Clik here to view.
After Ryan Giggs' lawyers tried to sue Twitter for the initial internet leaks, thousands more tweets followed in retaliation
The present furore over superinjunctions is one in the eye for some London firms of celebrity lawyers, who have made large sums out of their new tools of "reputation management".
Chief among them is Schillings, whose founding partner Keith Schilling seemed until recently to have overtaken his rivals at Carter-Ruck as the man with the most claim to have the adjective "feared" appear before his name.
The anonymised Ryan Giggs injunction, handled this time by Schillings partner Gideon Benaim, seems to have blown up in the firm's face.
Much the same happened to a groundbreaking superinjunction obtained last year by Carter-Ruck's Adam Tudor for the international oil traders Trafigura. Carter-Ruck, too, ended up subjecting their high-paying clients to far worse worldwide publicity than they could ever have dreamed of.
Schillings nonetheless remains bullish about its prospects. Only around 15% of its business involves privacy injunctions. It believes the new system proposed by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, for applying for orders will be less prone to leaks.
As a pioneer of privacy injunctions – Schillings obtained a trendsetting order in 2004 for model Naomi Campbell – the firm has not been short of new clients or referrals from media advisers. It insists it acts only on clients' instructions and even after John Terry's injunction was overturned last year, the firm suffered no decline in celebrities seeking gagging orders.
In both the Giggs and Trafigura cases, the injunctions were destroyed by a combination of old and new forces. British politicians using the ancient powers of parliamentary privilege, combined with thousands of tweeters, often sitting at foreign-based computers and invulnerable to orders of British judges.
In the Giggs case, his lawyers were so provoked by the internet leakages that they tried to move against San Francisco-based Twitter, in the probably vain hope it would hand over users' details.
Predictably, perhaps, this provoked thousands more tweeters into a snowstorm of repetitions. The chaotic situation then gave Lib Dem MP John Hemming a basis on which to claim he was acting in the public interest by announcing the name in parliament.
Within moments, a mob of tabloid reporters were en route to besiege the house of the hapless Mrs Stacey Giggs, the footballer's wife .
Similarly, in the Trafigura case, Carter-Ruck's pride in its super-aggressive approach went before a fall. An ingenious Labour MP Paul Farrelly, found a way of tabling a parliamentary question revealing the existence of a banned scientific report about Trafigura's toxic waste. Carter-Ruck tried to prevent the Guardian reporting the MP's question and found themselves in the middle of a constitutional near-crisis.
In the ensuing uproar, the entire injunction collapsed, the full scientific report was published and Trafigura's name was in the mud.
A succession of celebrities have now witnessed their lawyers' promises prove hollow of anonymity for their sexual indiscretions .
In recent months, others "outed" by internet leaks or legal challenges have now included the prominent TV journalist Andrew Marr, the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief Sir Fred Goodwin, and the former England captain John Terry.
In the Terry case, the judge criticised Schillings' tactics and refused the injunction, saying it was being demanded to protect the footballer's commercially lucrative image rather than his privacy.
Schillings boasts that "one of [its] core skills is in obtaining injunctions", and, like Carter-Ruck, it offers a two-pronged reputation management service in which PR firms will spin good news about their clients, while the Schillings lawyers call and make threats in order to suppress unwanted publicity.
It says on its website that it "uses the law as a tool" to help celebrities and companies control what the public see of them: "Most corporate clients prefer us to work with them under the radar and without publicity, using the law to protect reputations without drawing attention to the issue ... Frequently, lawyers and PR experts can work in tandem.
"The lawyer can communicate directly with the publication's legal team, protecting the reputation of their client assertively."
James Quartermaine, a solicitor in the sports and media team at the law firm Charles Russell, says the Giggs case has been an unusual – but not unprecedented – blow to the reputation of Schillings.
"It may be that Giggs has been poorly advised and shouldn't have gone on to take action against Twitter users," said Quartermaine, who has appeared against Schillings' lawyers in other privacy injunction cases. "But once you are committed to a course of action, the red mist descends to a certain extent.
"It may well be that Giggs himself was ferociously angry. His legal costs by now are probably between £150,000 and £200,000.
"To the extent that [Schillings] was the go-to firm for celebrities, this is clearly a damaging moment. The John Terry [case] was damaging because the judge criticised the whole process for being a shambles ... And now another one has unravelled in the glare of the public eye.
"To the extent that their appeal is to celebrities who want to remain out of the news, this has got ... to be toxic.
"But are Schillings a busted flush? No. They will recover. They will still be in the game. They are an efficient and well-oiled machine normally.
"Schillings is a tough operator. It has a reputation for being very slick and very aggressive, an attack-dog reputation ... But that reputation for aggression may have chased down one too many hares."
The judges are determined to uphold the Giggs injunction, Quartermaine suggested, because they feel that "the barbarians [the media] at the gate are using this to put their shoulder to the privacy door and try to break it down. I don't think the Sun has identified a genuine public interest argument and that is also partly what fuels the court's obduracy."
Another media lawyer observed: "Schillings must be wishing it had never gone through with this. We don't know what it advised [Giggs] but with the benefit of hindsight will people decide it was a good idea to take on Twitter?
"What was a local problem that might have been a one-day wonder, has become an international issue. He will be famous worldwide other than for his footballing skills."
In a statement welcoming the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee to examine privacy matters, Schillings said this week: "It is necessary for there to be an open and honest discussion as to how, with the increasing dominance of the internet, the correct balance can be struck between the vital right to free speech on matters of genuine public interest and protection of people's private lives and reputations."