All media editors are familiar with the type of letter that president Donald J. Trump’s lawyer has sent to the BBC, threatening to sue for $1bn. I know that because, even if a lawyer has marked it ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ (which Trump’s lawyer has not), they still get passed around between us. The more ridiculous they are, the wider the circulation.
These letters are no lurid illustration of US legal craziness. They happen here. I wonder if they are written less for us to read and actually take action as a result of, and more to show the client.
The letters have so many points in common, that if they are not already being written by AI, then AI could probably manage it.
The first common point is an invented deadline.
Trump’s lawyer has named midday (GMT) this Friday. The last one I received named ‘1pm, Monday’. It is mandatory for the letter writing lawyer to get quite, well, agitato if this invented deadline passes unheeded.
Secondly, it seems important to include a wild assertion of consequential loss. Last year I was shown one where a management consultancy’s lawyers insisted their client would lose every public sector contract it had (value £7.6m) if the fees it charged per hour were publicly known by the public who paid the fees. Never mind that the consultancy fee rates in question had already been published online by a government department in error. (The magazine – a small outfit – chose to approach the story in a different way.)
The letter from Trump’s lawyer asserts ‘the BBC has caused President Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm’, to the tune of $1bn. (To compensate for an election he won? Personally I’d stand firm on that one.)
Thirdly, the lawyer. Ah yes. The Solicitors Regulation Authority, in its SLAPPs enquiries, was looking in the wrong place, reviewing only case correspondence from respected specialist media firms. I’ve seen threatening letters from property partners, corporate lawyers, sole practitioners… all apparently willing to have a go.
Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito fits the bill rather well here – commercial, franchise and trade secrets disputes are his declared specialisms. Not quite Mishcon de Reya.
Fourth, a classic letter of this kind will fail to reflect ways in which the situation has developed. The BBC’s chair Samir Shah had already apologised for the way in which Panorama’s programme on the 6 January ‘insurrection’ edited Trump’s speech.
Is there anything surprising for a media editor in Brito’s letter?
Actually there is.
Despite acting for a president who is conducting a war on political correctness, in line with Law Society guidance, Brito eschews ‘Dear Sirs’, in favour of the gender neutral salutation, ‘Dear All’.
Progress of sorts.
The BBC has yet to write its reply.
2 Readers' comments