How to Build a Litigation PR Strategy That Aligns Legal and Media Goals

Legal proceedings and media coverage operate on different timelines, by different rules, for different audiences. Lawyers optimise for courtrooms. Communications professionals optimise for public perception. The challenge is building a litigation PR strategy that serves both.

Get this wrong and you face compounding problems: communications that prejudice legal proceedings, legal constraints that prevent reputation protection, and stakeholders who lose confidence because nobody seems to be managing the situation coherently.

Get it right and you navigate legal challenges while preserving the relationships and reputation that let your business continue operating.

What a Litigation PR Strategy Actually Is

The core components include:

A messaging framework aligned to legal arguments
Stakeholder communication protocols
Media engagement guidelines
A timeline synchronised with the court calendar
Crisis escalation procedures
Measurement mechanisms that track what matters

This is not crisis management by another name. Crisis management responds to unexpected events. Litigation PR strategy anticipates a known trajectory, plans for foreseeable developments, and builds infrastructure that can respond at the speed the situation demands.

Explore how Inked PR develops litigation PR strategies

Building Alignment Between Legal Arguments and Court Timetables

The starting point is understanding the legal context.

What are the key legal arguments and their public communications implications? What is the court timetable and when are public moments likely? What can and cannot be said at each phase? What are the opposing party’s likely communications tactics?

Legal proceedings create natural communication moments. Filings become public. Hearings occur. Judgements are handed down. Each of these moments generates attention from stakeholders who care about your organisation. Your litigation PR strategy must anticipate these moments and prepare appropriate responses.

Legal Phase to Communications Alignment

Legal Phase	Communications Objective	Key Activities
Pre-litigation	Control narrative before it’s set	Stakeholder briefing, holding statements prepared
Filing/Service	Manage initial coverage	Coordinated announcement, media briefing
Discovery	Maintain stakeholder confidence	Regular updates, leak response protocols
Pre-trial motions	Shape expectations	Expert commentary, background briefings
Trial	Protect reputation during proceedings	Daily media management, witness preparation
Verdict/Settlement	Control conclusion narrative	Prepared statements, stakeholder communication
Post-matter	Rebuild and recover	Thought leadership, reputation restoration

Different legal phases demand different communications approaches, but all must be coordinated with legal counsel. The messaging you develop for each phase must support your legal position, or at minimum must not undermine it.

Synchronised timelines matter. Create parallel legal and communications timelines that identify coordination points and potential conflict moments. If you know a significant filing is scheduled for a Tuesday morning, you know when stakeholders will need information. If you know discovery will produce documents that might attract media attention, you can prepare holding statements in advance.

Pre-Litigation Planning: The Control You Cannot Recover

The organisations that navigate litigation communications best are those who start planning before there is anything to react to. Once you are responding to coverage, you have already lost a degree of control you will never fully recover.

Pre-litigation planning begins with situation assessment:

What is the likely trajectory of the dispute?
Who are the stakeholders who will care?
What is the media interest profile?
What is your current reputation baseline?

These questions establish the strategic context within which you will operate.

Message development follows. You need a core narrative: what is your version of events? You need key messages for each stakeholder group. You need anticipated questions and approved responses. You need red lines defining what you will not say, regardless of pressure.

Infrastructure preparation comes next:

Identify and train spokespeople
Establish approval processes
Activate monitoring systems
Agree crisis escalation protocols

These are the mechanisms that let you respond effectively when matters accelerate.

Throughout this process, legal coordination is essential. Your communications plan must be reviewed by legal counsel. Privilege protocols must be established so communications work does not inadvertently create discoverable material. Approval chains must be agreed. Coordination rhythms must be set.

According to the Ministry of Justice’s Civil Justice Statistics, over 1.5 million civil claims were issued in county courts in 2023. Any significant proportion attracting media attention requires proactive communications planning. The difference between organisations that emerge with reputation intact and those that do not is often whether planning began before public attention arrived.

