleblowers irreversibly turn their lives upside down. The latter aspect, Mary points out, is a detrimental flaw in the UK system along with the default culture of governmental secrecy. On the other hand, where the US’s ‘reactive’ but ‘fragmented’ whistleblowers legal framework lags behind the UK’s ‘employment retaliations’, it makes up for it in bounty programmes – such as that which won Dinesh $48 million in reward money. Rewards Now, whilst $48 million seems like a ‘gobsmacking’ amount, especially to the British attitude that whistleblowing should be for the moral satisfaction of doing the right thing, Mary is on a crusade to convince the Brits otherwise – and with some success. Quoting from the recently converted Baroness Kramer, Mary makes her point: “If someone loses their hand working on a production line, we will pay career long unemployment insurance. But why is that any different than what a whistle-blower suffers? It's career blacklisting.” So, the verdict is in – whistleblowers need protection, action and deserved unemployment insurance in the name of democracy, truth and what is due for the courage to sacrifice their lives for the betterment of society. Discussed in this podcast episode Introductions to the panel of whistleblower experts US and UK legal and cultural differences for whistleblowers Attack of the media in the UK and the US Whistleblower cases of Dinesh Thakur and Rick Bright Recharacterising rewards into unemployment insurance Dreams and hopes of legal protections Links https://montfort.london/team/stuart-leach/ https://constantinecannon.com/attorney/mary-inman/ https://constantinecannon.com/attorney/henry-c-su/ https://www.theguardian.com/profile/martin-wright https://www.katherineeban.com/about https://www.katherineeban.com/praise https://www.democracynow.org/2019/7/19/15_years_later_how_uk_whistleblower https://dineshthakur.com/about-2/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-president https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/politics/rick-bright-coronavirus-whistleblower.html https://members.parliament.uk/member/1557/contact

Sharon Jones graduated with honours from Harvard Law School in 1982 and, yet, during her time as US federal prosecutor she felt she was met with the assumption of being an incompetent lawyer by virtue of not being a white man. “Why aren't they pleading guilty? And the answer is that the defendant’s attorneys assumed I had no skills, that I didn't know what I was doing, and that they could go to trial against me and win,” she recalls. Black, female role model Defeating the structural biases she faced because of her gender and race, Sharon is now a leader and role-model to black and female lawyers around the world. “There were very, very few black women federal prosecutors in Chicago. At the time, there were probably two others. And maybe the office had 100 lawyers. And in history, there had only probably been a few others... less than five,” Sharon describes. With ‘intention’ and a sharp business and legal mind, Sharon went on to become a highly successful in-house lawyer with Fortune 500 Corporations, a co-founder of Black Women Lawyers Association of Chicago and the Chief Operating Officer of the Chicago Urban League. She is now CEO of diversity consultancy, Jones Diversity - advising businesses, including leading global law firms, on diversity and inclusion strategies. A history of anti-racism protects Through the decades, from the protests surrounding Rodney King’s police beating in the early 1990s to the protests surrounding George Floyd’s murder in 2020, Sharon provides insight into the similarities, differences and the search for racial justice in America. On the similarities, the morbid fact is that ‘year after year’ there have been similar numbers of racially motivated murders by the police, with George Floyd’s tragic killing being the ‘final straw’. The difference between the 1990s and the 2020s protests, however, are the allies coming out in support of the Black community. Across the world, from London to Berlin, all ages and all ethnicities have banded together in the present day to fight in this battle against racism, injustice and inequality. “You see all people, of all ages, but primarily young people, but all races. That's significant because in the Rodney King days you did not see white people marching with black people,” Sharon explains. Implicit bias In discussing the patterns of ‘unconscious, implicit bias’ which arises from largely living and socialising within our own ethnic groups, Sharon identifies how the work place is the point at which ethnicities meet. “The difference is – white people have all the power,” she points out. And then asks the sobering question, “how many white, powerful men mentor a black person?” Becoming an ally With the answer to that likely to be few, if majority communities want to contribute to dismantling a system built on racism, and sexism, Sharon advises it is about opening your eyes to racial and gender disparities, educating yourself, speaking up and being ‘willing to push for changes