By Rob Wilcox
Not long ago, litigation played out primarily in the courtroom. Lawyers filed motions, judges issued rulings, and the public learned of outcomes long after the fact. Today, that timeline is a relic of the past. In an era of instant news alerts, social media feeds, and nonstop commentary, litigation often unfolds in the court of public opinion long before it reaches a jury. Parties that fail to recognize this reality usually find themselves on the defensive, fighting uphill battles not just in court but also in the headlines, on television, and across digital platforms.
I have seen this evolution from both sides, first as Communications Director for former Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, and now as a consultant helping individuals and organizations navigate communications in high-profile cases. The lesson is consistent: the legal merits of a case remain central, but without a coordinated public relations strategy, even the strongest claims can be weakened and the best defenses obscured.
In high-stakes disputes, the story begins the moment the first filing hits the docket, or, in many cases, even earlier, with the first leak or whistleblower complaint. Reporters scramble for sources, advocates seize the megaphone, and opponents work to frame the narrative. If legal counsel cedes this terrain, the public narrative hardens before the client has even spoken.
Consider employment litigation involving a prominent company or public figure. A well-crafted complaint may include inflammatory language designed to generate headlines. If the organization does not respond with an equally thoughtful communications plan, the coverage tilts heavily toward the plaintiff’s framing. By the time a motion to dismiss or a summary judgment ruling narrows the claims, the reputational damage may already be severe and lasting.
Early engagement with a PR professional ensures the case narrative reflects both the facts and the context. It is not about arguing the case in the media; it is about preventing silence from being mistaken for guilt and making sure stakeholders, employees, customers, and potential jurors hear a balanced story.
Skeptics often worry that PR in litigation risks violating ethical or procedural rules. In fact, the opposite is true. The best litigation communications are carefully coordinated with counsel to respect confidentiality, protect privileges, and stay well within professional conduct standards. Experienced PR practitioners understand the guardrails: no attempts to improperly influence judges, no disclosure of sensitive information, and no overpromising of outcomes.
What communications professionals provide is the ability to translate complex legal proceedings into plain language, explain what a development means (and doesn’t mean), and ensure that messaging is consistent across audiences. Without that discipline, statements may come from scattered sources, leaving the impression of disarray or concealment.
Today’s litigants rarely face just one challenge. Lawsuits often coincide with regulatory scrutiny, shareholder questions, and activist campaigns. Social media accelerates the pressure, with misinformation spreading faster than facts. In this environment, crisis communications is not an accessory—it is essential infrastructure.
A client under investigation by both regulators and journalists cannot afford inconsistent messaging. Each statement is parsed by government officials, reporters, employees, and investors simultaneously. A well-planned strategy can minimize contradictions, clarify intent, and avoid unnecessary escalation.
Attorneys who partner effectively with PR professionals often note that the collaboration improves their own practice. By articulating complex arguments in plain English for public communications, lawyers sharpen their case theories for juries and judges. By anticipating media scrutiny, they prepare their clients for deposition questions or cross-examination.
There are, of course, pitfalls. Lawyers should avoid selecting PR advisors without litigation communications experience; the courtroom is not the same as a corporate brand campaign. They should ensure that the communications strategy is treated as part of the broader legal strategy, not as an afterthought. And they should resist the temptation to fight every battle in the press, remembering that credibility is a long-term asset.
The most common mistake I see is waiting too long. Lawyers sometimes bring in PR only after the narrative has hardened, when reporters have already written dozens of stories, and when misinformation is entrenched online. At that stage, the communications strategy becomes reactive, focused on damage control rather than proactive storytelling.
Those who engage early are far better positioned. They define the terms of the discussion, protect reputations as the case winds through the courts, and help preserve trust with stakeholders. In many cases, an early, disciplined communications approach can even influence settlement posture, as both sides recognize the reputational risks of prolonged public fighting.
Litigation will always be decided on the facts and the law. But in high-profile disputes, perception shapes reality long before the gavel drops. Public opinion can influence jury pools, venue dynamics, and institutional decision-makers’ decisions. Clients who ignore the communications dimension of their cases do so at their peril.
The courtroom remains the ultimate forum, but in today’s media environment, it is not the only one. Lawyers who embrace collaboration with PR professionals give their clients the best chance to prevail on both fronts. Those who don’t often find themselves explaining, defending, and reacting, when they could have been leading.
Rob Wilcox is the founder of Rob Wilcox Public Relations and formerly served as Communications Director for Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer.
