WHEN SAYING NOTHING IS THE STRATEGY
WHEN SAYING NOTHING IS THE STRATEGY
Knowing When Not to Respond to the Media During Litigation
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]
When a reporter contacts a defense attorney or client about an active legal matter, there is an understandable instinct to respond. An allegation may be unfair. A headline may feel one-sided. A court filing may contain claims the client strongly disputes. The natural reaction is often to correct the record immediately, provide the missing context and make sure the client's side of the story is heard.
Sometimes that is exactly the right communications strategy. Sometimes it is not.
One of the most important principles of litigation communications is recognizing that a public response has consequences of its own. A statement can provide valuable context or correct a meaningful factual error, but it can also extend the life of a story, create a new headline, introduce information that was not previously public or place the client on the record in a way that complicates the legal strategy.
For defense attorneys and their clients, the question should therefore be more sophisticated than, “How do we respond?” The first question should be: Does responding actually serve the client's interests?
Effective litigation PR is not measured by how frequently a client appears in the media. In high-stakes legal matters, strategic restraint can be every bit as important as strategic engagement.
“NO COMMENT” AND NO STRATEGY ARE NOT THE SAME THING
There is a significant difference between deliberately choosing not to engage with the media and simply ignoring the communications environment.
A decision not to respond can be strategic when the legal and communications teams have evaluated the inquiry, reviewed the existing coverage, considered what information is already public and determined that engagement is unlikely to improve the client's position. In that situation, silence is an informed decision.
Ignoring media attention without understanding what is being reported is different. Counsel may decide that no response is necessary, but that decision should ideally be made with an awareness of the narrative developing around the client.
This is where legal media advisory can be valuable even when no public communications occur. Monitoring coverage, evaluating reporter inquiries and understanding how a story is evolving gives defense counsel the information necessary to decide whether continued restraint remains appropriate.
The absence of a public response does not mean nothing is happening behind the scenes.
NOT EVERY NEGATIVE STORY REQUIRES A RESPONSE
Negative coverage is uncomfortable, particularly when the client believes important context is missing. But unfavorable reporting alone does not necessarily justify engagement.
If a journalist accurately reports allegations contained in an indictment, complaint or other public filing, the resulting story may be damaging to the client's reputation without being factually incorrect. Challenging a reporter simply because the coverage is unfavorable can create an adversarial relationship without changing the underlying facts available to the journalist.
It can also prolong attention.
A story that might otherwise receive one news cycle can generate additional coverage if a strongly worded response creates a new development for reporters to cover. The client's statement may become a headline itself, prompting responses from prosecutors, opposing counsel or other parties and creating an entirely new round of reporting.
Before responding to negative coverage, defense counsel and communications advisors should consider whether the response is likely to materially improve the public's understanding of the matter or simply keep the controversy alive.
Sometimes the best communications strategy is allowing a story to pass.
INACCURATE REPORTING REQUIRES A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS
Strategic restraint does not mean accepting material factual inaccuracies.
There is an important distinction between reporting that is unfavorable and reporting that is demonstrably wrong. If an article incorrectly identifies the charges against a client, attributes conduct to the wrong person, misstates the outcome of a hearing or contains another significant factual error, there may be a strong reason to request a correction.
The key is to focus on facts rather than tone.
A professional request for correction should identify the specific inaccurate statement, provide documentation or another reliable basis for the correction when appropriate and explain clearly what should be changed. The objective is not to persuade the journalist to view the client more favorably. It is to ensure that the public record accurately reflects the facts.
This distinction is particularly important in reputation management during litigation because online news coverage can remain searchable for years. A material error that goes uncorrected may be repeated by subsequent outlets and eventually become treated as established fact.
In those circumstances, silence may no longer be the best strategy.
ASK WHAT THE RESPONSE WILL ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH
Before issuing a public statement, it is useful to identify the specific objective.
Is the response correcting a material factual error? Is it providing context that significantly changes the public's understanding of the situation? Is it reassuring employees, customers, investors or other important stakeholders? Is it addressing information that is beginning to spread across multiple credible news organizations? Is there a business or reputational reason that makes remaining silent more damaging than speaking?
If the team cannot clearly articulate what the response is intended to accomplish, that is worth considering before anything is issued.
The desire to “get our side out there” is understandable, but it is not always a sufficient communications objective. Once information is provided publicly, the client loses control over how it is excerpted, characterized, compared with other statements or incorporated into future coverage.
A response should therefore have a purpose beyond satisfying the immediate emotional desire to answer an allegation.
CONSIDER WHETHER THE RESPONSE CREATES A SECOND STORYOne of the most overlooked questions in crisis communications during litigation is whether responding will create additional news value.
