Jump to content

Talk:Schillings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schillings: notability

[edit]

Notable law firm: Protecting rights and reputation of A-list celebrities —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRecontributer47 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

don't agree - any way should not be on this page if you wish to create a page do so as "Schillings (Lawyers). Codf1977 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiating current and former partners

[edit]

The current notable partners section does not differentiate between current and former partners, which we believe it should.

The current partners are:

- Keith Schilling / Rod Christie-Miller / Rachel Atkins / Jenny Afia / Chris Scott / Davina Katz (nee Hay)

- Christopher Mills is COO and the firm’s first non-legal partner. http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/from-celebrity-lawyers-reputation-defence-business-abs-completes-transformation

The former partners are:

- John Kelly, who joined Harbottle & Lewis in 2013. http://www.thelawyer.com/news/practice-areas/media-entertainment-and-sport-news/schillings-sports-star-john-kelly-quits-for-harbottle-and-lewis/3002949.article

- Simon Smith, who left Schillings in 2010. http://www.psb-law.co.uk/pagess/member-2/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schillings (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. It is of course right, as the Schillings people page confirms.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable partners

[edit]

Jenny Afia and Davina Katz have been removed on the basis of 'not sufficiently notable...; or unreferenced'. Here are some facts on their cases (listed in notable cases section) and awards that we think warrant Jenny and Davina's inclusion on the page:

- Jenny Afia http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28439754 (a Link to Jenny's work for Adele / Adele's son) http://www.spearswms.com/storefronts/jenny-afia-schillings/#.Ve1wbrL4_cs (Spear's 500 Index; also detailing Ned RocknRoll work) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/28/digital-rights-children_n_7884720.html (Work for iRights - project led by Barrenness Kidron in empowering children and young people in their use of the Internet)

- Davina Katz http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4a278a4e-7adc-11e4-b630-00144feabdc0.html (Davina acted for Dale Vince OBE in his appeal to strike out his ex-wife’s financial claim – issued 27 years after their separation) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/887.html (Davina acted for the applicant wife in a landmark case in which the wife was transferred properties in London and Cannes worth £8.8m, despite her husband divorcing her in his native Saudi Arabi) http://www.spearswms.com/storefronts/davina-katz-schillings-family/ (Spear's 500 Index)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Billett at Schillings (talk • contribs) 11:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at this and the partners mentioned were removed in this edit on 3 July 2015. Notability can be subjective, and there wasn't any obvious reason for removing these two partners. However, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn and there is no need or guarantee to mention all of the partners at the firm. Another point to bear in mind is WP:PEACOCK, which is information designed to portray people or events in a favourable light. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but may put back these two partners in a slightly shorter form.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of employees

[edit]

Schillings currently employs thirty three lawyers, risk managers and IT security consultants. https://www.schillings.co.uk/our-people At present, this is detailed as 'about fifteen' in the opening paragraph and believe this should be updated. Sam Billett at Schillings (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Schillings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close connection

[edit]

As already has been discussed, User:Deb has been engaged in an editing war with me, placing COI notices on all my recent Ly created articles as well as my latest edits. The fact that he is engaged in an edit war with me on various other pages is evident. Some might think he desires to place COI on all pages that I recently created might be motivated by that as he never gave his reasons for doing so. These notices should be removed accordingly.--Wikirecontributer47 (talk)

You previously admitted to being employed by a legal firm and you have deleted many warnings from your talk page. You have used multiple names, including "Sarah", "Anna" and "Alex". It's clear that you are continuing to edit articles about barristers and legal firms who may be rivals of your employer. In some cases you have made unexplained deletions. I am proposing that you agree to a voluntary topic ban and do not edit any further articles about barristers or legal firms. If you continue to do so, I will block you for disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious categories

[edit]

User:Deb Even if the category was added to the subject, [[category:barristers] or [category:religion]] it does not make me an employee of a church, barristers chambers or indeed a law firm. You are clearly engaged in an editing war with me and your allegations about a religious IT person working in a legal feeld are unfounded. Wikipedia requires that it be established in the COI case that there is a close connection. I have not made any deletions apart from deleting unsourced content. You also cannot use Wikipedia to threaten me and accuse me of working in a legal field or in a church when it’s evident from my website that I work in IT. User:WikiRecontributer47 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing War and unfounded accusations

[edit]

Deb What is your rationale for accusing an IT person of working for religious, political, and legal organisations which I make contributions about? Give your reasons. User:WikiRecontributer47 (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schillings staff update

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed (include citations): The introductory paragraph states that Schillings employs 33 lawyers, risk managers, and IT security consultants. It also cites a link that no longer works (Footnote 1). We would like to amend this to reflect the current make-up of fee-earning staff and provide a link to our current website.
  • Why it should be changed: Today, the company employs significantly more than 33 fee-earning staff, however we believe that including a figure is not useful as this number is likely to change on a regular basis. In addition, as evident from our People page (https://www.schillingspartners.com/people), the make-up of our staff has changed. In addition to lawyers and risk managers, we now employ investigators, communications advisors and digital resilience specialists too.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]

A.Mountford (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.schillingspartners.com/people
Thanks for your edit request. The first cite in the article dates back to 2015 and doesn't work now (it was added in October 2015, see above). It is difficult to keep a comprehensive and up to date list of partners in the article, and giving an exact number isn't helpful for this reason. I've adjusted the wording in the lead and given a new, working cite.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Can we please remove 'family lawyers' as we do not offer family law services anymore and therefore do not employ any family lawyers. A.Mountford (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Campbell v MGN Ltd. to 'Notable Cases' section

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed (include citations):

In 2001, Schillings represented Naomi Campbell in a breach of confidentiality claim against the Daily Mirror (Campbell v MGN Ltd) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd. The case claimed that the paper's publication of photos showing Campbell outside Narcotics Anonymous may deter her from seeking further treatment and discourage others from getting medical treatment if their images may appear in the press. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/mar/27/pressandpublishing.privacy. In March 2002, Campbell was awarded damages of £3500, but the case was overturned by the Court of Appeal six months later. The case was then heard on appeal in the House of Lords and won in Campbell's favour through a 3:2 majority. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/06/mirror.pressandpublishing1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm. In delivering its judgment, the House of Lord's confirmed that even celebrities are entitled to a private life (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-1.htm) and the case is regarded as a 'landmark ruling' in the area of privacy. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/07/pressandpublishing.privacy. MGN were ordered to pay Campbell's costs in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lord's, plus a success fee. In 2005, MGN petitioned against the success fee, but the law lords refused to change the rules on 'no win, no fee' deals. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/oct/20/pressandpublishing.mirror1; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4359100.stm


  • Why it should be changed:

The Campbell case is a landmark one in the area of privacy law, and is hailed as 'the most important privacy case since the implementation of the Human Rights Act'. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-1.htm. Campbell v MGN Ltd effectively helped to create a new form of privacy law. (https://spearswms.com/wealth/wealth-management/stop-the-presses/; https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-102-8134?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true A.Mountford (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schillings&oldid=1256980956"