PR and Communications

The importance of effective litigation PR and reputation management continues to grow at speed. Private and corporate clients face a plethora of risk factors when bringing or defending claims and must be prepared to navigate a complex information battleground of near 24/7 scrutiny. New changes to the legal system in England and Wales, combined with heightening stakeholder expectations, persistent economic headwinds and geopolitical uncertainty, mean that effective reputation management during disputes and litigation is fundamental, not optional.

Why specialist litigation PR matters

The London legal market for domestic and international litigants remains strong, and London’s primacy as a robust legal forum brings with it substantial media scrutiny. Regardless of the quantum of a dispute, the open nature of hearings and pleadings - unless ordered otherwise - can expose litigants to extensive risk throughout the lifecycle of a case. Allegations made in court can be amplified into global media and social media discourse, threatening extensive damage to reputations and stakeholder trust. Meanwhile, the rapid evolution of AI-powered online search ensures negative coverage is now more easily accessible for far longer. More than ever, it is essential to bring litigation PR specialists in early and ensure they’re kept fully briefed on case developments, not least for clients with reputational sensitivities that can be targeted by counterparties to leverage settlement discussions. In contrast, waiting until the first media enquiry arrives before considering litigation PR strategy puts you on the back foot - fighting media and stakeholder fires without a strategic roadmap and clear understanding of the facts of the case puts clients at an immediate disadvantage. It is essential to fully plan and prepare to not just defend reputational attacks, but to engage and influence advantageously. The first phase of media coverage around a litigation typically has a profound effect on shaping the narrative through to judgment and beyond. From a strong foundation of planning and preparation, litigation PR specialists can intervene and influence throughout the lifecycle of a case at critical points - hearings, filing dates, and of course trial itself – to manage the public narrative in a way that bolsters litigation strategy and positions the client appropriately, now and in the long run.

Open justice, greater transparency

New open justice reforms are making the role of litigation PR even more crucial. There are ongoing efforts from the judiciary to expand the open nature of proceedings in the majority of courts and tribunals in England and Wales that is already a fundamental part of the English justice system. From the open reporting provisions in the family court, formalised in the Family Procedure Rules in January 2025, through to the Pilot Practice Direction currently being trialled in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court and Financial List, the direction of travel is clear. The most recent development, and the one of most relevance to civil litigation, is the recent Pilot Practice Direction. This requires a greater quantity and variety of documents to be added to the Court’s E-Filing system. It includes:

• Skeleton Arguments
• Written opening and closing submissions
• Witness statements and affidavits
• Expert reports
• Documents "critical to the understanding of the hearing ordered by the judge at the hearing to be a Public Domain Document"

While these are not required to be filed immediately upon their use during a hearing, this means documents that would otherwise only be available to journalists and the public on request are now much easier to access and remain available for far longer. The new rules have a clear impact on risk considerations around these documents, given that journalists will be able to view them many years after the conclusion of a case. Notably, the pilot also introduces ‘Filing Management Orders’, which are intended to be dealt with during a hearing. These can restrict access to documents, waive the requirement to file them, or result in redactions. Notably, non-parties to a case can also apply for such orders, which will be an important consideration for individuals that are named in a case to seek to prevent themselves becoming collateral damage in media coverage where they are not included in proceedings and able to answer allegations themselves. Consideration should be given throughout proceedings in the applicable courts as to how the requirements under the pilot are managed. Communications professionals will be able to review documents with an eye to both the risk of them being made public, as well as the likely areas of journalistic focus. This can feed into considerations as to whether to apply for a Filing Management Order, as well as broader case strategy. It is yet to be determined whether the pilot expands into other courts, and if so, whether it will be in the current or an amended format. As it stands, the increased public scrutiny on cases is likely to result in greater focus from clients on alternative dispute resolution, or potentially seeking to file claims in courts where the pilot has not yet been rolled out.

