Why legal and PR professionals should be the best of friends in a crisis

Lawyers and PR consultants don’t always see eye-to-eye on the best communications approach. The constraints of law don’t always translate into language that members of the public can understand. Similarly, reducing complex issues into sound bites for news may result in ambiguity and uncertainty.

In a crisis, where a client’s reputation is on the line, it is critical their legal and PR teams work together to craft simple and clear public messaging that aligns with legal obligations and strategy. 

Earlier this year I took part in a joint presentation, along with a legal colleague, for the Law Society of SA.  It was a great opportunity to remind the legal fraternity of a well-worn PR adage: there’s no point winning in court if you’ve already lost the court of public opinion. But it was also a great opportunity to remind myself of the challenges faced in managing both legal and reputational risk when things go wrong.

While legal and PR professionals view a problem through different lenses, neither can afford to operate in isolation. The best crisis approach is one where both collaborate early - rather than later - to understand each other’s priorities, align quickly, make timely decisions and protect their client.

It’s worth noting in a crisis that both lawyers and PR professionals are highly risk averse. The damage of saying or doing the wrong thing can significantly compound an already bad situation. Choose your words wisely.

From a PR perspective, one of the most important things to remember is it’s actually OK to say ‘sorry’. In fact, it’s written into the SA Civil Liability Act 1936. Section 75 specifically deals with the ‘Effect of apology on liability’.

I won’t bore you with the whole section (you can look it up online) – but Part (1) says: “An apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter alleged to have been caused by the person – (a) does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the person in connection with that matter; and (b) is not relevant to the determination of fault or liability in connection with that matter.”

The Act goes on to clarify that this doesn’t absolve you of all sins, for example in respect to defamation and civil liability. But it’s clear that an apology doesn’t constitute an admission of fault.

The three most important words I refer to in a crisis are ‘honest, open and transparent’. An apology, preferably followed by a clearly expressed desire to fix the problem, is a great way to start.

It’s also important to know who you are communicating with. It’s far more than managing media enquiries – it’s about informing and updating your stakeholders including customers, suppliers, shareholders, government and local communities. And most importantly, it’s about talking with your employees, who may be both impacted by the crisis and face questions from their own work contacts as well as family and friends.

My legal colleague in the presentation provided some excellent advice for both legal and PR professionals. They included setting the legal framework around what can and cannot be communicated; protecting privilege or confidentiality; the importance of accuracy in crafting the message; managing risk around any admissions or apologies; and controlling the flow of information both internally and externally.

So in a crisis, it’s vitally important that PR and legal professionals are aligned on the best approach. It can be a challenge, but your client will ultimately benefit.

Mark Williams
Hughes Consultant