Six Questions on the Power—and Limits—of Litigation Communications
Your firm is representing a client involved in a high-profile lawsuit. You know the matter is locally, regionally, even nationally newsworthy. Whether the plaintiff or respondent or defendant, your client has a story to tell or a message to share.
May 31, 2019 at 12:56 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
Your firm is representing a client involved in a high-profile lawsuit. You know the matter is locally, regionally, even nationally newsworthy. Whether the plaintiff or respondent or defendant, your client has a story to tell or a message to share.
Whether you're first out of the gate with a media message, or responding to opposing counsel's public statements, your message or response can be critical to ensuring your side is heard. This can be especially true for matters being tried in court, and the court of public opinion.
Sharing them appropriately, tastefully and within the bounds of the state bar association regulations can ensure your message is embraced by recipients and not thwarted by regulatory powers.
Litigation communications can be critical to any law firm's marketing program. Along with advertising, blogging and marketing communications, media relations can be central to getting the firm's message out to journalists and their readers.
What is the appropriate and allowable venue for your firm to share your client's message or response to opposing counsel's comments?
Some abhor the concept of “trying their case in the media.” To be sure, there are appropriate and inappropriate, even improper, times to take your story public. Sometimes, however, it's unavoidable or “just happens” if the media learns of your matter and inquires, thus forcing a response.
How can your firm effectively and appropriately execute on litigation communications? Media relations often is the solution. This highly specialized and sensitive niche within the greater scope of marketing communications can be effective in driving firm, client, or litigation-specific messaging.
Consider these six questions when establishing a communications plan designed for specific litigation:
- Should you seek any media at all?
This question opens up a decision tree. If you and your client determine no media coverage should be sought, reporter questions should receive a “No comment,” or if the judge has issued a gag order, then your decision is simple. If you decide to pursue or respond to the media, continue on. As a caveat, once a case has been brought to conclusion and any embargos or gag orders have been lifted, the following questions should be considered.
- Who will be the case's voice?
If your case is likely to find media interest, decide early on who should be the spokesperson. The lead attorney can be the voice of the case, even if the client is occasionally made available as the “face” that personalizes the case. But making this decision early can clarify your approach.
- Should you proactively seek media exposure?
Whether at the start or completion of a case, high-profile matters command attention. Imagine a class-action lawsuit in an issue that's been widely covered, or a celebrity or well-known individual is involved in a public entanglement, or a unique, “man bites dog” story in which the public and media are interested. Similarly with multimillion dollar settlements or verdicts, precedent-setting rulings, or other noteworthy outcomes, they may command attention. Anticipate that as counsel in the case, a reporter's call will come. Prepare a press release or speaking points to help tell your client's story.
- What if the media calls unsolicited? Do we take the call?
When a reporter calls in response to a press release, your media relations effort has been a success. But what if a reporter calls about your case unsolicited? Make sure the spokesperson is the only person to whom the receptionist steers the call. Relevant talking points should be decided in advance; adhere to how much—or little—you decide to discuss.
- How can you control the story?
“Getting in front of the coverage” is an important strategy for certain public matters. From issuing statements and press releases, to staging news conferences to gather the media in one location to present your client's case, the first to speak often sets the dialogue. It may be smart to beat opposing counsel to the microphone.
- Should you hire a litigation communications firm?
After asking yourself these questions, would you be best served to hire a media relations team that specializes in legal services? You can focus on the case; the media relations firm can focus on message delivery.
Finally, keep in mind the court and Florida Bar rules may affect your litigation communications strategy. If the trial judge warned against or placed a gag order on trial or proceedings, this will guide your outreach or response.
Additionally, legal services advertising, marketing and communication must comply to rules under Florida Bar Subchapter 4-7. More directly, Florida Bar Rule 4-7.11 states that lawyers are not required to file for review any press release “if the press release is provided solely to legitimate media outlets where the media outlets have complete editorial control, including whether to print any information in the press release, and where the media outlet is not paid to print information from the press release.”
Effective litigation communications can ensure you and your client control the message told to the media, the marketplace and possibly the court of public opinion.
Julie Talenfeld is the president of BoardroomPR, one of Florida's premier litigation communications agencies. She can be reached at [email protected]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Reporter and a Mayor: Behind the Scenes During the Eric Adams Indictment News Cycle
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Focusing an Economic Lens On the Decrease In Federal Civil Jury Trials
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250