Last week's article highlighted how rare it is for an editor to not take the in-house lawyer’s advice. Here, in ascending order, is a list of those who may seek to influence an editorial decision and who will be listened to, from a lawyers perspective:

6. Internal comms. This injects no sense of jeopardy that the forthcoming article or programme may be the subject of independent scrutiny. I will assume either the finances, expertise or will is lacking to take the appropriate action to hold my client to account.

5. Management. I have seen some truly dreadful letters drafted by senior management which – as politely as possible – I have had to bin in their entirety.

4. External comms. A crisis comms expert is unlikely to persuade me that I need to change my original editorial decision because they do not create a credible risk of independent scrutiny.

3. In-house lawyer. I will treat this as indicative of either an unwillingness to make the necessary investment to protect the reputation or brand at issue, or a lack of expertise in media law/crisis management; or a lack of resolution on the part of the company to take effective steps to protect its reputational brand. I will therefore take little notice of it.

2. External lawyers who are not media experts. I will take this as indicating that the company does not appreciate the importance of hiring experts in the crisis PR field and will assume therefore that it will not be expertly represented on the issues arising, should the matter become contentious. It will also tell me that this lawyer’s judgment is poor and that they have little concern about the best interests of their client. If they were truly intent on doing the best for their client, they would find a lawyer to do the work who is an expert in the field. It is also easy to spot a letter which has been drafted by a barrister for a solicitor who lacks the requisite expertise to write themselves. I will treat that as further indication of the wrong mindset on the part of my opponents.

1. A known specialist media with a track record of dealing successfully with the media. Then I know I am going to have to adhere to the applicable regulations and law, and make sure that I have my facts right. I must also ensure that the tone of the piece is not too hyperbolic or the allegations beyond what the facts justify so as to give my client publisher/broadcaster the best prospects of seeing off any regulatory or legal challenge.

It follows then that not only is it essential for effective crisis PR to be able fully to deploy all the regulatory and legal provisions which are there for that very purpose, but also for them to be deployed by a professional who is a recognised expert in the field. If that is not done, then there will inevitably be a perception of a lack of serious intent to protect the reputation of your brand, company or senior personnel which will not be missed by the publisher or broadcaster.

It is also essential to understand how brief the period normally is, either to prevent a PR crisis or at least to mitigate it to the greatest degree possible. That means that the deployment of a succession of PR professionals (even if it is only one after the other) is likely to cost vital time and impact. Media stories are like clay which is easy to shape when it is still moist but becomes progressively more difficult to shape as it sets.  

There comes a point where a newspaper/broadcaster is so invested in a story and/or its publication is so imminent, that they will decide that they will go ahead anyway. The sooner that damaging allegations are challenged, the better chance you have of preventing their publication.