to limit the disparities’. Montfort Communications is proud to provide pro bono support to a range of initiatives that encourage diversity and inclusion including: 100BlackInterns, The 30% Club, The Taylor Bennett Foundation and the Gray's Inn Mentoring Scheme. Discussed in this podcast episode Introducing Sharon Jones, founder and CEO of diversity consultancy, Jones Diversity Assumptions of not being qualified for the job as a female Rodney King attacks, the history and the reaction Differences in anti-racism protests from 1990s to 2020 Lack of black leaders – unconscious, implicit bias Business and majority responsibility to use their power for diversity Montfort Maxim on becoming an ally Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ https://jonesdiversity.com/about/sharon-jones/ https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Game-Strategies-Career-Success/dp/0999879200/ https://ms-jd.org/library/abstract/walking-talk-creating-law-firm-culture-where-women-succeed https://legalcomplianceinsight.com/products/the-diversity-agenda-lessons-and-guidance-from-the-legal-profession#.WwM1nEgvzIU https://bwla.org/ https://30percentclub.org/ https://www.100blackinterns.com/ https://www.taylorbennettfoundation.org/ https://www.graysinn.org.uk/education/students/career-services/mentoring-scheme

With eyes glued to Netflix and Zoom meetings replacing office space, this ‘lockdown’ has accelerated a ‘digital transformation’ across the world. At the intersection of this new online society is the tech industry, which this week’s guest, Ashley Hurst, International Head of Technology, Media and Comms at Osborne Clarke, says is one of the ‘winning sectors’ of the pandemic. As a commercial litigator specialising in internet, data and reputation issues, Ashley is an authority on the media sector, cyber security, and internet regulation, including in relation to attempts to regulate "online harms" such as fake news, extreme content and child exploitation. Netflix domination Prior to Covid-19, Netflix was already giving the traditional broadcasting industry a run for its money. But, now, with health and safety concerns halting live television and film production, the battle has intensified. “It is going to be a very interesting space to watch as to whether there will be a consolidation” in the European market, Ashley says. New opportunities? Drawing on his considerable tech experience, Ashley tells Montfort Communications that law firms needn’t consult the oracle as to what will be the next ground-breaking technological invention that drives demand for legal services. “A lot of the opportunities are right under our noses; we don’t always have to be thinking of the next complicated technology,"” Ashley advises. In particular, he points out how the increased adoption of software platforms to streamline processes is driving much of the work done by lawyers. Much of the challenge in the adoption of these platforms is training people to change their old-fashioned practices. Ashley says lockdown has forced businesses to accelerate that process. Cyber security Yes, there are security issues surrounding video conferencing, however, Ashley suggests that this has been overhyped and most privacy concerns in relation to such platforms are down to sloppy password control and link oversharing. “It is mainly around human behaviours rather than tech failure,” he suggests. UK regulatory landscape With lives moving online, data, content and privacy have become the most pressing internet issues to date triggering an explosion of internet law in the past five years in the US and Europe. Ashley discusses the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Platforms to Business Regulation and a new Online Harms Bill, which is in the process of being drafted to tackle harmful online content. “So, the internet is becoming crowded in regulatory terms. It is becoming difficult to keep track of it all and the overlaps between various forms of legislation,” he explains. US immunity defences Meanwhile in the US, online platforms are having their immunity defences under Section 230 of the US Communication Decency Act challenged and are facing regulatory and political wrath for their efforts or lack of them to minimise hate speech and protect children. But when it comes to online content, Ashley warns that any regulation needs to tread carefully to avoid a liability tsunami by effectively making ‘platforms liable at the point of publication’. Instead, with his wealth of knowledge, he advises policy makers on the right track by aiming for a ‘code of conduct regime’ and putting the onus on the industry to self-regulate. Discussed in this podcast episode: Introduction to Ashley Hurst, Head of Technology, Media and Comms at Osborne Clarke How Netflix has put traditional media under threat The next big technological opportunity Video conferencing cycle security Internet legislation in the EU and the UK Immunity defence erosion in the US A code of conduct regime suggestion Links: https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ https://www.osborneclarke.com/lawyers/ashley-hurst/ https://gdpr-info.eu/ https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