Maintaining Customer Trust During Disputes

Customers rarely follow legal proceedings in detail. They want to know two things: will this affect me, and is this company still safe to do business with? Your litigation PR strategy must answer these questions clearly and consistently.

The challenge is that customers face an information vacuum unless you fill it. Competitors may exploit uncertainty. Service concerns may arise despite proceedings having no operational impact. Contract anxiety may develop. Social media can amplify concerns rapidly.

Customer Trust Maintenance Framework

Challenge	Strategy	Tactics
Information vacuum	Proactive communication	Regular updates through owned channels
Competitor exploitation	Confident messaging	Emphasise business continuity and commitment
Service concerns	Operational reassurance	Demonstrate unaffected delivery
Contract anxiety	Direct engagement	Account team briefings, FAQ documents
Social media amplification	Monitoring and response	Address misinformation promptly

Messaging principles matter here:

Acknowledge the situation rather than pretending it is not happening
Provide context so customers understand this is one matter, not the whole story
Affirm commitment to service and quality as the continuing priority
Offer access so customers know they can reach someone if concerned
Demonstrate normality by continuing business as usual

These principles balance transparency with legal constraint. You cannot discuss matters sub judice in detail, but you can communicate effectively about what matters to customers: that you remain focused on serving them well.

See how Inked PR has maintained client relationships during litigation

Managing High-Profile Regulatory Investigations

Regulatory investigations create distinct challenges for litigation PR strategy. Many investigations cannot be confirmed to exist. Your strategy must work within disclosure constraints while preparing for leaks without confirming the investigation’s existence.

Communications that antagonise regulators can affect outcomes. Tone matters as much as content. The choice between cooperation messaging and combative positioning has implications that extend beyond public perception into regulatory decision-making.

Multi-stakeholder coordination becomes complex:

Investors need information that meets market disclosure obligations
Employees need reassurance about business continuity and values
Customers need confidence maintenance
Media require narrative management

Each stakeholder has different information needs and different channels through which they receive information.

Timeline uncertainty compounds these challenges. Investigations can last years. Your strategy must sustain over extended periods without exhausting resources or losing stakeholder confidence through communication fatigue.

The Financial Conduct Authority’s enforcement data for 2023/24 shows the average investigation duration is 42 months. This highlights the need for litigation PR strategies built to sustain, not just to respond to immediate pressure.

Regulatory-Specific Messaging Framework

Stakeholder	Message Focus	Channel
Investors	Cooperation, materiality assessment, governance	RNS, investor calls, annual report
Employees	Business continuity, values, support	Town halls, internal communications
Customers	Service commitment, unaffected operations	Account teams, owned channels
Media	Cooperation, context, proportionality	Spokesperson, written statements
Regulator	Cooperation, transparency	Through legal counsel only

Working with External Specialists

Effective litigation PR strategy often requires external specialists who bring experience across multiple matters, sectors, and scenarios. The question is how to integrate them productively.

The collaboration model positions internal legal teams working with external legal counsel, whilst internal communications teams work with external litigation PR specialists. These four parties coordinate to produce integrated strategy.

Keys to effective external partnerships:

Clear briefs that define what you are trying to achieve
Sufficient access to information for specialists to do their work effectively
Authority to act when needed rather than requiring committee approval for every decision
Integration into the team rather than operating as a separate silo
Measurement frameworks that determine whether the approach is working

External specialists bring valuable perspective. They have seen how similar situations develop. They know which approaches work and which create additional problems. They provide capacity during periods of peak demand. But they can only be effective if properly integrated into your decision-making processes.

Learn about Inked PR’s approach to client partnership

Managing Communications Across Media, Employees, and Investors

Different stakeholders require different approaches, different messages, and different channels. The biggest mistake in multi-stakeholder communications is treating all audiences the same. Media want news. Employees want reassurance. Investors want materiality assessment. One message does not fit all.

