When it comes to British tabloids' coverage of her increasingly acrimonious divorce from Paul McCartney, Heather Mills McCartney is refusing to let it be.

The anti-landmine activist has filed suit against Britain's Daily Mail and Evening Standard newspapers for publishing "false, damaging and immensely upsetting" articles about her split from the former Beatle.

Mills McCartney's law firm, Mishcon de Reya, said that action would also be taken against the Sun, though that paper was not named in the initial complaint.

"It would appear that the media has concluded that there are no limits to what may be said about, or done to, our client," the firm said in a statement. "Her time and resources are not infinite. She cannot sue—for now, at least—every single newspaper that has published false, damaging and immensely upsetting statements about her.

"She should not thereby be taken to have accepted that these statements are true."

There was no immediate comment from the Evening Standard and Daily Mail, both of which are published by Associated Newspapers.

The legal action comes in the aftermath of the newspapers' publication of what appeared to be a damning 13-page deposition given by Mills McCartney in response to McCartney's divorce petition.

The Evening Standard and the Daily Mail each printed highlights from the supposedly official document last Wednesday. The newspapers refused to disclose how they came to be in possession of what should have been a private deposition.

The excerpts included month-by-month logs of abuse allegedly suffered by the 38-year-old at the hands of her superstar husband, including allegations that the iconic rocker stabbed Mills McCartney with a broken wine glass, refused her the use of a bed pan, shoved her over a coffee table, choked her on more than one occasion and pushed her into a bath while she was pregnant with the couple's daughter, Beatrice.

The documents further allege that most—if not all—of the incidents occurred while McCartney was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The chronicle of offenses were said to take place from October 2002, just four months after the couple tied the knot, up until April of this year.

For his part, McCartney, 64, immediately and vehemently denied the claims, saying in a statement released by publicist Paul Freundlich that he looked forward to "defending these allegations vigorously and appropriately" in a courtroom, but that he would not publicly address the accusations to maintain "some dignity in what is a private matter."

In any event, Mishcon de Reya says that the damage has already been done—to both parties. Mills McCartney's lawyers claim that since the couple announced their "amicable" separation in May, and even more so since the publication of the disputed documents last week, their client has been vilified in the media and "stalked" by paparazzi.

"She is pursued everywhere she goes," the firm continued in its statement. "She is stalked by press photographers, who congregate outside her home and chase after her in cars—regardless of her safety or the safety of her daughter."

Over the past few months, Mills McCartney's relationship with the press has been as testy, if not more so, as her relationship with McCartney.

In June, she filed suit against the News of the World tabloid after it printed several stories alleging the onetime model worked as a high-priced hooker in her early twenties.

Meanwhile, her lawyers also blasted several other phony reports circulating in the media, dismissing speculation that Mills McCartney had been offered a settlement worth nearly $56 million. "The truth is that no settlement offer, in any amount, has been made," Mishcon de Reya said.

To show the lengths the tabloids are willing to go to get salacious scoop on the increasingly contentious and newspaper-selling split, Mishcon de Reya also issued a copy of a letter received by Mills McCartney's sister, Fiona, from Dennis Rice, investigations editor of Britain's Mail on Sunday.

The missive offered Fiona a "substantial sum" in exchange for pertinent details about the divorce and assured her anonymity.

"It requires no imagination to conclude what kind of information was being sought from our client's closest confidante, nor why the assurance of confidentiality was believed to be necessary," the statement said. "We ask on behalf of our client for the media, as a matter of common decency, please now to show some restraint."