As a result of COVID-19, 2020 will mark a year of sudden, unprecedented and historic global change. Current geopolitical tensions are also reminiscent of the 1930s and now we have the added and increasing threat of climate change. As the pressures of lockdown prey on our collective morale, the question is - are there any reasons to be optimistic? Well, Professor Malik Dahlan sees the answer to this question in the increasing appreciation of legal ethics, the Golden Rule and their application through the Rule of Law. As a Professor of International Law and Public Policy at Queen Mary University in London with a background in Islamic Law, Malik brings a multi-cultural wealth of knowledge and hopeful guidance to the Montfort Communications podcast table during these challenging times. “I would say that the best manifestation of the Golden Rule is an appreciation or respect for the Rule of Law”, Malik shares. The Golden Rule, of course being, treat others how you want to be treated. 9/11, Black Lives Matter and COVID-19 Not only that, but with the Black Lives Matters protests erupting across the world in defiance of the systemic racism which many feel represents disrespect for the Rule of Law, Malik’s personal background and experiences as an international lawyer and mediator makes his voice a timely and important one to listen to. Malik was only two days into his first job as a corporate lawyer in the US when the tragic September 11th attacks took place. As a Saudi national and practising Muslim living in New York, he had to deal head on with Islamophobia and misconceptions about his world views. “To say the least, it was traumatising. And I don't think anything reminded me of those feelings as much as the COVID-19 pandemic did,” he reveals. Dangers There is a definite sense that the political tensions of the world are reaching a crescendo. He observes that the current trends around profiling individuals, restrictions on civil liberties and racial injustices are the same ‘dangers’ which acted as precursors to more widespread societal anti-Semitism in the 1940s and Islamophobia in the 2000s. And to top it all off, Trump’s withdrawal from multilateral agreements like the Paris Agreement, which aims to tackle climate change, and the World Health Organisation, threatens the collapse of global governance under the Rule of Law. “Without maintaining some semblance of a multilateral system… there is going to be great instability for the rest of the world.”, Malik warns. Ethical leadership What he also sees, however, is that the younger generations of lawyers today have a greater ‘sense of duty’ to fix the issues bestowed upon the world by the materialistic generations of post WW2 and the Baby Boomers. In his final wise words, he calls for ethical leadership and a two-way dialogue to ‘bridge the gap’ between generations and allow younger voices to be heard and drive positive change using their sense of moral duty, ethics and the Golden Rule. Discussed in this podcast episode Meeting Malik R. Dahlan, Professor of International Law and Public Policy, Queen Mary University Ethics and the sense of moral duty of the young generations Ethics, the Golden Rule and the Rule of Law Experience as a Muslim lawyer in the US post 9/11 Growing and worrying political tensions Advice for lawyers and the worried youth of today The demise of the multilateral system and the call for ethical leadership Links https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/ https://quraysh.com/professor-dahlan/ https://www.qmul.ac.uk/law/people/academic-staff/items/malik-rdahlan.html

When it comes to state endorsed sanctions, Investigative Lawyer and Partner, Matt Getz, tells Montfort Communications that business reputation is at the mercy of geopolitics, complex law and inaccurate reporting. Matt tackles cases on corruption and white-collar crime and represents multinational corporations in their moment of crisis for his internationally revered firm, Boies Schiller Flexner. In an educational account of financial crime, Matt unveils the differences between the EU and the US model of sanction endorsements, predictions on what the UK’s post-Brexit freedom may entail and how media consultants are ‘invaluable’ when it comes to protecting businesses from uncorroborated press accounts. Innocent and guilty; sanctions take all Whilst a sanction is a form of financial punishment in response to illegal conduct by a state, company or an individual, sanctions also exist for geopolitical gain, as seen in the theatrical US play against Iran resulting in the EU being left in a precarious political position. Unfortunately, however, even though sanctions aim to financially strangle the sanctioned party, there are often innocent bystanders who are affected. “It’s long been recognised that sanctions create an inconvenience and some difficulty for innocent parties, you know like innocent parties in the United States or the EU who are dealing with [the