The Director of Litigation Communications at PROA, Mercedes Asoreyreflects in this tribune published in Dircomfidential on the strategy that should accompany judicial processes, from storytelling to negotiation, including reputation management.
We all have a judge inside us. We often become those "judges" who, depending on our own prejudices, our legal knowledge (a lot or some less), our common sense (again more or less) and the information we receive, pass our "just" verdict. This verdict is the parallel judgement that has already been set in motion, which added to the judgements of each individual can turn public opinion into a condemnation or an anticipated acquittal.
The information we have received from the process, without reading a document of evidence, without stepping foot in the courtroom, without hardly having heard the parties, has become evidence. Without going any further, when we talk about criminal proceedings we turn the presumption of innocence into an annoying catchword. Presumed has become just a word that we are obliged to use before talking about thieves, embezzlers, corrupt people, fraudsters, etc.
On many occasions, the parties involved in a process become mere spectators of their media shipwreck. Throughout legal proceedings, aspects such as storytelling, negotiation and a medium- to long-term reputational strategy are key elements to avoid ending up feeling like a ship adrift in this parallel trial.
When we think of litigation communication, we often identify it with crisis communication. On many occasions, its management is treated as a one-off event reported by journalists, in isolation. However, the reality is that we are talking about a process. That is, a set of successive phases of a complex phenomenon or event, and if one thing is clear, it is that we cannot treat these phases in isolation.
It is true that crisis communication can be part of the communication structure of court reporting, but not only. When we refer to litigation communication, we are talking about judicial processes. As the word "process" itself indicates, it would be a mistake to act only by "neutralising" isolated events that disturb us. On the contrary, we must approach it as a chain of events more or less likely to have public repercussions.
Viewing a court case as a cluster of isolated events will only undermine a coordinated communication strategy. What must be achieved is a permanent negotiation that allows for constant agreements to be managed between the parties involved in a media trial, taking into account their interests and needs at each stage of the legal proceedings.
Addressing every "crisis" that arises in the process is nothing more than patching things up. The ideal scenario would be to use the moments of "calm" to negotiate collaboratively with each of the parties with "interests" in the parallel trial, also on the communication aspects.
What are these parts? We cannot list them all, but we can focus on those who may have the most influence in disseminating the "evidence" that, as we said before, conditions the "judges" in all of us. Of course, we must take into account the lawyers who advise the parties, the companies or individuals involved, and the journalists who report.
For example, one might think that the interests of the lawyer and the client will always be the same in front of the media, but this does not always have to be the case. The lawyer has an obligation of confidentiality, but the company may be interested in explaining its point of view at a certain procedural moment if the company's reputation is questioned. In this case, the needs of the journalist and the company involved in a case may be more in tune than the interests of the lawyer and his client. The media wants information, the Dircom believes that providing this information may favour the company, and the lawyer may be reluctant because he or she has a more conservative "style" with regard to sharing news of the proceedings.
Court information is becoming more and more relevant in the media, information that jumps immediately to social networks. The parties involved understand the need to have an orderly strategy for the entire judicial procedure. Similarly, it would be necessary to have a coordinated and medium-term vision when we are talking about the media trial, instead of "responding" to every media "provocation". Having an orderly communication strategy will make all the difference in dealing with those "judges" in all of us.