Media Strategy

The approach includes:

Identifying key journalists covering your sector and the matter at hand
Building relationships before you need them
Preparing spokespeople for different media contexts
Developing both reactive and proactive content
Monitoring coverage to correct errors quickly

Employee Strategy

The approach recognises they hear rumours and read coverage regardless of whether you communicate directly:

Internal communication should precede or match external communication
Managers need briefing to handle team questions
Morale and retention implications require attention
Confidentiality expectations must be clear

Investor Strategy

The approach acknowledges that disclosure obligations create specific requirements:

Market-sensitive information faces regulatory constraints
Analyst and institutional investor briefings need legal coordination
Annual general meetings and results presentations may need to address matters
Proxy advisers may form views requiring response

Communications Timing Hierarchy

Priority	Stakeholder	Rationale
1	Regulators (if applicable)	Obligation, relationship
2	Investors (if listed)	Disclosure obligations
3	Employees	Internal before external
4	Key customers/partners	Relationship preservation
5	Media	Public narrative

This hierarchy ensures you meet obligations, protect key relationships, and maintain control of how information reaches different audiences.

Mistakes That Undermine Litigation PR Strategy

The most common litigation PR mistake is not what organisations say but saying anything at all without legal coordination. Every external statement in active proceedings should be treated as potentially evidential.

Critical mistakes to avoid:

Communicating without legal approval: Can prejudice proceedings and create liability. Prevention requires mandatory approval processes.
Reacting to every piece of coverage: Amplifies stories and exhausts resources. Use strategic response criteria.
Inconsistent messaging: Undermines credibility and creates contradictions. Maintain central message control.
Ignoring internal audiences: Creates leaks, morale damage, and retention issues. Implement parallel internal communications.
Over-promising outcomes: Sets up disappointment and damages credibility. Practise realistic expectation setting.
Attacking opponents publicly: Can backfire and may have legal implications. Focus on your narrative.
Social media improvisation: High risk of error under pressure. Use pre-approved responses only.

How Communications Affect Settlement Positioning

Litigation PR strategy can influence settlement negotiations, though this must be approached with care and within ethical boundaries.

Communications affect how parties perceive relative strength. Confident, well-managed communications suggest an organisation prepared to see matters through rather than one desperate to settle on unfavourable terms. Your opponent makes assumptions about your resources, resolve, and capability based partly on how you communicate.

Strategic considerations:

Signal strength: Use confident, prepared messaging without overreach or antagonism
Reduce opponent leverage: Protect your own stakeholder relationships without escalating conflict
Shape settlement narrative: Prepare “honourable resolution” framing without boxing yourself in
Maintain flexibility: Avoid public commitments that constrain settlement options

The goal is legitimate reputation protection, not manipulation. Communications should be truthful, should not attempt to improperly pressure opponents, and should not prejudice proceedings. The intent here is not to manipulate the system; rather, it is to manage how people perceive your organisation.

Tools and Channels for Effective Strategy

Channel selection depends on objectives and audiences:

Press releases/statements: Work for announcements and correction of the record, though may attract unwanted attention
Spokesperson interviews: Humanise response and allow complex explanation but require media training
Written Q&A: Provides consistent messaging and detailed response but lacks personal connection
Owned channels (website, blog): Enable direct communication and create permanent record but require audiences to seek them out
Social media: Provides speed and reach but carries high risk of error
Email: Reaches stakeholders directly and allows measurement but faces inbox competition
Video: Creates emotional connection and handles complex messages but requires production time and leader availability

Technology and Tools

Tool Type	Purpose	Selection Criteria
Media monitoring	Track coverage, identify issues	Coverage breadth, alert speed
Social listening	Monitor social conversation	Platform coverage, sentiment analysis
Stakeholder database	Contact management, communication tracking	Integration, accessibility
Secure collaboration	Team coordination, document sharing	Security, ease of use
Analytics	Measure reach, engagement, sentiment	Actionable insights, comparability

The right combination depends on your situation. High-profile matters with intense media interest require different tools than technical regulatory proceedings with limited public attention. Resource availability affects what you can sustain over time. The key is matching tools to strategy rather than letting available tools determine strategy.

