“Communicating in a Crisis”

Richard S. Levick, of Levick Strategic Communication, is the keynote speaker at the Law Society of Scotland’s Annual Conference.

2006 March 7

“No comment” is not an option if your client is facing jail, bankruptcy, shares nose-diving or, in the case of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, an uncertain future and the possibility of an unfair trial.

Litigation PR might be a new concept to some at the Law Society of Scotland’s annual conference but it is a growing business in the US.

Some of the biggest and most high profile legal actions have reached what I describe as the crossroads of law and business. That’s where I come in. As CEO of Levick Strategic Communications, I combine my legal background with my communication counselling skills and have handled the media on some of the highest profile matters from Napster and Florida election recount to advising clients who are representing Guantanamo detainees.

Increasingly corporate defendants are demanding that their lawyers understand how communications work, how the media can be used as a conduit to key audiences, and how to work in the legal and communications arena simultaneously – and to the benefit of both. Many clients now want outside counsel to go further and play a more active role in both areas.

It is tremendously painful to speak with defendants who still claim their innocence on the eve of their incarceration, knowing that their lawyers did not allow the engagement of a media strategy. We know from human nature as well as independent research, that judges and juries are affected by what they read. Why would we let clients and their brands be exposed to undefended attacks in the marketplace just prior to or during trial?

I am a trained lawyer, but I have never practiced law and I do not claim competence to try cases. Conversely, most attorneys who are competent to try cases should not presume to direct communications strategies. On the other hand, few communications professionals understand the legal process or care to even try. Their impatience with lawyers, and the nuanced concerns of legal counsellors, has often alienated lawyers and fed their distrust of the entire process.

In addition, lawyers look at media relations and assume that it's just common sense. There are no weighty tomes or lengthy postgraduate study and traineeships dedicated to esoteric media precedent. No convoluted rulings to navigate on a daily basis. It's something anybody can do if they're sensible.

Of course, if media relations were just common sense, we wouldn't have so many sensible people, including lawyers, who feel they get burned by reporters every time they talk to one.

With more than 25 years of experience in the media, I learn something new every day and find new depth to the subtleties of public communication.

You also need to know what to do after the story runs. It's about targeting specific groups, reaching City analysts, for example, so that positive media can affect stock prices. Jury pools aren't the only vital audience.

Not just common sense, strategic communications touches enough contingencies to absolutely necessitate a partnership of equals between lawyers and communications professionals.