Journalists report developments. A new statement from a defendant, company or attorney can itself become a development, particularly in a high-profile case. That statement may prompt the other side to respond, which creates another development, followed by another round of coverage.
This does not mean clients should never respond because doing so may generate additional attention. There are circumstances where establishing the client's position publicly is important enough to justify that consequence.
It simply means the consequence should be considered beforehand.
If the existing story is already losing momentum, issuing an aggressive response several hours or days later may revive an issue that was beginning to disappear. Media monitoring can help the team understand whether coverage is expanding, stabilizing or declining before deciding whether additional engagement makes strategic sense.
THE AUDIENCE MAY MATTER MORE THAN THE REPORTER
Another important consideration is identifying who actually needs to hear from the client.
The reporter requesting comment is not necessarily the most important audience. In some matters, the greater concern may be employees, customers, business partners, investors, regulators, professional colleagues or other stakeholders whose confidence matters to the client's future.
That can lead to a different communications strategy.
Instead of issuing a broad public statement, the client may need targeted communications with specific stakeholders. An executive facing litigation, for example, may have legitimate reasons to communicate directly with employees or business partners even when defense counsel determines that speaking publicly about the case would be inappropriate.
Litigation communications strategy should therefore consider the entire stakeholder environment rather than treating every communications question as a media relations question.
Sometimes the people who matter most will never read the newspaper article that triggered the discussion.
SILENCE STILL REQUIRES PREPARATION
Choosing not to respond publicly does not mean the client should be unprepared.
Reporters may continue calling. A client may be approached unexpectedly outside a courthouse. Employees may receive inquiries. New developments may change the legal or media environment. Another party may make a public statement that requires the team to reconsider its position.
When the strategy is not to engage, everyone involved should understand what that means operationally. Media inquiries should still be routed to a designated point of contact. The client should know how to respond if approached directly. Coverage should be monitored. Potential holding statements can remain ready in case circumstances change.
The decision not to speak today does not require the team to make the same decision tomorrow.
Strategic communications is an ongoing assessment of the environment, not a single decision made at the beginning of a case.
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN SPEAKING IS NECESSARY
Restraint is valuable, but it should not become a reflex either.
There are situations where the absence of accurate information can allow a materially false narrative to become established. There may be circumstances where a client's reputation, business operations or relationships with important stakeholders are being significantly affected by information that can responsibly be addressed.
There may also be moments in the legal process when counsel determines that certain information can appropriately be communicated and doing so serves a legitimate purpose.
In those situations, a carefully developed statement or selective media engagement may be appropriate.
The same principle applies whether the recommendation is to speak or remain silent: the decision should be based on the legal strategy, the communications environment and the client's long-term interests rather than pressure to react.
COMMUNICATIONS COUNSEL SHOULD BE WILLING TO RECOMMEND SILENCE
Defense attorneys should expect communications advisors working on litigation to understand that their role is not to generate publicity.
A good litigation communications advisor should be comfortable telling a client that an interview is unnecessary, that a press release will create more attention than it solves or that an angry response to an unfavorable article should never be sent.
That is particularly important because clients experiencing public criticism often feel an understandable need to defend themselves immediately. An outside advisor can help separate the emotional reaction from the strategic decision.
The question is not whether the client wants to respond. The question is whether responding advances the client's interests.
Sometimes it does. Sometimes the most valuable advice communications counsel can provide is to wait.
THE STRONGEST RESPONSE IS THE ONE THAT SERVES THE LARGER STRATEGY
Litigation communications is ultimately an exercise in judgment. There is no universal rule that defendants should remain silent, just as there is no rule that every allegation deserves a public response.
Each decision should consider the legal posture of the case, the accuracy and reach of the reporting, the client's reputation, the audiences that matter, the likelihood of additional coverage and the potential consequences of introducing new information into the public record.
For defense counsel, this is why communications strategy should be established before a case becomes a media crisis. When the framework already exists, the team can evaluate an inquiry or negative story based on the client's broader objectives rather than the emotional pressure of the moment.
Sometimes the right strategy is to provide context. Sometimes it is to correct the record. Sometimes it is to prepare quietly for what may come next.
And sometimes the strongest communications strategy is to say nothing at all.
ABOUT ANDREA KHOURY
Andrea Khoury is Founder & Principal of Khoury Public Relations & Media Group and a strategic communications and reputation advisor. She works with defense attorneys, law firms, executives, companies and their clients on litigation communications, legal media strategy, crisis communications, reputation management and other high-stakes matters involving significant public attention.
Khoury Public Relations & Media Group provides litigation communications, legal PR, crisis communications, media relations and reputation advisory services to defense attorneys and their clients nationwide. Andrea works directly with legal counsel to assess media inquiries, monitor developing narratives, prepare clients and develop communications strategies that respect the legal process and support the direction of counsel.