Disinformation and AI

Alongside legitimate media reporting throughout the legal process, there is a rise in disinformation campaigns targeting litigants, both during and following the conclusion of cases. These campaigns are often run with the intention of placing pressure on a party to settle through placing reputationally damaging material into the public domain, even if entirely false. Where these campaigns often previously relied on single websites, or small networks of associated sites, the proliferation of AI has made the rapid spread of disinformation more challenging to tackle. Original content is more easily produced through use of generative AI platforms, while the increasing number of sites that use AI to scrape content from other sites and regurgitate it as their own ‘news’ stories can result in a false narrative rapidly embedding on a client’s search engine and AI platform results - whether from a deliberate disinformation campaign or initial misreporting. The lack of human oversight of many of these sites also presents challenges in removing or amending such results, while the anonymous and global nature of online AI-driven media means the tools of UK media regulation and libel law may not always prove effective. Given the impact that false information can have on reputations and long-term license to operate – for example, including concerns raised by due diligence companies that influence whether individuals and corporates can access banking facilities - it is vital to have strategies in place to counter such tactics from counterparties. Building a strong and credible media narrative around a dispute and ensuring that this is covered by mainstream and reputable outlets can serve as an antidote, alongside seeking the delisting of such results from search engines. In certain jurisdictions, media can pick up on such disinformation campaigns and report on them as credible sources. Where clients are based in such a jurisdiction, or do significant business there, this can pose a major legal and commercial threat. This makes robust communications strategy even more vital to prevent such narratives embedding.

Internal and stakeholder communications

Alongside media engagement, it is vital to manage internal and external stakeholder relationships carefully and effectively. Drawn out legal proceedings can be destabilising for colleagues, clients and investors, and there are myriad sensitivities and considerations at play between and within each group. Third-party support and internal morale can quickly diminish if stakeholders’ concerns are neglected. This can quickly spiral, as journalists hunt for signs of tensions across your stakeholder network. Comments from anonymous sources, or leaked emails, can be commonplace and can heavily damage a carefully constructed public narrative and amplify the damage caused by the litigation. You must start by having a crystal clear understanding of each stakeholder group’s needs, concerns and expectations, from which you can prepare a cascade of well-timed information, messaging and touchpoints (digital and in-person) to ensure those groups and individuals are informed, reassured and empowered to continue supporting the client. All the while, this must be achieved without cutting across the legal position. Conversely, presenting a clear and coherent narrative to stakeholders, with regular and open (insofar as the proceedings allow) communications can help reassure them and mitigate the damage of both the litigation itself and any related media coverage. Certain groups may be content with brief written communications, while others may require a more hands-on approach from senior management through in-person meetings. As with media strategy, this will require careful consideration from the legal team, communications team and those handling the relationships within the client.

Collective actions

Cases involving a large number of claimants against a single, typically corporate, defendant commonly receive significant media attention. Media interest has somewhat waned since the early days of England and Wales’ group action regime, which saw a flurry of major actions and consistent media reporting throughout these cases. Nevertheless, David v Goliath narratives continue to attract media attention, not least those that centre on issues of public interest. Group action claimant firms are highly adept at using the media to book-build the claimant class and ramp early pressure on defendants to settle, and regularly work with specialists to amplify points of attack, expand the reputational battlefield, build coalition support, and shape media narrative throughout proceedings. In response, defendants must be equally ready, including with specific strategies to counter the tools and techniques of the typical claimant firm’s communication ‘playbook’. This is particularly important in litigations concerning sensitive topics of perceived national interest, where local and national political scrutiny is likely, in which the positioning and tone of communications can be as vital as the strength of the legal defence.

Conclusion

Treating reputation management as an afterthought or reactive necessity is a strategic mistake that exposes litigants to significant and avoidable risks. These can distort the legal narrative and damage broader organisational or individual reputations. Appointing litigation-specialist advisors early and integrating them into senior leadership and legal team discussions is essential. It ensures consistent, compelling impact across media and stakeholder communications as a dispute develops. Early strategic thinking in litigation communications ensures that you win in the court of public opinion; increasingly, it has also been shown that it can give you the edge inside the courtroom, too.

Authors

James Lynch, Partner James is a highly experienced litigation PR expert with a decade of experience in complex, international disputes, often with a geopolitical dimension. Peter Barrett, Partner Peter is a senior reputation management adviser with nearly 20 years’ experience helping corporate, institutional and private clients facing periods of reputational challenge and opportunity.