Practical PR — Four cornerstones of emergency communications for solicitors

When something goes wrong, lawyers are often drawn immediately into the centre of events. That rightly reflects their role as risk managers and trusted advisers, and also places them in a position where their wider instincts, language and judgements can shape the entire response. 

In my time I have had to deal with workplace fatalities, major pollution incidents, tragic social work cases, corporate fraud, health scares and much more. In many cases the response has involved working with lawyers and a difficult situation has been made easier with their support.

The current FAI into the Stonehaven rail crash illustrates the myriad challengers in an emergency, from the first notification to the legal outcomes we’re yet to see. Clearly, every situation is different, however there are a few points I’ve learned over the last three decades that I believe are particularly relevant to my counterparts in the law.

Comment to buy time, don’t just buy time to comment

Hesitation and caution have their place. Sometimes, as Mark Twain supposedly said, it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Despite the pressure from media, staff, politicians, customers  and other stakeholders to give information and comment, it can be very dangerous to speak too soon.

While over-communicating is definitely a risk, it’s not that common. Neither is saying too little. The tendency we need to consider most is being too slow. Information gaps invite assumption, and assumption quickly hardens into narrative.

In an emergency, an early comment may buy precious minutes or even hours. It might only be to acknowledge there’s a situation to check and to commit to providing an update as soon as possible. Something that is mind-numbingly bland is often better than nothing. And if circumstances permit, an expression of concern or acknowledging how others might feel, can be invaluable.

After all, early communications are not about completeness. They are about signalling seriousness, intent and responsibility. Uncertainty can be handled without speculation or concession. Meanwhile, complete silence is rarely interpreted as neutrality, and it is almost never read as competence.

Be explicit about what kind of advice you are giving

In high-pressure situations, anything said by a lawyer tends to be heard as a legal imperative. That includes comments that are really about tone, language or how something might land with an external audience. A well-meaning observation can quickly become an assumed prohibition.

Personally, I find it really helpful when working with lawyers if they are very clear about the basis of their advice. If a point is strictly legal, it helps to explain what the legal concern is and why it matters.

That focuses attention on the substance of the risk rather than creating a generalised fear of saying anything at all. Knowing the root issue or wider context allows me to provide better input myself.

If a point is about perception or style, that should be made clear as well, so that it can be weighed alongside other considerations rather than treated as immovable law. Many lawyers are astute judges of questions around reputation and language that extend beyond their ‘day job’ and a good PR person should welcome that input.

However, clarity about the basis for those comments matters. When the heat is on, people need to know which constraints come with genuine legal implications and which come from a broader perspective.

Give insurers the benefit of the doubt

The law often gets the blame for a lack of meaningful or timely responses to an incident. I have written myself – on advice - that “It would not be appropriate to comment while legal proceedings are underway.” I’m not sure that’s right.

If we need to look anywhere for the most risk-averse approach, it’s insurers. Who can blame them when millions of pounds may be at stake. Accordingly, I’ve seen them left out of early discussions (and sometimes all discussions) on the assumption that they will resist any form of public comment.

That is occasionally wrong; perhaps it’s frequently wrong. I’ve seen insurers being far more amenable than initially expected. It just takes someone to ask them and for there to be a sensible discussion between the parties involved to anticipate the real risks and build in the necessary caveats or other mitigations.

Be better prepared for the next time

The most neglected part of any incident tends to be the debrief. Naturally enough, once the worst is over it’s so tempting to move onto the next priority and put recent challenges behind us. Conversely, it could and should be used as a motivational moment to ensure the next time a crisis hits, the lessons have genuinely been learned.

There are so many practical steps that organisations can take: creating a reputation risk register, preparing model responses, identifying and training spokespeople, strengthening media, social and political monitoring, refreshing a  stakeholder map (and acting on it), conducting emergency exercises, creating response playbooks and much more.

Lawyers are essential contributors to all of those. In fact, some firms may need to consider such resilience measures for themselves. Most LLPs might not have the risks of a factory owner, a transport operator or a supermarket; but virtually any organisation can be the victim of a cyber-attack, financial fraud or a staff tragedy.

Conclusion

Emergency incidents and crises of other kinds are hard enough to deal with already; getting the communications wrong is an added complication nobody needs.

Thankfully, there are a few fundamentals that if delivered well can make a huge difference. It’s unlikely they’ll magically transform a bad situation into a good one – but in times when there’s lots you can’t control, following the tips above could help achieve the least-worst outcome possible.

Even better, taking preventative action before the balloon goes up often produces a major return for modest effort.