Discuss your litigation PR strategy requirements with Inked PR

Measuring Impact on Organisational Reputation

Measurement of litigation PR strategy requires sophisticated thinking. Success often looks like “nothing happened” rather than positive coverage. The stories that were not published, the stakeholders who remained confident, and the crises that did not escalate all represent value that is difficult to quantify.

Quantitative Metrics

These provide partial perspective:

Media coverage volume, tone, and prominence
Share of voice compared to opponents
Social media mentions and sentiment
Website traffic to relevant content
Stakeholder communication engagement (open rates, click-through rates)

Qualitative Measures

These complement quantitative data:

Stakeholder feedback and sentiment gathered through direct conversation or research
Employee morale indicators
Customer retention during the matter
Investor confidence signals in share price, analyst commentary, and institutional behaviour
Recruitment impact

Measurement Timing

Phase	Focus	Key Metrics
Pre-litigation	Baseline establishment	Current reputation metrics
During proceedings	Damage limitation	Coverage tone, stakeholder confidence
Post-matter	Recovery assessment	Reputation vs baseline, relationship health

Research from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations indicates that organisations with integrated communications strategies are 30% more likely to maintain stakeholder confidence during crisis situations. The value lies not just in measurement but in demonstrating to decision-makers that systematic approaches produce better outcomes.

The “nothing happened” challenge requires measuring what did not occur:

Comparison with similar matters handled without strategy
Stakeholder surveys on confidence and perception
Analysis of potential negative scenarios avoided
Legal team assessment of how communications supported legal objectives

Coordinating Lawyers and Communications Teams

The relationship between legal and communications teams determines whether litigation PR strategy succeeds or fails. Poor coordination creates risk. Effective coordination creates capability.

Coordination Principles

Early integration: Communications teams involved from litigation strategy development rather than called in later
Clear authority: Defining who approves what and how quickly
Regular rhythm: Scheduled check-ins plus ad hoc escalation paths
Mutual education: Lawyers understand communications; communications professionals understand legal constraints
Shared objectives: Both teams align on what success looks like

Common Coordination Challenges

Challenge	Cause	Solution
Slow approval	Legal caution	Pre-approved holding statements, escalation protocols
Message dilution	Over-lawyering	Communications explains audience needs; legal explains constraints
Timing conflicts	Different rhythms	Synchronised timelines, early warning systems
Information silos	Privilege concerns	Defined information sharing protocols

The best coordination occurs when both sides understand their distinct responsibilities whilst recognising their shared objective: navigating legal challenges whilst protecting organisational reputation.

Building Strategy That Lasts

Litigation PR strategy that aligns legal and media goals requires systematic planning, legal-communications coordination, and stakeholder-aware execution. Start before you need to react. Map communications objectives to legal phases. Build infrastructure that can respond at the speed the situation demands. Measure what matters, including the crises you prevented.

The organisations that emerge from litigation with reputations intact are those who treated communications as integral to their legal strategy from day one. They recognised that winning in court whilst losing stakeholder confidence produces pyrrhic victory. They understood that legal proceedings operate in public view, and perception shapes outcomes beyond courtroom walls.

Effective litigation PR strategy does not make legal problems disappear. It does not transform bad facts into good ones. It does not replace sound legal advice with communications tactics. What it does is protect the relationships and reputation that let organisations continue operating whilst legal matters resolve. That protection has measurable value, even when the measurement requires looking for what did not happen as much as what did.

The decision is not whether litigation will harm your reputation. The decision is whether to manage that effect strategically or let events unfold without coordination. One approach protects options. The other relinquishes control.

Ready to build a litigation PR strategy tailored to your situation? Contact Inked PR for a confidential consultation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a litigation PR strategy?

