Lawyers and Communications consultants
Lawyers and Communications consultants: different natures doomed to understand each other
While cooperation between professionals from different trades is never easy, getting lawyers and Communications consultants to work together is a real challenge. These two professions are based on a type of training, education, culture and even discipline in their respective practices that tends to keep them at a distance from one another.
Within a company, the legal department often considers the communications team and its members as word merchants or as former journalists with little understanding of legal affairs. On the other hand, Communications specialists criticize lawyers and other members of the legal department for thinking only of the legal aspects of each situation, which would prevent them from taking a holistic view of a dispute. Lawyers are thus perceived as procedure-focused.
For successful cooperation, one needs both empathy and the ability to incorporate the counterparty's reasoning system. Effective and mutually respectful cooperation between representatives of these two professions will therefore be essential in order to defend the best interests of a client or employer.
Separate worlds and opposing approaches
Lawyers thrive in a world where procedural rules are ever-present. The statute book is king and any legal action is based on a norm, whether legal, jurisprudential or customary. The communications specialist, for his part, does not have such a precise framework; the rules he applies are multi-faceted and much less rigid, allowing him to adapt to the specificity of each situation.
The lawyer operates in a court of law, while the public relations expert strives to manage public opinion. The observers differ in nature and jurisdiction: the judicial audience is made up of specialists with the training and ability to analyse the facts presented by the parties to the dispute. Public opinion, on the other hand, is more generalist. It focuses on the facts as they are presented in the media and social networks without necessarily undertaking an in-depth analysis of the case.
In the court of law, the lawyer is constantly involved in an adversarial, contradictory process and ever looking to gain an advantage. The communicator, meanwhile, uses communication techniques intended to complement and influence public opinion while avoiding direct confrontation with the opposing party. It is an evolutionary strategy used to reinforce its version of events in the heart of public opinion. Thus, while the lawyer debates with and questions the opposing party, the Communications consultant deals with the arguments in hand in order to integrate them into a communication plan.
Furthermore, the lawyer is taught to have an answer to everything, which should not necessarily be taken for arrogance. This predisposition, developed at law school, stems from the very essence of the legal framework in which the lawyer evolves. Laws and their provisions are applied to every problem or contentious situation. It is up to the lawyer to find the right legal clause. Therefore, he will be inclined to apply the same reasoning in any court, whether that of justice or public opinion. The communicator, with fewer constraints, can allow himself a less adversarial position; his goal is not to win a lawsuit but to preserve the reputation of his client.
These two professions do not attach the same importance to previous similar situations. While the lawyer seeks to strengthen his argument by referring to jurisprudence as a source of law, the communicator will draw on the opinion of the media and the public. Each case is unique to him and will be dealt with on its own merits.
We know about the uncertainty associated with the outcome of a trial. The Communications consultant, like the lawyer, cannot guarantee a result and promise that his client's position will find coverage in a specific media, let alone on the front page of a newspaper. Nevertheless, the communicator who knows the media and journalists who may be interested in the case can anticipate the potential media fallout.
A further paradox: the Communications consultant’s profession suffers from the lack of academic curricula required for its practice. The lawyer must have a curriculum and a university degree to practice law. Access to the public relations profession, on the other hand, does not require any special training. Anyone can therefore legitimately believe that he is capable of becoming a public relations professional and cater to a client base. This imbalance may affect the relationship between these two professions. However, if a person with no legal background does not claim to be able to do the work of a lawyer, why would such a rule not also apply to the activity of Communications specialist? Everyone can "do the job", but not everyone can do it well!
Believing that good communication skills are an innate quality is a fallacy. Even the greatest communicators, who have always given the impression of being naturals such as Winston Churchill, have only achieved this after hard work consisting of experience and training.
To meet these challenges, it is not uncommon for a Litigation Communications specialist to combine the training of a lawyer and a Communications consultant. This double cap will enable her/him to easily understand the legal strategy proposed by the lawyer mandated or the relevant legal department, and thus to understand all aspects of a Litigation Communications strategy. The synergy between the various players involved in the defence of their common client will thus be facilitated and will be a key asset for success.
A united team for efficient cooperation
Effective litigation management requires the mobilization of a team comprising lawyers and communications experts at a minimum. A coordinated plan, including the actions envisaged at the legal level and their impacts, along with the communication guidelines, will have to be put in place. Regular meetings between team members, composed of seasoned professionals with the required seniority, will be necessary to reassess the situation and adapt to recent developments.
Taking the specific case of a company, it is recommended that the team be composed of at least three experts:
- The head of the company's legal affairs or a member of the legal department in charge of litigation. In any case, he must be able to make strategic decisions and commit the company. Endowed with a global vision, he will need to understand the risks entailed in adverse public opinion. It will also be important for him to get involved in this working group and to be persuaded of the benefits of a cooperation between specialists in different fields.
- A senior lawyer of the mandated firm. He or she should be open-minded about the merits of cooperation.
- An experienced Communications specialist, either in-house or appointed by the company. If not a lawyer by training, she or he will at least have a well-grounded legal knowledge, including that of procedural codes. Business experience will be a plus. The Communications consultant being the most atypical of the team members, he will be asked to be an alter ego in the discussions, capable of imposing his ideas and synthesizing the specific aspects of a strategy.
Lawyers and Communications specialists evolve in two different worlds. This should not prevent them from working together. A team in which each member respects the work of the other, without encroaching on their respective skills, will enable them to implement an optimal legal and communications strategy and thus best preserve the interests of their client.
Laurent Ashenden