sanctioned party]”, says Matt. That is to say, even by association with a sanctioned party, businesses can become entangled in a web of threats to their public credibility which is driven by the chessboard of international politics. Unreliable reporting is a business nightmare On top of that, journalistic inaccuracy often results in irreversible reputational cost. “A lot of the reporting about that is just wrong, because it does not take into account what the law is about sanctions, or what the purposes of sanctions are,” Matt explains. And, as a former journalist, Matt does have a lot of sympathy, but whether it is because the law is too complex, reporters are time constrained, or a combination of both, it is business reputation that pays the ultimate price. Or as Matt puts it, “once a narrative is out there that such and such a person is a baddie, it’s very difficult to dislodge that narrative”. Overt reliance on press releases Most shockingly, or worryingly, he reveals that ‘a very large proportion’ of the evidence relied upon by prominent institutional bodies, for example within the EU, are press releases and media publications. That’s right. The information used to trigger financially and reputationally ruinous sanctions is rarely gathered by an astute investigator, but more commonly ‘the only evidence’ is sought from newspaper articles - or even, as in one case, some [ 1] blogger in Ukraine. Communications expertise is the prudent defence Thankfully for Matt’s clients, his investigative legal work and rebuttals are able to save them from the tarnish of the sanction brush. But, in this world of unforgiving and livelihood destroying news, Matt is clear - media strategy and communications expertise is vital to safeguard business reputation when crisis strikes. Discussed in this podcast episode Introduction to Matt Getz, Lawyer and Partner at Boies Schiller Flexner How it all began with US sanctions on Iran US and EU divergences in enforcement and sanctions law Predictions of UK’s post-Brexit sanctions strategy Unreliable reporting and dangerous press releases The value of communications expertise Links https://www.bsfllp.com/lawyers/matthew-getz.html https://montfort.london/team/alex-just/ https://montfort.london/ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/13/contents/enacted

In a special collaboration between Montfort Communications and Institution Quraysh (iQ), Professor Malik Dahlan has the privilege of discussing the role the Rule of Law has to play in current world events with one of the greatest jurists of our times, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf. As a Crossbench Peer in the House of Lords with a rich international career, Lord Woolf shares tales of dramatic interactions with Russia’s President Putin, his experience of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Hong Kong and his wisdom on the historic, but temporary, waves of global political tensions. “There are problems, and there are things to be very worried about, but in general, my feeling remains that looking at the matter globally, across countries, the appreciation of the Rule of Law is continually growing”, Lord Woolf reassures. History repeats itself Casting his mind back, he spots a trend. Today’s tensions between the West and Russia and China he admits are all too familiar to when leadership rivalries did not respect the Rule of Law. The most recent example of this is, of course, the police brutality and absence of police impartiality displayed in the murder of George Floyd. The systematic disregard of fair and impartial treatment by authorities for the citizens they are employed to protect, is an indicative red flag that the law is losing command in society. Despite current world events, Lord Woolf is optimistic for the future. This COVID-19 pandemic, the Black Lives Matter protests and the political tensions he views as temporary in the overall improvement of the world’s order. “I say worries, but I believe in the long term we can afford to be optimistic”, Lord Woolf reiterates. State prosperity The Rule of Law is a system of accountability for citizens and institutions, as well as the government to ensure each branch is subject to the same checks and balances. i.e. not even the government is above the law. “The observance of the Rule of Law is linked to the continued development and profitability of the state”, he explains when reflecting upon his years of travel around the world to educate about its importance. Hong Kong And there is no better evidence of the success of the Rule of Law in generating wealth than in Hong Kong. Following the 1997 ‘one country, two systems’ agreement with China, Hong Kong has prospered. However, now it is under threat. The CCP are attacking Hong Kong’s system of liberties, modelled under the British system of law, which is not only at odds with the Chinese system, but viewed as a threat to the CCP’s enduring rule. In China, “it is the party that is supreme, it is not the court”, Lord Woolf explains as the crux of today’s ongoing battle. Post COVID-19 Lastly, he predicts