Gazette deputy editor Neil Rose gives some hints on how to deal with the legal media

One of the things journalists love about lawyers is that the latter are members of a profession that seems to rank even lower in the public’s esteem than their own. Where that puts legal journalists is a moot point, but we are in a position where we see the best and the worst of solicitors’ interaction with the media.


The bad side tends to outweigh the good. The associate at a top-ten firm who sent a virtual letter before action over our attributing to her the wrong date for a piece of obscure legislation sticks in the mind (as does the humble apology about their attitude from an embarrassed PR person afterwards), while the number of draft press releases that are sent through – sometimes containing the interesting bits that are cut out of the final version – beggars belief.


At the same time, there are an increasing number of lawyers who see the value to their practices (and perhaps their egos) of being in contact with the press, and understand the single most important aspect of going about it: relationships.


There are a handful of lawyers and firms who can just wait for a journalist to call, but otherwise you have to work at it. It is a two-way thing and is more than just paying for a lunch. If you never build on the relationship from there, it will have done next to no good. It will also help you understand what they are looking for.


The good news is that journalists want to know what you and your firm are up to, but a degree of commitment and common sense is required. It is no use forcing unwilling partners to do it and you have to understand that you will not necessarily enjoy a huge strike rate in getting stories in – there is a lot of competition and only limited space, but the effort can make a long-term impact. An oft-heard cry from City solicitors, for example, is along the lines of: ‘I’ve done six big debt finance deals in the last year. Why aren’t you covering that?’ The answer is that there are dozens of others who can say the same. And not many people are that interested anyway.


So what makes something newsworthy? Genuine firsts are always good, as is innovation, controversy, disputes, surveys, major appointments, concerns over impending legislation, people suing/being sued and key court rulings, while light-hearted pieces and photographs help fill diary columns. But the relationship should also mean the journalist will spontaneously come to you for comment on relevant stories rather than your competitor down the road.


You also need to consider the publication you target. The Gazette is more interested in issue-based stories, while other legal magazines concentrate on personalities. The legal press is important for prestige and recruitment, but firms are very keen also to target regional media as well as sector press in their key practice areas. Attracting national coverage can be terrific and is at least a good ego boost but it runs the risk of being untargeted.


Press releases have their place, but what journalists really want is exclusives. It can, however, be hard to juggle the competition of several magazines that would want the same story.


Larger firms often use external PR companies or employ their own in-house PR officers. The relationship between journalists and PR people can be spiky – their lives would often be easier if the other did not exist. In rough terms, journalists see PRs as useless and obstructive, just processing press releases and arranging phone calls, while the view the other way is that reporters can be overly demanding and unscrupulous.


However, PRs deserve some sympathy because of the environment in which they work. Professional partnerships – and law firms in particular – have a poor reputation among marketing people, which is why many


in-house staff move on relatively quickly. The perception is that partners see them as pure overhead, do not allow them to do their job properly and in any case have no understanding of what they do, expecting them to be able to control what is written about their firm. The best PRs are the ones given access to what is truly happening at the firm and the freedom to speak candidly to journalists.


Everyone wants to know what the journalist will say – although never ask for copy approval, because the only thing that will be given is offence – but this again comes back to relationships; the journalist needs to prove they can be trusted. You can ask to see in writing what comments will be attributed to you, but this should be used sparingly. It may be better to ask the journalist at the end of the conversation to run through what they are likely to use.


Whatever the inequity of the situation, the reality is that there is little point in alienating journalists – not returning telephone calls, even to say that you cannot/refuse to say anything, is an obvious one often overlooked by a profession more than familiar itself with the pressure of deadlines, and never say ‘I don’t think that’s a story’. Rather than making them go away, such approaches have the opposite effect.


If the story is bad news, having that relationship means a reporter is likely to listen to your side of the story more sympathetically. The same attitude is usually the best if a mistake is made. Lawyers often reach instinctively for legal action, but as a rule it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut except in the most extreme cases.


Finally there is one of the hoariest of old chestnuts – what is ‘off the record’? The problem is that it means different things to different journalists. To some it signifies for their information only; others think it can be used but without attribution. Even if the reporter does not use the information at the time, it remains in the mind and may well come out in some form further down the line. Ultimately, if you really do not want something to get out, do not tell a journalist.


But that should be the exception, not the rule. There is usually much to be gained by publicity and there are plenty of people – not least at the Gazette – who want to hear what you have to say. To use the old football adage, if you don’t shoot, you can’t score.