Have Your Story Straight Before the Reporter Calls

The call comes at 3 p.m. A business reporter from the local daily wants to know if a lawyer in your firm can comment on a hostile takeover bid of a well-known local company. The reporter sounds harried; her deadline is just 2 hours off.

For a public relations veteran, the call is a catalyst to action. Who's good on mergers and acquisitions? Has she dealt with the press before? Is she available, and can she make the reporter's deadline?

PR pros toiling in law-firm marketing departments, however, have to look before leaping. Is there a chance the firm has represented the local company, even on an unrelated matter? If not, do any of your firm's clients have special sensitivity about the issue? Will the M&A partner in the Dallas office feel wounded if you put the Denver M&A partner in touch with the reporter?

There is acute tension between the do-it-now mindset of media-savvy PR pros and the generally cautious nature of lawyers. Eliminating the tension completely is impossible, even inadvisable. After all, the client's interests are sacrosanct, and overlooking those interests to get some quick press courts disaster. You can alleviate the tension, however, by taking steps to ensure a smooth process before you get that 3 o'clock call.

The first hurdle is to ensure that there is no direct client conflict in responding to a reporter's inquiry. Many larger firms have established intranet sites that allow for a quick online check to determine if there is a conflict. Others may have a designated attorney or staff member with a complete client database at her fingertips. Whatever the procedure, it pays to become familiar with your firm's conflict-checking apparatus.

Revisiting our scenario, assume your check reveals that your firm represented the local target of the takeover bid in, say, a commercial real estate matter 2 years ago. Your lawyers, as a result, are constrained from providing on-the-record comments about the client, even on an unrelated matter. However, with your guidance, they might be able to speak off-the-record and enhance the reporter's understanding of the general issue ' in this case, the mechanics of takeover bids.

Why is this useful? Particularly with respect to the mainstream media, reporters frequently struggle with some of the legal nuances of a story (Are there any Sarbanes-Oxley issues in the proposed merger? What, if anything, could the shareholders do to block the takeover?). A lawyer who can explain legal concepts in plain English and enhance the reporter's understanding, then, has done a favor ' one that could be repaid with future calls in cases where the lawyer can comment for attribution. Lawyers who have cultivated relationships with reporters appear in the news time and again.

One cautionary note: The lawyer providing background comments must be able to trust the reporter to keep comments off-the-record. If you don't know the reporter, make it crystal clear that the comments are not for attribution. Talk to her editor, if necessary, and emphasize the point. And if you get a bad feeling from the reporter, walk away. Currying favor with a reporter is not worth angering or losing a client.

Even if your firm hasn't represented either of the companies involved in the takeover bid, it makes good business sense to check around and determine if other clients would dislike seeing their lawyers publicly commenting on a sensitive subject. In our scenario, for example, it's smart to ask if another client in the midst of a different merger would be displeased to see his firm's lawyer commenting on a hostile bid. If in doubt, ask the managing or marketing partner in an e-mail, and keep the e-mailed response in a secure folder.

The next question is whether your lawyers have been trained to treat the media like clients. That means returning calls promptly, even if the lawyer is getting back to the reporter to decline comment. Reporters under deadline are stressed-out and irritable. They have editors breathing down their necks, hassling them over the looming deadline and asking for the story angle and length. If a lawyer reneges on a promise to call back, his or reputation with the reporter ' and the reporter's colleagues ' is poisoned. Just as good lawyers are have been trained to provide sterling client service, they should be trained to treat the press with alacrity.

Finally ' but not insignificantly ' there is the issue of the firm's culture. By promoting a lawyer as an expert to the press, you may risk disapproval by promoting an unwanted “star system.” Some firms believe that cherry-picking certain lawyers for public relations comes at the expense of firm-wide collegiality, leading to resentment from other lawyers on the sidelines.

In other firms, the issue is not whether you should promote certain lawyers to the press, but which lawyers you should promote. While you may believe the gregarious, publicity-seeking M&A partner in Dallas is perfect for the hostile takeover story, your firm's management may have a different view.

In addition to the host of image and other concerns confronting all PR professionals who work with the press, law firm marketers must contend with a distinct set of unique concerns. While it's impossible to address all of them in advance, there are certain concerns that arise in virtually every law firm. Anticipating and addressing those concerns before they arise is the best way to handle the 3 o'clock call.

