22nd February 2026
For more than a decade, Global Counsel styled itself as the sophisticated end of the lobbying world: discreet, analytical, and above all respectable.
Founded in 2010, the firm promised clients insight rather than crude influence-peddling a "strategic advisory" model that claimed to sit above the grubby stereotypes of lobbying. Yet by early 2026, Global Counsel had become something very different: a symbol of how opaque lobbying, weak disclosure rules, and elite political networks continue to corrode trust in British public life.
The Firm That Sold Insight, Not Access
Global Counsel was co-founded by Peter Mandelson, one of the most powerful and well-connected figures of the New Labour era, alongside Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a former senior aide to Tony Blair.
Headquartered in London with offices across major global policy hubs, the firm advised multinational corporations, investors, and governments on regulation, geopolitics, and political risk.
Crucially, Global Counsel insisted it was not a conventional lobbying shop. It did not it said trade in personal introductions or back-channel influence. Instead, it offered policy analysis, strategic foresight, and help navigating complex regulatory environments. That positioning won it blue-chip clients and a reputation as the thinking person's public-affairs firm.
The Scandal That Broke the Facade
That reputation collapsed when renewed scrutiny fell on Mandelson's past associations with Jeffrey Epstein. While those relationships were not limited to Global Counsel's operations, the revelations detonated inside the firm. Clients fled, senior leadership resigned, and Mandelson divested his stake. By February 2026, Global Counsel had entered administration.
But the scandal did more than sink a single company. It exposed how closely the UK's lobbying ecosystem still depends on reputation, discretion, and informal trust — and how fragile that arrangement becomes once public confidence evaporates.
Transparency by Technicality
As criticism mounted, attention turned to the rules that were supposed to govern firms like Global Counsel. The UK's lobbying regime, built around the Transparency of Lobbying Act, requires consultant lobbyists to register and disclose certain ministerial contacts. In practice, however, the law is notoriously narrow.
Only direct communications with ministers or permanent secretaries count. Advice, strategy, informal influence, and work done through international subsidiaries often falls outside mandatory reporting. Critics argued that Global Counsel's corporate structure and advisory model sat comfortably within these loopholes. Even when meetings or relationships raised legitimate public-interest questions, they were not always visible on any public register.
This is where the firm became emblematic rather than exceptional. Watchdog groups and reform advocates pointed out that Global Counsel appeared to follow the letter of the law while bypassing its spirit — a pattern common across the UK lobbying industry. The problem was not necessarily illegal behaviour, but a system designed to see very little.
The Revolving Door Problem
Global Counsel's founders also embodied another long-running controversy: the revolving door between senior politics and private influence. Former ministers and top advisers face limited disclosure obligations once they leave office, even when they trade on decades of relationships and institutional knowledge.
To critics, the firm illustrated how "access without accountability" works in practice. Influence does not always look like a formal meeting or a registered lobbying contact; it can be a phone call, a shared history, or an unrecorded conversation framed as advice. Under current UK rules, much of that influence remains invisible.
Fallout for an Industry
The collapse of Global Counsel sent shockwaves through the public-affairs world. Clients terminated contracts overnight. Industry bodies issued unusually blunt statements about ethics and transparency. Commentators described the episode as a reckoning for a sector that has long relied on discretion as a selling point.
More broadly, the affair reinvigorated calls for reform: expanding the lobbying register, widening the definition of lobbying, strengthening enforcement, and forcing greater disclosure of clients, contacts, and conflicts of interest. Whether those calls translate into political action remains uncertain — especially in a system where many lawmakers benefit from the status quo.
A Symptom, Not Just a Scandal
In the end, Global Counsel’s downfall was not only about one firm or one founder. It was about how lobbying in Britain still operates in the shadows of technical compliance and elite familiarity. The firm’s rise and fall revealed a deeper truth: when transparency is optional and influence is informal, public trust is always the collateral damage.
Global Counsel did not invent these problems. But in its implosion, it became their most vivid illustration and a reminder that in modern Britain, the most powerful lobbying often leaves the faintest paper trail.
For more on the murky world of lobbying
Who Really Shapes Britain's Decisions
Mandelson and the financial crash and why the Epstein allegations are so shocking