HYPNOTIST and not irregular visitor to his libel lawyer, Paul McKenna has been suing the columnist Victor Lewis-Smith and the Mirror Group over an article published in 2003 that he allegedly had a “bogus doctorate” from LaSalle University in Louisiana.

But such colourful court actions are now rarities: McKenna is bucking the trend for celebrities to fight shy of the libel courts. Instead, businessmen are the new celebrities of the libel bar; albeit that for me Mohamed Al Fayed does not have quite the same allure as Sharon Stone.

Time was when the tiniest slight that pricked the ego of a “star” had them reaching into the closet for their libel lawyer to remove the stain. But now it is the perceived damage to global business interests that sends magnates rushing to those same lawyers.

The financial and sometimes murky world of investments has become the food and drink of libel disputes, rather than descriptions such as that by the gossip columnist Cassandra, who - writing in 1956 referred to Liberace as: “. . . summit of sex — the pinnacle of masculine, feminine, and neuter. Everything that he, she and it can ever want. This deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavoured, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love . . . He reeks with emetic language that can only make grown men long for a quiet corner, an aspidistra, a handkerchief, and the old heave-ho. Without doubt, he is the biggest sentimental vomit of all time.”

The falsehood that Liberace’s libel lawyers scotched was the suggestion that some readers could have divined from these words that Liberace might just conceivably have been less than 100 per cent heterosexual.

Similarly, the actress, Charlotte Cornwell was awarded solatium of £10,000 for the (obviously false) suggestion made in a review by Nina Myskow that: “She can’t sing, her bum is too big, and she has the sort of stage presence that jams lavatories.” So it will no doubt come as sadness to some (mainly their own) that libel lawyers are no longer the first port of call for the offended celebrity. Instead, this traditional clientele is deserting the libel bar in favour of the more seductive charms of PR and spin-doctors.

More sophisticated celebs have now learnt what many knew all along, that positive PR does more to enhance a reputation than fighting a libel through the courts. Positive spin is less risky, much less costly and far less inconvenient than a libel suit that might take years to fight.

What’s more, a lawsuit — which is subject to the vicissitudes of litigation — could well be lost. Worse, it could cause damage to the celebrity “image” or brand, something far more valuable in money terms today than any reputation.

Spin-doctors now feed the media with positive speech to drown out the negative, and often make adept use of errors and corrections columns where appropriate. This PR-led approach feeds well into the notion of “speech meeting speech” in its purest democratic form — the readers are left to make up their minds between competing voices on matters of moment.

The result of this change has been the emptying of the corridor outside (libel) Court 13 of its erstwhile habitué: the celebrity. But the families of libel lawyers need not fear that their lifestyles will be downsized radically: George Carman, QC, used to tease mischievously that he named additions to his homes after his more celebrated cases, “the Jani Allen swimming pool” the, “Jonathan Aitken wing” (on the right, he said), “the Gillian Taylforth erection” near the end of his property (at least, the way he told it.) Rather, libel lawyers have discovered new forms of high-risk litigants: international businessmen. Large businesses and captains of industry are assisted by the likes of Carter-Ruck, David Price and Schillings, who are feeding a libel bar that might otherwise be hard-pressed for work. One form in particular has been a particularly lucrative source of clients. The nouveau riche Russian oligarchs and Middle Eastern businessmen turn not only to the libel boutiques but also to the second and third-tier City practices such as Addleshaw Goddard, CMS Cameron McKenna, Eversheds, Lovells. These new clients are persuaded that even the slightest hint of corruption or unorthodox business practices in emerging markets, or links to unsavoury characters (however tenuous) will impair their ability to do business in London.

But savvy people-of-affairs in the commercial world are not as media savvy as celebrities and their managers have become. And so the media are increasingly their targets. In recent years the Reuben Brothers, brought libel proceedings using both Lovells and Carter Ruck against Fortune Magazine about what they perceived to be a slight arising out of their business dealings in Russia.

City businessman Rupert Lowe, also, until his recent resignation, the chairman of Southampton Football Club, was awarded £250,000 following an article in The Times that claimed he had acted “shabbily” by suspending former manager Dave Jones.

American businessman J. Shelby Bryan brought libel claims against the Evening Standard and The Daily Telegraph. Collins Stewart Tullett and Terry Smith, its colourful chief executive, visited the Financial Times in the libel courts for £4.3 million.

This was not Mr Smith’s first trip to these courts. He and his firm had previously won “substantial” damages from Jeremy Benjamin, a fund manager who posted false allegations on the Motley Fool website using the invented web name “analyser71”. Collins Stewart Tullett and Terry Smith were represented by Keith Schilling.

A plethora of other local and foreign businessmen are also being enticed into our courts. As are their companies, some such as Richmond Pharmacology, which went to David Price, are taking advantage of conditional fee agreements, backed by after-the-event insurance.

Notwithstanding some favourable results for businessmen, these gains are likely to be short-term. The notion that a jury verdict and an award of damages in the modern era will lead all the public to believe that there is no truth in an allegation is the delusion or fantasy of the libel lawyer.

The public is increasingly sceptical and questioning, as well as interacting with the news to ascertain more information in order to make up its mind.

The argot of the London libel pleader is such that the selfimportant, pompous, naive, and ignorant, as well as the innocent, will assuredly become ensnared in the new business of libel.

Mark Stephens is a libel lawyer at Finers Stephens Innocent LLP

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones