Rethinking the automatic ‘no-comment’ response

Listen to this article

As coach and counselor to c-level executives from Fortune 100 companies to start-ups, I have advised how to manage relationships and situations with employees, media, government, community activists and countless other stakeholders.

Inevitably, when faced with an issue played out in public, suggestions around the strategy table range from “say nothing” to “ignore it.” There’s always the too-frequently-employed fall-back message — “No comment!”

Fans of television legal dramas understand no comment to be a cornerstone strategy when confronted by media. No comment, in fact, is a phrase coined by lawyers to win in the court of law. The thinking goes, “If you don’t say the words, those words cannot be used against you.”

The court of public opinion, however, has little tolerance for lack of transparency and far fewer rules to follow in reaching a verdict.

Saying nothing creates an aura of mystery, intrigue and deceit, which leaves media audiences craving an explanation. You can be certain the media will give them what they want.

With or without your input, the story will be told. But, if you’re not telling your story, you leave the storytelling to others. Someone else will specify how you, your firm, your clients are positioned with media and how perceptions are formed by their agenda-affecting audiences.

I realize as lawyers some of you may believe it is unethical to talk to the news media. But isn’t there an ethical concern to represent the best interests of the client as well? To act as if the news media and other key audiences do not exist suggests to me that the best interest of a client’s legal issues are being considered, but not other elements that could be equally, if not more, damaging than the legal outcome.

Court proceedings often result in hefty monetary damages. For this very reason, the monetary effect of negative media coverage and public outcry should be given equal consideration. Events outside the courtroom can destroy employee morale and productivity, turn away customers and depress stock prices.

As attorneys, you have an opportunity to expand the scope of counsel given to your client. If evidence cannot be disclosed now for tactical reasons, you should at least remind influential audiences — not only media, but other crucial audiences to company success — that there is more to the story than meets the eye.

Legal actions frequently have powerful emotional angles that appeal to mass audiences.

These emotions sell newspapers and increase viewers. Should you be convinced to communicate your client’s side of the story, ensure you are prepared.

Products and ideas in America are sold through emotion, not reason. Reason works well in the courtroom, not on television. If you want to be quoted by others, tell them how you feel about what’s happening to your client.

The more emotion, the higher placement you receive in the story. The higher the placement in the story, the more likely you are to be heard. The more your side of the story is heard, the more influence you have on attitudes and behaviors toward your client.

This bodes well for your client before, during and after the legal action.

In my experience, consideration of all audiences as part of a well-rounded view of client representation will add more value to client situations before, during and after a legal action.

No comment may win in the courtroom. But in the court of public opinion, the famed phrase has led to perceptions of distrust, uncertainty and instability. These perceptions can lead employees to quit, analysts to turn a cold shoulder, vendors to focus attention elsewhere, board members to resign and customers to stop buying.

Karl Robe, APR, counsels attorneys and executives on communications strategies that support achievement of growth objectives and overcome business challenges. Contact him at Karl James & Company LLC by emailing [email protected].