Lawyers and Publicists: In Times of Crisis, Let's Be Friends Instead of Foes
With both the publicist and the attorney in siloed conversations with the client, he is now receiving the exact opposite advice—don't speak vs. speak fast.
October 28, 2019 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
Historically, publicists and attorneys have not been the closest of comrades. When our clients find themselves in a crisis, lawyers generally instruct them to say very little whereas publicists seek to control the conversation—in content and in stage time. Lawyers might instruct their client to remain silent ("wait for your lawyer!"), whereas a good publicist would prioritize churning out a succinct response quickly, as soon as humanly possible. One can imagine how this puts the client in a sticky situation.
With both the publicist and the attorney in siloed conversations with the client, he is now receiving the exact opposite advice—don't speak vs. speak fast. This adds stress to an already stressful circumstance, and the last thing we both want is a more stressed out client … especially right before a press conference!
Crisis management should always include both the litigation and the communications teams—both pieces are essential to creating a winning strategy. We must come together to ensure our client's best interests; case closed!
|Let's Talk
The first problem is that more often than not, the publicist and the lawyer are not in a dialogue with one another. The lack of communication and cohesion here creates a host of problems that take time, energy and resources away from adverting the crisis at hand. Quite simply, we need to talk to one another. Working as a team, together, to develop a crisis communications strategy that is mindful of both legal and reputational risk helps to create a winning game plan for all of us.
Though we often have different instincts and prioritize different concerns, we can pitch our ideas to one another to work through the kinks and cross-check our points of view regarding both possible legal and reputational risk. This will only make our plan of action more bulletproof. Then, and only then, we can come to our client, in unison, with the perfect procedure. Our unity will also give our client a vote of confidence and the assurance that this is, in fact, the best plan.
|Our Priorities Are Not Mutually Exclusive
While I understand the instinct to instruct a client to say as little as possible, there are many responses that can be said that usually offer little to zero litigation risk. For example, a client may offer condolences and apologies for an accident caused by his company without taking responsibility for it. We can work in tandem to ensure that this significant difference is understood by our client and translated into his statement to the press.
As a publicist, I will always encourage my client to get out in front of a crisis, and to face it with as much dignity and grace as possible. Often, they will feel more comfortable to do so with the blessing of their legal counsel. I encourage my publicists at BoardroomPR to involve their client's legal team through each stage of developing and implementing strategy so that everyone is on the same page.
Lawyers do a disservice to their clients when they don't at least consider proactive communication with the press and the public. When a client hides, they become suspicious. And when a client hides behind their lawyer, they appear compromised.
|Teamwork Makes the Dream Work
Attorneys and publicists have much to offer one another. Like any healthy relationship, when we challenge one another we both come out stronger, and our businesses will benefit in turn. Let's be friends and help ourselves, each other and our clients. It's a win-win-win.
Julie Talenfeld is the president of BoardroomPR, one of Florida's largest integrated marketing 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 AllShould It Be Left to the Plaintiffs Bar to Enforce Judicial Privacy Laws?
7 minute readA Look Back at 'Goldman Sachs': How Price Impact Is Changing Securities Class Actions
5 minute readSome Election Day Shout-Outs to Litigators Working Pro Bono on Voting Rights
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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