Q&A: What to say to media instead of “no comment”

Most attorneys get their media training in an ethics CLE that covers what we aren’t allowed to do and say. So when a reporter calls, we clam up. Is that the best option?

The worst thing you can do is say “no comment.” It can be viewed as a dodge, and it can have a negative connotation. 

“No comment” also misses an opportunity to have a say in the narrative, especially if there are stories containing assumptions about a case, or that quote others’ opinions about the case.

What should you say instead?

In most cases, a standard statement is sufficient, and there’s no need to overcomplicate media response because saying anything more could be both unnecessary and ill-advised. 

Some version of this statement customized to the matter is often the most straightforward course of action: “We cannot speak about the matter while the litigation is active and ongoing.” 

Sometimes it may be effective to add a line about the outcome the client hopes to achieve (with client approval, of course!): “While we cannot speak about specifics during ongoing litigation, our client is focused on [the goal of X].”

What if you do want to say something? 

There is no black-and-white answer to this question because each client matter has variables and nuances. The bottom line is that litigators and PR advisers should first agree on the goal of any communications about the case. That goal drives the PR playbook for the matter. 

Lawyers often appreciate media attention when there is a positive outcome for their client. But litigation must meet multiple criteria to be newsworthy (e.g., wide impact, big money settlement, big corporate brand or criminal aspect, etc.).

The client may not want any media coverage, especially if they are being sued. In this instance, one way to gain visibility for the good work of the legal team could be for that lawyer to write a bylined article about the unique nature of the case, why the legal team took a specific approach and why the win is important. The client can be involved in the review and approval of the article for publication. 

How early should you be thinking about comms when you know a case is going to attract public attention?

Before filing is the ideal time to prepare. After that, prepare for media attention around key case milestones and outcomes (e.g., appeals, settlements, etc.). 

What if you didn’t anticipate the case gaining attention?

Start by running a search across Google and the LLMs to see if and how the case is being portrayed. Then research and understand how the matter is treated in non-traditional channels, like Reddit, LinkedIn, blogs, Substack newsletters, etc. 

There are platforms and dashboards that can help, but you can use existing search to gain an initial understanding of external conversations and media coverage about the case. Is the way the case is positioned in the media accurate? If not, how severe are the inaccuracies and what are the consequences for the case?

From there, you can assess and decide how to respond. 

And that response might include bringing in someone like you who can help figure out what to do?

Absolutely. A PR consultant can help you with a media strategy and, if appropriate, draft a prepared statement so you aren’t just saying “no comment.” 

But a good PR team can also help you be proactive about keeping in touch with interested reporters to alert them to case milestones and trial dates, or hand them PDFs of judgments with additional context on complex, broader implications of the case, for example. Eventually, depending on the outcome and client, it may be appropriate to provide either an off-the-record or on-the-record interview for reporters and prepare accordingly. 

We don’t have time to get into the distinction between on and off the record today, but I am curious how bringing in a PR consultant impacts the attorney-client relationship. Is there a way to protect privileged information while still letting the PR team know why a case is important?

You’re going to want to research how the Kovel doctrine works in your jurisdiction. In United States v. Kovel, the court equated the work of an accountant working for the attorney to a “translator” and that a privilege between the two was “necessary, or at least highly useful, for the effective consultation between the client and the lawyer which the privilege is designed to permit.” 

Some courts will extend the Kovel doctrine to relationships between attorneys and PR consultants. You can lay the foundation for this by clearly stating within the contract or retention letter that communications between the consultant and the law firm are confidential and privileged. 

Bonus Round: What’s something currently on your radar that’s shaping how you’re thinking and working right now?

I’ve become slightly obsessed with a Chinese martial art called Wing Chun in the last two and a half years. Learning a brand-new skill and honing the details several times a week is invigorating. As a PR consultant, the need to set aside distractions to remain hyper focused, practice new skills and engage in continuous learning are all reinforced in my martial arts training.  

Thursday's newsletter: 1 in 5 lawyers has never done this
The most recent Q&A: No AI policy? Your staff already wrote one
In the vault: Every firm growth and marketing lesson we've published for small firms this year