A litigation PR strategy is a coordinated plan for managing public communications, media engagement, and stakeholder relationships before, during, and after legal proceedings. It integrates communications objectives with legal strategy to protect organisational reputation whilst supporting legal outcomes. The strategy includes messaging frameworks, stakeholder protocols, media guidelines, court-synchronised timelines, crisis procedures, and measurement mechanisms.

When should a company start developing a litigation PR strategy?

A company should start developing a litigation PR strategy before legal proceedings become public or before filing claims. Pre-litigation planning provides control over narrative development that becomes difficult to recover once coverage begins. Early planning allows organisations to establish messaging frameworks, train spokespeople, activate monitoring systems, and coordinate approval processes with legal counsel before reactive pressure begins.

What is the difference between crisis management and litigation PR?

Crisis management responds to unexpected events, whilst litigation PR strategy anticipates a known legal trajectory. Litigation PR plans for foreseeable developments tied to court calendars, such as filings, hearings, and judgements. Crisis management operates under time pressure with incomplete information. Litigation PR works within structured timelines determined by legal proceedings, allowing for systematic planning and sustained communications over months or years.

How much does a litigation PR strategy cost?

Litigation PR strategy costs vary based on matter complexity, duration, stakeholder scope, and whether organisations use internal teams or external specialists. Factors include the number of stakeholders requiring separate communications, media interest level, geographic scope, and proceedings duration. Organisations typically budget for agency retainers, media monitoring tools, stakeholder research, spokesperson training, and crisis response capacity.

Who approves litigation PR messages before they go public?

Legal counsel must approve all litigation PR messages before publication to ensure communications do not prejudice proceedings or create legal liability. Approval processes involve PR specialists drafting messages, legal teams reviewing for legal risk, and clients providing final authorisation. Time-sensitive situations require pre-approved holding statements and clear escalation protocols to balance legal protection with effective media response speed.

Can litigation PR strategy influence settlement negotiations?

Litigation PR strategy can influence settlement negotiations by affecting how parties perceive relative strength and stakeholder pressure. Confident, well-managed communications signal an organisation prepared to see matters through rather than desperate to settle. However, communications must remain truthful and avoid improperly pressuring opponents or prejudicing proceedings. The goal is legitimate reputation protection that shapes perception of organisational capability, not manipulation of legal process.

What are the main risks of poor litigation communications?

Poor litigation communications can prejudice legal proceedings, create discoverable evidence, damage stakeholder relationships, and compound reputational harm. Communications without legal approval may contradict legal arguments. Inconsistent messaging undermines credibility. Ignoring internal audiences creates employee leaks. Over-promising outcomes damages credibility. Attacking opponents publicly escalates conflict. Social media errors spread rapidly. Each risk is preventable through proper coordination between legal and communications teams.

How long does it take to develop a litigation PR strategy?

Developing a comprehensive litigation PR strategy typically takes two to four weeks, depending on matter complexity and stakeholder scope. The process includes situation assessment, legal landscape analysis, stakeholder mapping, message framework development, infrastructure setup, and legal coordination. Simple matters may require one to two weeks. Complex regulatory investigations may require four to six weeks. Organisations facing imminent developments can implement rapid frameworks within days.

What stakeholders need different messages during litigation?

Different stakeholders require tailored messages because they have distinct information needs. Investors need materiality assessment and governance assurance through regulatory announcements. Employees need business continuity reassurance through internal communications. Customers need service commitment confirmation through account teams. Media need context and factual accuracy through spokespeople. Regulators receive cooperation messaging only through legal counsel. Each group focuses on how proceedings affect their relationship with the organisation.

How do you measure success in litigation PR?

Measuring litigation PR success requires tracking both what happened and what did not happen. Quantitative metrics include media coverage volume and tone, share of voice, social media sentiment, and stakeholder engagement rates. Qualitative measures include stakeholder confidence surveys, employee morale, customer retention, and investor confidence signals. Success often appears as stories not published, stakeholders who remained confident, and crises that did not escalate.