that technology will be of great assistance to steering the modern world out of the pandemic aftermath. But, with some final wise words of advice he warns, “the perfect is sometimes the enemy of the good”. Discussed in this podcast episode Introduction to Lord Woolf and his history of achievements Is the Rule of Law under threat? Today’s political tensions are temporary The Rule of Law and Hong Kong The Rule of Law as a threat to China Lord Woolf’s unexpected encounter with Putin Post COVID-19 advice – technology to the rescue Links https://montfort.london/ https://quraysh.com/ https://quraysh.com/the-rt-hon-the-lord-woolf/ https://members.parliament.uk/member/1773/career https://www.qmul.ac.uk/law/people/academic-staff/items/malik-rdahlan.html https://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/about-librarya-tradition-benefaction/squire-centenary-lecture-lord-woolf-rule-law-and-change

When international criminal tribunals deal with accusations of grave human rights abuses, genocide and crimes against humanity, media scrutiny is at its most ferocious and reputations at their most fragile. With his decades of experience on landmark cases in international courts like the UN Yugoslavia Tribunal and the International Criminal Court, Steven Kay QC, one of the world’s leading criminal lawyers, reveals that in high profile international criminal cases there are often blurred lines between the law, politics, the facts and a bias ‘narrative’ woven by the media. “The trials concentrate on politics as much as crime. And essentially, the prosecutors generally choose a side and it's that side’s version of events that’s the most important narrative.” His job is therefore to break down preconceived notions of what happened in history and reshape the narrative using the facts of the evidence - rather than whatever story has been crafted by political agendas or otherwise. ‘History is written by the victors’ In other words, Montfort Communications learns that there are two sides to every story and Steven’s job is to tell the side of the story the media often leaves strategically untold. For example, Steven argues that the narrative surrounding post-election violence of 2007 in the Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta trial was a bias tale written by the West and propelled by the BBC and CNN telling untruths about those really involved in the violence. “And it happened to be the case that it was the side that was being backed by the West that actually started the violence and the rioting, but events get forgotten”, Steven recalls. Reshaping narratives Informing public opinion of what really happened and who is responsible for such egregious crimes is a key part of achieving the justice that international tribunals are set up to achieve. As such, Steven says having experts to manage communications is ‘very helpful’ to allow the missing parts of the story to be heard. Reputation sabotage However, with international trials putting government reputations at stake, the pressure to win and avoid ‘major political embarrassment’ can result in underhand tactics and manipulation. Steven himself has been subject to smear campaigns where the opposition attempted to sully credible evidence that demonstrated the opposition’s case was ‘built on fabricated evidence’. That is to say, even in a court of international law, trickery is used to attack the reputations of individuals, including the lawyers, to create distracting media headlines and manipulate the public from hearing what is really going on in the courtroom. When trickery is at play, “you do need those experts around to help you try and deal with those events”, he says. Multi-disciplinary work in a globalised world Globalisation, technology and the speed at which information can imprint a prejudicial story on minds is changing the way legal and communication experts need to work together. Or, as Steven eloquently puts it, “a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has time to put its pants on” so multidisciplinary collaboration is the best available strategy to correct narratives and protect reputations. Discussed in this podcast episode Meeting Steven Kay QC, one of the world’s leading international criminal lawyers Reshaping narratives in court Reputation sabotage The power of media bias Having the experts to help protect reputation attacks A globalised world means multidisciplinary work strategy for the future Links https://montfort.london/ https://www.9bedfordrow.co.uk/our-team/barristers/steven-kay-qc/ https://www.icc-cpi.int/kenya/kenyatta https://www.icty.org/ https://museums.nuernberg.de/memorium-nuremberg-trials/

