Page 59 - MASTER COPY LEADERS BOOK 9editedJKK (24)_Neat
P. 59
Leaders in Legal Business
courtroom. As communications specialists, they must be consistently sensitive to, and equally wary of,
overly aggressive statements that can torpedo the litigation itself.
Pick the media you want to engage. Have some practical reason why you are cold-calling one reporter
rather than another. Remember that, in certain cases, a well-positioned, high-authority blogger might hold
more sway than the well-established journalist. At the same time, do not blacklist honest writers or
broadcasters because they don’t happen to support your position. If anything, they’re the ones with whom
you need to be particularly polite and transparent.
Before dealing with the media, prepare different messages in anticipation of alternate outcomes and
unanticipated events. Anticipate the toughest, most hostile questions, and prepare Q&As to respond if
and when those questions are asked.
When dealing with the media, never predict outcomes; there’s no benefit in that. Also, don’t provide court
documents until you’re sure they’ve actually been released. In risky situations, consider written
statements in lieu of phone interviews. You can’t be misquoted that way, so you minimize the chance
that a reporter’s mistake — or your own slip of the tongue — goes viral before you have a chance to
correct the record.
The media training undergone by Shaun McCutcheon is almost always helpful. Videotape the session so
that spokespersons can better correct mistakes and refine their delivery.
Of course, be cognizant of the danger signs: inconsistent messages; backtracking statements; needless
delays in responding to media requests; and failure to do due diligence on reporters or other parties to the public
controversy. A single spokesperson is usually preferable to multiple spokespersons who may inadvertently
contradict one another.
The Grandest Strategy
In the evolving schemata of litigation communications, all pieces are cogs in the same machine geared to
the same result — minimizing the client’s exposure outside the court of law while maximizing whatever public
assets the course of a lawsuit presents.
One strategic asset merits particular attention and can bring this discussion to a fitting conclusion.
As of this writing, the Supreme Court is deciding a case brought by a woman against UPS, which put her
on unpaid leave because she had been pregnant and could not lift heavy packages. The 1978 Pregnancy
Discrimination Act guarantees that a pregnant woman or a woman who’s just given birth shall be treated the same
for all employment-related purposes, yet by the time Young v. United Parcel Service came to trial, UPS was
already in full compliance. The needed changes were scheduled for early 2015. Whatever SCOTUS decides, no
one can claim UPS wasn’t ready, willing, and able to solve the problem without being forced to do so by courts
or regulators.
Six years ago, Heartland Payment Systems, one of the nation’s largest processors of credit and debit card
payments, suffered what was at the time the biggest data security breach in American history. The litigation
potential was incalculable; the potential brand damage was perhaps even greater than what major corporations
like Home Depot would later face as a result of larger breaches. Heartland not only contacted 155,000 customers
before they were legally required to, but also took a critical step further by accelerating the development of
encryption technology to prevent future incidents and by sharing critical security technology with competitors.
Heartland emerged a stronger company than it had been before the breach. Amid unstinted public approbation,
share price nearly tripled from its low point during the crisis.
The lesson of these two cases is as important as it is obvious. Companies may not be strongly positioned
in litigation. They may be inescapably liable for proven omissions and/or commissions. The question then
becomes: Now that we have a problem, will you, the party liable, be part of the solution? And how committed
are you to reaching that solution, irrespective of what it costs or the extent to which public officials are breathing
down your back?
52
courtroom. As communications specialists, they must be consistently sensitive to, and equally wary of,
overly aggressive statements that can torpedo the litigation itself.
Pick the media you want to engage. Have some practical reason why you are cold-calling one reporter
rather than another. Remember that, in certain cases, a well-positioned, high-authority blogger might hold
more sway than the well-established journalist. At the same time, do not blacklist honest writers or
broadcasters because they don’t happen to support your position. If anything, they’re the ones with whom
you need to be particularly polite and transparent.
Before dealing with the media, prepare different messages in anticipation of alternate outcomes and
unanticipated events. Anticipate the toughest, most hostile questions, and prepare Q&As to respond if
and when those questions are asked.
When dealing with the media, never predict outcomes; there’s no benefit in that. Also, don’t provide court
documents until you’re sure they’ve actually been released. In risky situations, consider written
statements in lieu of phone interviews. You can’t be misquoted that way, so you minimize the chance
that a reporter’s mistake — or your own slip of the tongue — goes viral before you have a chance to
correct the record.
The media training undergone by Shaun McCutcheon is almost always helpful. Videotape the session so
that spokespersons can better correct mistakes and refine their delivery.
Of course, be cognizant of the danger signs: inconsistent messages; backtracking statements; needless
delays in responding to media requests; and failure to do due diligence on reporters or other parties to the public
controversy. A single spokesperson is usually preferable to multiple spokespersons who may inadvertently
contradict one another.
The Grandest Strategy
In the evolving schemata of litigation communications, all pieces are cogs in the same machine geared to
the same result — minimizing the client’s exposure outside the court of law while maximizing whatever public
assets the course of a lawsuit presents.
One strategic asset merits particular attention and can bring this discussion to a fitting conclusion.
As of this writing, the Supreme Court is deciding a case brought by a woman against UPS, which put her
on unpaid leave because she had been pregnant and could not lift heavy packages. The 1978 Pregnancy
Discrimination Act guarantees that a pregnant woman or a woman who’s just given birth shall be treated the same
for all employment-related purposes, yet by the time Young v. United Parcel Service came to trial, UPS was
already in full compliance. The needed changes were scheduled for early 2015. Whatever SCOTUS decides, no
one can claim UPS wasn’t ready, willing, and able to solve the problem without being forced to do so by courts
or regulators.
Six years ago, Heartland Payment Systems, one of the nation’s largest processors of credit and debit card
payments, suffered what was at the time the biggest data security breach in American history. The litigation
potential was incalculable; the potential brand damage was perhaps even greater than what major corporations
like Home Depot would later face as a result of larger breaches. Heartland not only contacted 155,000 customers
before they were legally required to, but also took a critical step further by accelerating the development of
encryption technology to prevent future incidents and by sharing critical security technology with competitors.
Heartland emerged a stronger company than it had been before the breach. Amid unstinted public approbation,
share price nearly tripled from its low point during the crisis.
The lesson of these two cases is as important as it is obvious. Companies may not be strongly positioned
in litigation. They may be inescapably liable for proven omissions and/or commissions. The question then
becomes: Now that we have a problem, will you, the party liable, be part of the solution? And how committed
are you to reaching that solution, irrespective of what it costs or the extent to which public officials are breathing
down your back?
52
