Ghostwritten newsletters, email courses and LinkedIn posts for founders building the energy transition. Written by someone who spent 25 years at the Bar making complicated things land with people who were not experts and were not on my side.
Book a callThirty minutes. No preparation needed.
The technology took years. The explanation gets about ninety seconds, usually with someone half-listening and already forming a view.
So you compress. You reach for the analogy that mostly works, or you go the other way and give them the full picture, and watch the moment where they stop following. Either way you end the conversation knowing they took away roughly a third of it, and that the third they took is not the important part.
This happens to good companies constantly, and it costs them investors, contracts, hires and policy influence. It is a writing problem rather than a thinking problem, and writing problems are solvable.
Investors do their reading before the meeting, not during it. By the time you are in the room they have already decided how much benefit of the doubt you get, based on whatever public record of your thinking they could find.
Enterprise and government buyers move slowly and read carefully, and someone inside that process has to explain you to people you will never meet. Where your material does not do that work, they will do it badly on your behalf.
And the ground moves. Subsidy regimes, procurement rules, disclosure standards and carbon pricing are under active negotiation in every market you sell into. Companies that have been explaining themselves publicly all the way through get to shape how those changes are read. Companies that have gone quiet get defined by whoever is louder.
I write in your voice so the people who decide can follow you.
The core of the work is a weekly newsletter that builds a public record of how you think, written from conversations with you rather than from a brief. Around it sit the assets that do specific jobs: an automated email course that explains your proposition properly to everyone who arrives, and LinkedIn posts drawn from the longer pieces so nothing has to be written twice.
Everything ships in your name. My name appears nowhere, and neither does yours on anything of mine.
I work with companies across the UK, North America, Europe, Australia and Asia. The work is remote and the writing travels.
For 25 years I was a barrister. Every argument I built was read by an opponent paid to find the weak joint in it, and presented to a decision-maker who knew nothing about the subject and had six other cases that day. The job was to take a complicated factual position and make it followable, persuasive and difficult to attack.
That is the same job your public writing has to do.
My Masters is in International Politics, with a focus that maps onto climate and energy policy directly. This matters more than it sounds. Most writers need a month to understand what you do and will never understand the policy environment you do it inside. I arrive already interested in both, which is why the first conversation tends to feel different from every other one you will have about content.
The rest of it: co-founder of Crown Chambers in 2020, ranked as a Leading Junior in The Legal 500 every year from 2020 to 2026, and an author in my own right.
Everything I write for you gets read the way an opponent would read it before it goes out. Claims about impact, emissions and performance are enforceable in most of the markets you sell into, and a strong sentence that overstates its evidence is a liability with your name on it. That reading is part of how I write rather than an extra you buy.
To be clear about scope: I write your content and I do not give legal advice. Your numbers should still go through whatever verification you already use.
A short call first, to work out whether the fit is right in both directions.
Then conversations. I get you talking about the thing you find obvious and everyone else finds difficult, and I record it, because the way you explain it out loud is almost always better than the way you would write it down.
The recording is the point. There has been no shortage of competent prose since the use of AI became widespread. But it has not helped anyone explain a complex issue. What is missing is upstream. The argument only you can make is still something you know rather than something you have said, and until you have said it, nobody can write it. Not me, and not anything else you might reasonably try.
From there the writing arrives on a steady rhythm for your review. What it costs you is one conversation a month, ninety minutes, or two if we are publishing weekly. Nothing else is asked of you. No briefs, no forms, no homework.
I write about how climate companies explain themselves, and where the policy ground is moving underneath them. It is the clearest illustration of how I read and write, and it is free.
Shorter pieces on climate and energy questions I have been reading closely, written when something is worth writing about. My own views, in my own name.
Ghostwriting is confidential. My clients' names stay off my materials for exactly the same reason yours will stay off theirs, so there is no portfolio here. I will share relevant samples on the call.
If the gap between what you have built and what people understand about it has started to cost you something, thirty minutes will tell us both whether I can close it.