A professional who ‘defies categorization’, Michele DeStefano is a highly ranked ‘Legal Rebel’ who researches and writes about the growing intersections between law, business, and legal innovation. As a professor at the University of Miami School of Law and Affiliated Faculty at Harvard Law School, Michele understands why communications and law are becoming like yin and yang professions in reputation management. “It’s really important that communication outside the courtroom is managed, even more so than inside the courtroom given that so many cases never even make it to trial”, she explains. Litigation or not, communications and legal expertise should be sought In other words, reputation damage does not require a courtroom, lawyers or even a legal issue for share prices to take a long-lasting nosedive. In her paper, ‘Advocacy in the Court of Public Opinion’ she suggests that corporate counsels’ typical media strategy of saying no more than “no comment” is “no longer a viable strategy”. The multidisciplinary role of legal professionals Over the past decade, Michele has witnessed not only a need for professional collaboration but also an expansion of the role of the lawyer. The modern-day lawyer is not simply being asked to provide legal advice for risk management, but she has also observed that lawyers are expected to provide business advice to ‘add to their client’s bottom line’. “Lawyers need to do that, because if we don't help our clients understand what their company will be in the future, we can't help make sure that they're ready and compliant with all the different rules”, she explains. And, so, what Michele has understood as an innovation lawyer is that when clients ask their lawyers to ‘innovate’ they are actually asking for a ‘service transformation in disguise’. Or, in other words, a change on how ‘lawyers service their clients’. ‘Proactive co-collaboration’ As this trend for collaboration between experts in law and experts in communications continues to develop, Michele suggests that law firms consider how to strategically evolve. And to do that, she suggests ‘‘proactive co-collaboration’ as being the greatest tool for law firms to be able to keep up with the Joneses. But what exactly is ‘proactive co-collaboration’? Well, she describes it as an active willingness for law firms to engage with consultancies of different expertise in order to ‘provide clients with holistic advice and services’. Collaborating in such a fashion, she predicts, will show which law firms are ‘smart’ and able to adapt to modern day expectations and risks, as well as those that are not. Modern day collaboration as a three-legged race Put simply, Michele, sees co-collaboration as different teams of expertise ‘running a three-legged race’ with their ankles tied together. So, law firms have heard it from one of the world’s leading experts in legal innovation – future success will require reciprocal, balanced and co-dependent multidisciplinary teamwork. Discussed in this podcast episode An introduction to Michele DeStefano, a Legal Rebel and top legal innovator Communication management The expanding role of lawyers Service transformation in disguise ‘Proactive co-collaboration’ Law firm’s future success depends on a three-legged race Links https://montfort.london/services/litigation-and-disputes/ http://lawwithoutwalls.org/destefano https://www.law.miami.edu/faculty/michele-destefano https://execed.law.harvard.edu/faculty/ https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Upheaval-Creativity-Collaboration-Innovation-ebook/dp/B07GL95Q47 https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles/737/

In 2016, with lawyers often underwhelmed by the quality of investigative support, Nick Bortman filled the gap and co-founded Raedas - a corporate investigations consultancy purely focused on contentious work. Credible evidence for Raedas, means evidence that can stand up to scrutiny and make a real difference in resolving a dispute. In this recording, made in the middle of the UK’s COVID-19 lockdown, Montfort Communications hears how this specialist consultancy thrives in a niche. Litigation and high stakes asset recovery are the name of its game with Nick sharing stories of corruption, smuggling and a prediction of a white-collar crime “uptick” during this global pandemic. Dedication to contention From testimonial evidence to strategy, Nick and his team work with London’s most prestigious law firms in their time of need. Whether it be complex legal disputes, hostile public relations or an exceptional crisis, legal counsel rely on the Raedas team to find the evidence that matters. Evidence of platinum quality How do they do it? Well, in pre-COVID times, Raedas investigators travelled the world to source only the most credible information. For Nick that meant face to face interviews no matter how far the team needed to go to obtain cross-examination resistant testimonials. That is to say, unlike at some other investigation consultancies, at Raedas, there was no local outsourcing; no cutting corners. Why? Without such diligence, “your testimony is not going to be very reliable”, Nick explains. Which makes sense, there is no place for a courtside game of ‘Chinese Whispers’ in the heat of a crisis driven storm. Hollywood style investigations However, these contentious investigative quests do lead Nick into some movie style situations. In one exciting example, fraud, smuggling, ex-Scotland Yard officers and first-class flights to the other side of the world