For confidential litigation communications inquiries:
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]
Knowing When Not to Respond to the Media During Litigation
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]
When a reporter contacts a defense attorney or client about an active legal matter, there is an understandable instinct to respond. An allegation may be unfair. A headline may feel one-sided. A court filing may contain claims the client strongly disputes. The natural reaction is often to correct the record immediately, provide the missing context and make sure the client's side of the story is heard.
Sometimes that is exactly the right communications strategy. Sometimes it is not.
One of the most important principles of litigation communications is recognizing that a public response has consequences of its own. A statement can provide valuable context or correct a meaningful factual error, but it can also extend the life of a story, create a new headline, introduce information that was not previously public or place the client on the record in a way that complicates the legal strategy.
For defense attorneys and their clients, the question should therefore be more sophisticated than, “How do we respond?” The first question should be: Does responding actually serve the client's interests?
Effective litigation PR is not measured by how frequently a client appears in the media. In high-stakes legal matters, strategic restraint can be every bit as important as strategic engagement.
“NO COMMENT” AND NO STRATEGY ARE NOT THE SAME THING
There is a significant difference between deliberately choosing not to engage with the media and simply ignoring the communications environment.
A decision not to respond can be strategic when the legal and communications teams have evaluated the inquiry, reviewed the existing coverage, considered what information is already public and determined that engagement is unlikely to improve the client's position. In that situation, silence is an informed decision.
Ignoring media attention without understanding what is being reported is different. Counsel may decide that no response is necessary, but that decision should ideally be made with an awareness of the narrative developing around the client.
This is where legal media advisory can be valuable even when no public communications occur. Monitoring coverage, evaluating reporter inquiries and understanding how a story is evolving gives defense counsel the information necessary to decide whether continued restraint remains appropriate.
The absence of a public response does not mean nothing is happening behind the scenes.
NOT EVERY NEGATIVE STORY REQUIRES A RESPONSE
Negative coverage is uncomfortable, particularly when the client believes important context is missing. But unfavorable reporting alone does not necessarily justify engagement.
If a journalist accurately reports allegations contained in an indictment, complaint or other public filing, the resulting story may be damaging to the client's reputation without being factually incorrect. Challenging a reporter simply because the coverage is unfavorable can create an adversarial relationship without changing the underlying facts available to the journalist.
It can also prolong attention.
A story that might otherwise receive one news cycle can generate additional coverage if a strongly worded response creates a new development for reporters to cover. The client's statement may become a headline itself, prompting responses from prosecutors, opposing counsel or other parties and creating an entirely new round of reporting.
Before responding to negative coverage, defense counsel and communications advisors should consider whether the response is likely to materially improve the public's understanding of the matter or simply keep the controversy alive.
Sometimes the best communications strategy is allowing a story to pass.
INACCURATE REPORTING REQUIRES A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS
Strategic restraint does not mean accepting material factual inaccuracies.
There is an important distinction between reporting that is unfavorable and reporting that is demonstrably wrong. If an article incorrectly identifies the charges against a client, attributes conduct to the wrong person, misstates the outcome of a hearing or contains another significant factual error, there may be a strong reason to request a correction.
The key is to focus on facts rather than tone.
A professional request for correction should identify the specific inaccurate statement, provide documentation or another reliable basis for the correction when appropriate and explain clearly what should be changed. The objective is not to persuade the journalist to view the client more favorably. It is to ensure that the public record accurately reflects the facts.
This distinction is particularly important in reputation management during litigation because online news coverage can remain searchable for years. A material error that goes uncorrected may be repeated by subsequent outlets and eventually become treated as established fact.
In those circumstances, silence may no longer be the best strategy.
ASK WHAT THE RESPONSE WILL ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH
Before issuing a public statement, it is useful to identify the specific objective.
Is the response correcting a material factual error? Is it providing context that significantly changes the public's understanding of the situation? Is it reassuring employees, customers, investors or other important stakeholders? Is it addressing information that is beginning to spread across multiple credible news organizations? Is there a business or reputational reason that makes remaining silent more damaging than speaking?
If the team cannot clearly articulate what the response is intended to accomplish, that is worth considering before anything is issued.
The desire to “get our side out there” is understandable, but it is not always a sufficient communications objective. Once information is provided publicly, the client loses control over how it is excerpted, characterized, compared with other statements or incorporated into future coverage.
A response should therefore have a purpose beyond satisfying the immediate emotional desire to answer an allegation.
CONSIDER WHETHER THE RESPONSE CREATES A SECOND STORYOne of the most overlooked questions in crisis communications during litigation is whether responding will create additional news value.
Journalists report developments. A new statement from a defendant, company or attorney can itself become a development, particularly in a high-profile case. That statement may prompt the other side to respond, which creates another development, followed by another round of coverage.
