Press enter to see results or esc to cancel.

Meghan Markle Dumps ‘Johnny Depp Lawyer’ – Just Not For Amber Heard

  • As the next stage of Meghan Markle’s lawsuit against Associated Newspapers kicks off today, she’ll not have the services of David Sherborne to call upon.
  • If reports are to be believed, the Duchess of Sussex fired her lawyer and replaced him with the QC who had filled in for him while he was defending Johnny Depp.
  • Could the link with Depp and solidarity with Amber Heard be the reason for Sherborne being ousted?

Most people know by now that it doesn’t take much for a Meghan Markle rumor to hit the headlines.

And news that she’s reportedly chosen to replace her lawyer with another was always going to grab the headlines, even if it was for the wrong reasons.

Now, this may come as a shock to those who believe I have a personal grudge against Meghan Markle, but I think she’s done the right thing in this instance.

What was the reason behind Meghan sacking her lawyer? : Source: Twitter

Meghan Markle isn’t the first person to switch up their lawyer during a court case

Of course, rumors are starting to take shape on Twitter and other social media platforms after a piece in The Times that suggested Meghan sacked Sherborne as some show of solidarity with Amber Heard.

Onlookers aren’t convinced by claims from The Times that Meghan is showing solidarity with Amber Heard. : Source: Twitter

While the headlines have focused almost entirely on the fact that David Sherborne, the lawyer for Meghan Markle in her legal action against the Associated Newspapers corporation, also represented Johnny Depp in his recent legal battle with Amber Heard, the chances are this played little part in Meghan’s choice.

No one knows for sure, but if I were to venture a guess, I’d say that such claims are absolute nonsense.

Some think Meghan is showing solidarity with Amber Heard. Other think she’s a racist. Go figure. | Source: Twitter

David Sherborne being replaced is more to do with strategy than solidarity

Yes, David Sherborne did represent Johnny Depp in his acrimonious case against Amber Heard, but I think recent goings-on in Meghan’s case will have prompted this supposed decision.

It’s worth remembering that it was under Sherborne that Meghan lost a pre-trial hearing that ended up costing the Duchess of Sussex around $90,000.

At the time of committing to representing Meghan Markle in her legal action, David Sherborne was already representing Johnny Depp in his defamation claim against The Sun. As such, he was temporarily replaced by Justice Rushbrooke QC when he wasn’t available.

Mr. Rushbrooke was responsible for winning the most recent key stage of Meghan’s case when he made the case successfully to Mr. Justice Warby that the identities of Meghan’s five friends should not be released.

The next stage of Meghan’s legal case is due to be heard

With Justice Rushbrooke QC seemingly fronting the case for Meghan permanently, he’ll be ready to tackle the next step in proceedings, which are due to take place on September 21.

This will take the form of a costs and case management hearing in front of Master Francesca Kaye.

Such a stage is critical to the legal process in the United Kingdom. It will set out the issues of the case, ensuring that both parties understand them and look at the estimated costs of the dispute and how applicable said costs are to the value of the court case itself.

After this step, everyone should be a lot clearer on exactly what Meghan Markle is looking to gain from this court case, and how much she’s willing to spend from her new Netflix fund to make it happen.

For what it’s worth, I still have my reservations when it comes to how successful Meghan can be in this action.

I’ve long believed that the intention of such a lawsuit is to serve a warning to other outlets that any publications which go against Meghan Markle or Prince Harry can expect to be tied up in lengthy legal proceedings.

The question is, how far are the couple willing to go to back up the threats with action? Are they willing to spend vast sums of money chasing verdicts that they are unlikely to get?

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of CCN.com.

Samburaj Das edited this article for CCN.com. If you see a breach of our Code of Ethics or find a factual, spelling, or grammar error, please contact us.

Read More