A celebrity ex-royal constantly invading their own privacy seems to be backing away from an invasion of privacy trial against a mass circulation publication.
Having requested a nine-month delay in providing personal information as part of proceedings, there appears not a single voice from the ‘learn-ed’ talking heads who think continued pursuit of the ‘case’ is a good idea.
One such experienced practitioner commented on the teams of lawyers already sacked by the complainant.
It seems in such instances, best practice is to sit the indignant down out the outset. The purpose, is delivery of what he termed ‘the talk of doom’.
It appears that this is pretty much a no-holds barred depiction of worst case scenario.
In terms of court appearance, this can encompass huge costs, a reputation in tatters, with prolonged anxiety or outright stress. And a devastating loss forever on the record.
Whatever the outcome of this particular action – no-one deserves their privacy invaded when the case has clear grounds, remember, even if this case does turn out to be without merit – it seems there has been perhaps at least one ‘talk of doom’ not only ignored but summarily dismissed by the potentially aggrieved client.
In a Sales setting, I have witnessed similar.
The first scenario, is when potential buyers remain oblivious to their plight.
Similar to what Miller-Heiman label the ‘buyer response mode’ of ‘even keel’. They are indifferent to your overtures. They see the status quo as fine. They do not recognise the ‘trouble’ you describe.
Indeed, it seems that one of the questions those consultants themselves suggest may well have led to this pause.
What’s the tipping point that would mean it was time to do something?
A point maybe reached with the latest request of the court here, meaning the divulgence of personal conversations.
The second, is where as incumbent, you are under threat of cancellation due to a perceived or actual delivery transgression.
SLAs often list all the things which must be provided. Yet they cannot feasibly contain every single remedy to any hiccup or even total disaster that may figure. No-one has a failsafe crystal ball. Not even contract attorneys.
The relationship may well have broken down irreparably.
Yet there is often a make-or-break meeting.
As Porter’s famed ‘five forces of competition’ state, where the threat of substitutes may be low, then you always have a chance of rescue.
I have been involved with such circumstance. Where switching costs were exposed as the stumbling block.
Beyond the sheer financial bill of changing supplier, the disruption to the client business at that point may have been so unwelcome that measures were agreed to radically change contract conduct.
Whether any re-set relationship can regain a long-term footing is another issue. At least dependence was not suddenly severed. Mitigation measures on both sides could then be factored in.