This does not mean clients should never respond because doing so may generate additional attention. There are circumstances where establishing the client's position publicly is important enough to justify that consequence.
It simply means the consequence should be considered beforehand.
If the existing story is already losing momentum, issuing an aggressive response several hours or days later may revive an issue that was beginning to disappear. Media monitoring can help the team understand whether coverage is expanding, stabilizing or declining before deciding whether additional engagement makes strategic sense.
THE AUDIENCE MAY MATTER MORE THAN THE REPORTER
Another important consideration is identifying who actually needs to hear from the client.
The reporter requesting comment is not necessarily the most important audience. In some matters, the greater concern may be employees, customers, business partners, investors, regulators, professional colleagues or other stakeholders whose confidence matters to the client's future.
That can lead to a different communications strategy.
Instead of issuing a broad public statement, the client may need targeted communications with specific stakeholders. An executive facing litigation, for example, may have legitimate reasons to communicate directly with employees or business partners even when defense counsel determines that speaking publicly about the case would be inappropriate.
Litigation communications strategy should therefore consider the entire stakeholder environment rather than treating every communications question as a media relations question.
Sometimes the people who matter most will never read the newspaper article that triggered the discussion.
SILENCE STILL REQUIRES PREPARATION
Choosing not to respond publicly does not mean the client should be unprepared.
Reporters may continue calling. A client may be approached unexpectedly outside a courthouse. Employees may receive inquiries. New developments may change the legal or media environment. Another party may make a public statement that requires the team to reconsider its position.
When the strategy is not to engage, everyone involved should understand what that means operationally. Media inquiries should still be routed to a designated point of contact. The client should know how to respond if approached directly. Coverage should be monitored. Potential holding statements can remain ready in case circumstances change.
The decision not to speak today does not require the team to make the same decision tomorrow.
Strategic communications is an ongoing assessment of the environment, not a single decision made at the beginning of a case.
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN SPEAKING IS NECESSARY
Restraint is valuable, but it should not become a reflex either.
There are situations where the absence of accurate information can allow a materially false narrative to become established. There may be circumstances where a client's reputation, business operations or relationships with important stakeholders are being significantly affected by information that can responsibly be addressed.
There may also be moments in the legal process when counsel determines that certain information can appropriately be communicated and doing so serves a legitimate purpose.
In those situations, a carefully developed statement or selective media engagement may be appropriate.
The same principle applies whether the recommendation is to speak or remain silent: the decision should be based on the legal strategy, the communications environment and the client's long-term interests rather than pressure to react.
COMMUNICATIONS COUNSEL SHOULD BE WILLING TO RECOMMEND SILENCE
Defense attorneys should expect communications advisors working on litigation to understand that their role is not to generate publicity.
A good litigation communications advisor should be comfortable telling a client that an interview is unnecessary, that a press release will create more attention than it solves or that an angry response to an unfavorable article should never be sent.
That is particularly important because clients experiencing public criticism often feel an understandable need to defend themselves immediately. An outside advisor can help separate the emotional reaction from the strategic decision.
The question is not whether the client wants to respond. The question is whether responding advances the client's interests.
Sometimes it does. Sometimes the most valuable advice communications counsel can provide is to wait.
THE STRONGEST RESPONSE IS THE ONE THAT SERVES THE LARGER STRATEGY
Litigation communications is ultimately an exercise in judgment. There is no universal rule that defendants should remain silent, just as there is no rule that every allegation deserves a public response.
Each decision should consider the legal posture of the case, the accuracy and reach of the reporting, the client's reputation, the audiences that matter, the likelihood of additional coverage and the potential consequences of introducing new information into the public record.
For defense counsel, this is why communications strategy should be established before a case becomes a media crisis. When the framework already exists, the team can evaluate an inquiry or negative story based on the client's broader objectives rather than the emotional pressure of the moment.
Sometimes the right strategy is to provide context. Sometimes it is to correct the record. Sometimes it is to prepare quietly for what may come next.
And sometimes the strongest communications strategy is to say nothing at all.
ABOUT ANDREA KHOURY
Andrea Khoury is Founder & Principal of Khoury Public Relations & Media Group and a strategic communications and reputation advisor. She works with defense attorneys, law firms, executives, companies and their clients on litigation communications, legal media strategy, crisis communications, reputation management and other high-stakes matters involving significant public attention.
Khoury Public Relations & Media Group provides litigation communications, legal PR, crisis communications, media relations and reputation advisory services to defense attorneys and their clients nationwide. Andrea works directly with legal counsel to assess media inquiries, monitor developing narratives, prepare clients and develop communications strategies that respect the legal process and support the direction of counsel.
For confidential litigation communications inquiries:
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]