The call comes at 3 p.m. A business reporter from the local daily wants to know if a lawyer in your firm can comment on a hostile takeover bid of a well-known local company. The reporter sounds harried; her deadline is just 2 hours off.

For a public relations veteran, the call is a catalyst to action. Who's good on mergers and acquisitions? Has she dealt with the press before? Is she available, and can she make the reporter's deadline?

PR pros toiling in law-firm marketing departments, however, have to look before leaping. Is there a chance the firm has represented the local company, even on an unrelated matter? If not, do any of your firm's clients have special sensitivity about the issue? Will the M&A partner in the Dallas office feel wounded if you put the Denver M&A partner in touch with the reporter?

There is acute tension between the do-it-now mindset of media-savvy PR pros and the generally cautious nature of lawyers. Eliminating the tension completely is impossible, even inadvisable. After all, the client's interests are sacrosanct, and overlooking those interests to get some quick press courts disaster. You can alleviate the tension, however, by taking steps to ensure a smooth process before you get that 3 o'clock call.

The first hurdle is to ensure that there is no direct client conflict in responding to a reporter's inquiry. Many larger firms have established intranet sites that allow for a quick online check to determine if there is a conflict. Others may have a designated attorney or staff member with a complete client database at her fingertips. Whatever the procedure, it pays to become familiar with your firm's conflict-checking apparatus.

Revisiting our scenario, assume your check reveals that your firm represented the local target of the takeover bid in, say, a commercial real estate matter 2 years ago. Your lawyers, as a result, are constrained from providing on-the-record comments about the client, even on an unrelated matter. However, with your guidance, they might be able to speak off-the-record and enhance the reporter's understanding of the general issue ' in this case, the mechanics of takeover bids.

Why is this useful? Particularly with respect to the mainstream media, reporters frequently struggle with some of the legal nuances of a story (Are there any Sarbanes-Oxley issues in the proposed merger? What, if anything, could the shareholders do to block the takeover?). A lawyer who can explain legal concepts in plain English and enhance the reporter's understanding, then, has done a favor ' one that could be repaid with future calls in cases where the lawyer can comment for attribution. Lawyers who have cultivated relationships with reporters appear in the news time and again.

One cautionary note: The lawyer providing background comments must be able to trust the reporter to keep comments off-the-record. If you don't know the reporter, make it crystal clear that the comments are not for attribution. Talk to her editor, if necessary, and emphasize the point. And if you get a bad feeling from the reporter, walk away. Currying favor with a reporter is not worth angering or losing a client.

Even if your firm hasn't represented either of the companies involved in the takeover bid, it makes good business sense to check around and determine if other clients would dislike seeing their lawyers publicly commenting on a sensitive subject. In our scenario, for example, it's smart to ask if another client in the midst of a different merger would be displeased to see his firm's lawyer commenting on a hostile bid. If in doubt, ask the managing or marketing partner in an e-mail, and keep the e-mailed response in a secure folder.

The next question is whether your lawyers have been trained to treat the media like clients. That means returning calls promptly, even if the lawyer is getting back to the reporter to decline comment. Reporters under deadline are stressed-out and irritable. They have editors breathing down their necks, hassling them over the looming deadline and asking for the story angle and length. If a lawyer reneges on a promise to call back, his or reputation with the reporter ' and the reporter's colleagues ' is poisoned. Just as good lawyers are have been trained to provide sterling client service, they should be trained to treat the press with alacrity.

Finally ' but not insignificantly ' there is the issue of the firm's culture. By promoting a lawyer as an expert to the press, you may risk disapproval by promoting an unwanted “star system.” Some firms believe that cherry-picking certain lawyers for public relations comes at the expense of firm-wide collegiality, leading to resentment from other lawyers on the sidelines.

In other firms, the issue is not whether you should promote certain lawyers to the press, but which lawyers you should promote. While you may believe the gregarious, publicity-seeking M&A partner in Dallas is perfect for the hostile takeover story, your firm's management may have a different view.

In addition to the host of image and other concerns confronting all PR professionals who work with the press, law firm marketers must contend with a distinct set of unique concerns. While it's impossible to address all of them in advance, there are certain concerns that arise in virtually every law firm. Anticipating and addressing those concerns before they arise is the best way to handle the 3 o'clock call.