begin to colour the lengths investigators at Raedas will go to nail down credible evidence. Could it perhaps be said that Raedas is a law firm’s secret evidence-gathering weapon? In his worst example, Nick explains that during one corruption investigation he was falsely accused of witness tampering – in fact, it was opposing counsel’s own investigators playing dirty. “As an American citizen, you can imagine I didn't really appreciate someone making up that kind of thing and submitting it to the Justice Department,” Nick says. Evidence gathering during COVID-19 Now, however, with social distancing and airplanes grounded around the world, investigations have become more challenging. “I can't expect a potential witness or source to answer a cold call from me or one of my colleagues and then just within the space of, you know, a half an hour phone call start revealing their deepest secrets,” Nick says. Though, he admits, lockdown boredom is making cold calls slightly more welcome – which, if nothing else shows that human psychology really is “an odd thing”. COVID-19 means fraud And finally, what does contentious specialist, Nick, think about COVID-19 and fraud? Well, governments’ better get their audit teams ready as he predicts those relief packages are set to be “merrily abused”. Discussed in this podcast episode Meet Nick Bortman, Co-Founder and Partner of corporate investigations consultancy, Raedas Moving from journalism aspirations to law enforcement and investigations Raedas in a “specialist niche” Face to face interviews as the top priority Nick’s most compelling investigation story The effects of COVID-19, interviews and white-collar crime Links https://www.raedas.com/ http://www.raedas.com/team/nicholas-bortman/ https://montfort.london/ https://montfort.london/our-team/

What exactly are McMafia laws and what does it have to do with Mrs Hajiyeva spending £16 million in Harrods? Alan Ward, a senior lawyer at Stephenson Harwood specialising in corporate and white-collar crime, uncovers the details of the UK’s controversial anti-money laundering powers of Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs), both its background and its problems. Driven by his passion for fairness and justice, Alan advises clients accused of crimes such as corruption, money laundering and market abuse. His work has had clients acquitted in an ‘absolute heartbeat’ during a politically motivated extradition case involving British traders who he says were ‘wheeled across the Atlantic and made to stand trial for no good reason’. McMafia money and UWOs Headlines sounding the alarm on McMafia money, crimes, and laws have been hard to avoid. The root has been the lobbying and accountancy work of campaign groups such as Transparency International (TI) finding that £4.4 billion of London’s assets derive from the proceeds of crime – that’s right, billion! In response, in 2018, the UK Government brought into force a piece of legislation to investigate and take back illegally sourced money and assets, or McMafia money, using UWOs ‘an extraordinary form of disclosure order’. What makes UWOs extraordinary? Prior to UWOs, for the government to tackle McMafia money it had to prove the criminality to the courts. Instead, UWOs have reversed this burden of proof. “A UWO says you prove to us that it is not criminal property. And it is extraordinary in that regard as it completely inverts the recovery proceedings”, Alan explains. £16 million Harrods spend The first widely publicized case concerned Mrs Hajiyeva whose £16 million spending habits in Harrods didn’t quite add up to her husband’s state salary in Azerbaijan. To explain the difference, Alan says, is an accountancy nightmare made all the more difficult when the documentation is in another country and in a foreign language. “Being the recipient of UWOs is tantamount to being accused, very publicly, of being mixed up in McMafia style conduct” he warns. And without clients being given the opportunity to explain themselves, he says, it is an ‘obvious and real unfairness to me’. Public support Anonymity is said to be a client’s main concern with UWOs. However, if the cat is out of the bag and the media get a scent of who is next to be served, Alan suggests the objective would be for lawyers to work with communications professionals so the public ‘appreciate the unfairness of the process’. With only a few cases still on the books yet 140 said to be in progress, it is yet to be seen where UWOs will end up. Discussed in this podcast episode Meeting Alan Ward, senior lawyer in white collar crime An extradition trial for “no good reason” Life before UWOs Why UWOs are extraordinary The first UWO - £16 million spend in Harrods UWOs fundamental problems Important lawyer qualities Getting the right message in the media Links https://montfort.london/services/litigation-and-disputes/ https://www.shlegal.com/en/people/alan-ward https://www.shlegal.com/ https://www.transparency.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexplained_wealth_order https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/