"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
"Fantastic roster of talent" and recommended for being "very modern, forward-thinking and providing sound commercial advice" as well as offering instructing solicitors "a very broad skill set in the soft IP space."
Chambers & Partners 2017
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"8 New Square is undoubtedly one of the leading sets for trade mark and copyright cases within the media and entertainment sphere, so much so that stablemates here frequently find themselves pitted against each other in major cases."
Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2014
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
The Estate of Adrian Jacobs v Bloomsbury Publishing and JK Rowling
Case Summary | 14 July 2011
John Baldwin QC and Adrian Speck acted for J K Rowling in her successful attempt to have dismissed proceedings brought against her alleging that the Harry Potter books and, in particular Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, were infringements of copyright. Miss Rowling alleged that the claim against her was absolutely hopeless but last year Kitchin J refused summarily to dismiss it. Instead he imposed conditions which were to be fulfilled if the Claimant wished to continue with his action. He ordered the Claimant to pay almost £1 million into court to evidence a real commitment to his cause and to protect Miss Rowling if he failed. The Claimant was not impressed and paid £50,000 into court in order to pursue an appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs and the claim was struck out 24 hours later when the Claimant failed to come up with the sums ordered by Kitchin J.