As the importance of law firm public relations continues to grow and the role of communications teams evolves, in this Expert Analysis series PR professionals discuss lawyer media relations, reputation management and more.
The news of libel law firm Schillings International LLP setting up its own public relations firm is an interesting development for the legal and PR sectors, and affirms the equal importance of both lawyers and PR professionals in managing the reputations of businesses and individuals effectively.
Schillings has operated as an alternative business structure since 2013, made possible by the Legal Services Act, which allowed multidisciplinary practices owned by lawyers and nonlawyers. In that time, the firm has diversified its offering to become a broader reputation-management business.
The addition of a PR business to Schillings’ offerings can be seen as a natural extension of that strategy, but how will it work in practice, and are we likely to see other law firms set up their own PR shops or offer more PR services in-house too?
The Business Case
Law firms and other professional services businesses offering PR and public affairs services is not new. Dentons has a strategic communications arm, and in 2016, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu LLC acquired specialist crisis PR boutique Regester Larkin. As a multidisciplinary practice, it makes sense to offer clients as many relevant services as possible under one roof. For firms choosing this route, it now means being able to offer clients representation via both legal and PR routes.
Schillings’ yet-to-be-named new PR arm will be headed by George Pascoe-Watson, former political editor of the Sun newspaper, and Victoria O’Byrne, former communications director to the Prince and Princess of Wales and to Richard Branson at Virgin Group Ltd.
In its press release to launch the new offering, the firm said the business was being built “in response to an increasingly complex world where licenses to operate for individuals and organizations have become dependent on reputation, now made in both the court of law and the court of public opinion.”[1]
The Changing Media and Legal Environment
The media landscape has changed drastically since the days when the threat of a libel missive aimed at one print publication and an easily identifiable author was enough to kill a story. Today, the identities of a disgraced footballer or of a fallen Hollywood actor are just as likely to surface on social media, even if an injunction is in place preventing a national newspaper from publishing that identity.
The #MeToo movement has also empowered people to come forward and tell their stories, where the fear of breaking a nondisclosure agreement or speaking as a lone wolf would have prevented them from doing so in the past.
The legal landscape is also shifting and there is an increasingly hostile spotlight on media law firms, with politicians attacking the use of “lawfare” and strategic lawsuits against public participation to shield the activities of high-powered, wealthy individuals. It is currently reported that newspaper editors from leading national newspapers, including the Times, the Telegraph, the Financial Times and the Guardian, have called on the government to introduce a stand-alone anti-SLAPP bill.
Taken together, the changing media and legal landscapes demonstrate that PR solutions to reputation-management issues can be just as effective as legal solutions. Furthermore, as the risk and reputational landscape becomes more complex, lawyers and PR professionals need to work more closely together in managing that risk effectively.
Another important development within the legal and PR worlds that highlights the importance of a joined-up legal and PR approach to reputation management is the growing support for the use of media to increase transparency in the courts. Broadcasters including the BBC, Sky News, ITN and PA Media are lobbying hard for the public to be able to watch High Court proceedings, extradition hearings, divorce proceedings, coroners’ inquests and sentencing announcements.
Court reporting is not new, but the broadcasting of live court proceedings can lead to media circuses where, arguably, the court of public opinion becomes more influential than the court of law. The televised Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial in the U.S. is a good example of this and points to the increasing need for PR representation during high-profile court cases and disputes.
The Court of Law vs. the Court of Public Opinion
As the media landscape continues to evolve and social movements like #MeToo continue to be a force for positive change, businesses and individuals are rightly more and more concerned about their reputations. Consumers, shareholders and activists are also becoming much more savvy about their rights and routes to redress, including via the law and through the media.
Ask any general counsel what they fear most about potential litigation, and “reputational damage” will be up there with “damage to share price” in their response. In this regard, getting the PR response right is just as important as getting the legal response right.
Will More Law Firms Offer PR?
There is clearly a compelling argument for lawyers and PRs to work more closely together in managing their clients’ legal and reputational risks and disputes. But will the Schillings move encourage more law firms to offer reputation-management PR services to their clients by setting up their own PR arms, or by redirecting some of their own internal PR resources to managing their clients’ PR needs, turning this into additional revenue in the process?
The news makes sense in relation to the firm expanding its offering for reputation-management services in response to the particular needs of its clients, but it is hard to see large, full-service commercial law firms doing the same beyond the confines of the smaller dedicated offerings such as those of Dentons and Deloitte.
Firstly, conflicts of interest would be an issue. One reason for a firm setting up its own PR shop is to keep some of that PR revenue in-house, rather than having to refer it all out to independent PR agencies.
However, that firm would still have to refer some of that PR work to outside agencies due to conflicts of interest, and larger law firms would face this issue on a larger scale. Attached to this is the question of the independence of the advice given.
Lawyers and PRs will not always agree on the best course of action, which can lead to internal tensions. Employing an independent PR agency to complement and sometimes challenge the legal advice can make better sense from the client’s perspective.
Secondly, although all the largest law firms now have highly experienced in-house PR managing their firms’ reputations, that resource is finite and a full-time job in itself. Some of the more senior in-house law firm PRs do sometimes advise clients on their PR risks on ad hoc basis, but the conflicts issue can be problematic here too. Also, law firm clients will still rely on specialist PR skills in complex litigation and crisis situations, and that advice still comes from independent agencies or from the client’s own in-house team.
Finally, there is the question of regulation. As alternative business structures, such firms are ultimately regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Other than a code of conduct, the PR industry is not currently regulated, and this could have some impact on the ultimate advice clients receive.
Conclusion
Clearly, where there is legal risk, reputational risk will follow. How that reputational risk is understood, managed and communicated is becoming increasingly important in an increasingly complex, global and more highly regulated business environment — and where the media landscape has shifted to instant reporting. Increasingly, lawyers who understand the reputational risks their clients face and can advise accordingly will enjoy a commercial advantage over those who stick to black-letter law advice.
https://www.law360.co.uk/articles/1725465/pr-perspectives-when-law-firms-offer-pr-services
