Legal Crisis Strategies : Crisis Communications Lawyer & Attorney : McDermott Will & Emery Law Firm : Risk Mitigation, Mass Litigation

No matter what your crisis is, and no matter what your media strategy may be, the best way to manage a crisis is to respond to reporters and to do so in a timely manner. It may sound obvious, but too many companies fail to do this, whether because executives have stuck their heads in the sand, don’t feel prepared to talk with the media, or simply don’t make media inquiries a priority. But ignoring the media is a huge mistake that can be easily avoided.

No “no comment,” please!

When a crisis situation breaks, it is imperative to put together, at a minimum, a statement—no matter how short—that will serve as your response to media inquiries until you are prepared to provide further information. Even if it is something as generic as, “we are taking this situation seriously and conducting a full investigation.” Anything is better than a “no comment,” which can leave the public with the impression that you or your company has something to hide. 

Proactive Media Strategy

Depending on the circumstances, adopting a proactive media strategy can be the most effective way to manage a crisis situation. This requires some fact-finding ahead of time so that you can work closely with one or several reporters as events unfold. Even if there is some uncertainty surrounding the situation, building a rapport with reporters and providing them with the facts is the best way to get accurate, balanced coverage of an issue. News outlets can report the best facts you have on your side only if your provide those facts to them. Stated differently, take every opportunity to balance a bad story with all of your best facts—including the story of what you are doing to take accountability for what went wrong. This last step is the key to protecting your reputation and repairing trust among your stakeholders and customers in the aftermath of a crisis.

Rapid Response

Being prepared for the onslaught of media inquiries is a critical part of managing a crisis. We often work with our clients to set up rapid response operations, which is simply a small group of individuals tasked with receiving, organizing, and responding to media inquiries. Those in charge of responding to reporters should be one or two people who are very familiar with all of the relevant facts, statements, and/or messages (depending on your particular strategy) which should be vetted by executives and attorneys. These individuals should have experience working with the media, and should be prepared and available to return phone calls well within reporters’ deadlines.

When you are unprepared for a rush of media coverage, your side of the story becomes, “Company X was not immediately available for comment.” This is not as bad as a “no comment,” but it is a wasted opportunity to balance the story with good facts, and perhaps more importantly, a wasted opportunity to handle the negative facts. Obtaining balanced coverage requires ensuring that reporters have facts to report—whether positive or negative.

Conclusion

It is a worthwhile exercise to conduct a “fire drill” scenario to plan ahead for a negative event. Identify ahead of time who will comprise your team of inside employees and outside advisors that you will call when a crisis breaks. Make sure you plan for good communication and organization, especially when it comes to handling the media. Urge your executives to view each media inquiry as an opportunity rather than an annoyance, and you will see what the power of communication can do to shape public opinion.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Whenever I have been faced with counseling a CEO going before the press or Congress to answer for the worst judgments by persons in the CEO’s organization, the tension between reliance upon the regime of legal rights and the decision to accept a broader responsibility is inevitably on the agenda. This is a difficult position to navigate when simultaneously juggling legal liability, duties to shareholders, and long-term reputation concerns. 

In 1974, Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhyenitsyn delivered an address at Harvard University in which he critiqued Western (read “U.S.”) society for its over-reliance on law compared with doing what is “right.” A piece of that address is well worth considering in the wake of so many recent corporate crises: 

Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad.

People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd.

One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer; after all, people are free not to buy it.

I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.

(Emphasis added.) 

It is absolutely clear that any divergence between a company’s assertion of its legal rights, even in the most polite and appropriate way, and the public’s perception of what is ethical behavior poses the ultimate serious issue for crisis management. For example, a company that cause a crisis in which people or property are injured may take responsibility by saying that it will pay “all legitimate claims.” Immediately, the media and public will ask whether that company is relying on a litigation strategy to determine what a legitimate claim will be—certainly a legal right—or whether the company is promising to accept responsibility for damage to others from its conduct that might even be the result of its business partners’ actions and decisions? Will legitimate or even peripheral claims be paid outside of litigation? 

In a legal-political-business and environmental catastrophe, can a company, as a representative of the corporate business community, claim that it can comply with ethical and moral values and set aside legal principles? A company facing a complex crisis is in the most difficult position possible to parse such distinctions. The irony such companies face is that, in order to maintain their long-term reputation in the marketplace, they must act ethically and ‘do the right thing.’ However, ‘doing the right thing,’ in some cases, may mean taking financial responsibility to the point where a company cannot survive in the long-term. Even with the best intentions, drawing the line between a legal floor and an ethical ceiling can be difficult and risky. For this reason, a company must have a clear understanding of its constituents, its risks, and must surround itself with a proven and trustworthy set of advisors. More thoughts on this next week…

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link