TLG Communications
What should law firms and general counsel look for when selecting a litigation communications partner for bet-the-company matters, and how does TLG's approach differ from the broader market?
There are three things law firms and general counsel should look for in a litigation communications partner.
First is a deep understanding of the litigation process itself. Litigation has a rhythm, from filing through discovery, motions practice, trial, and appeal, and each phase creates distinct communications opportunities and risks. The right partner knows how to communicate through each phase to a client's advantage – both legal and reputational.
Second is a genuine grasp of legal strategy and objectives. Every communications decision, including the decision not to communicate, must be rooted in the litigation imperatives. That requires a team that can sit in a room with counsel, understand the strategic calculus, and ensure that public messaging never works at cross-purposes with what's happening in filings or in the courtroom. The communications plan has to be built around the legal strategy – not layered on top of it.
Third is the ability to see the whole playing field. A lawsuit may have a specific outcome in the courts or through settlement, but it also has implications (often profound ones) on reputation, employee morale, customer trust, regulatory exposure, and critical business relationships. In bet-the-company moments, clients need a partner that can help navigate all of these imperatives simultaneously, not just the media headline.
Our teams are often engaged to provide communications support in litigation, and our senior team brings that dual fluency to every engagement. Our team works alongside litigation counsel daily on both sides of the ‘v,’ and that means we are adept at navigating the cadence of court proceedings and how to use the legal procedural calendar as a communications planning framework. That fluency is what allows us to be proactive rather than reactive.
As Legal 500 publishes its first-ever litigation communications rankings, how has the discipline evolved, and what does this recognition signal about where the market is headed?
The fact that Legal 500 is now researching litigation communications firms is itself a significant market signal. It reflects a reality that sophisticated clients and their counsel have understood for some time: litigation communications is not a “nice-to-have” in high-stakes disputes, but rather an integral part of how legal and business outcomes are shaped.
Two themes stand out when we look at how the discipline has evolved. The first is an increased emphasis on preparation, which we have observed particularly over the past 12-18 months. Organizations are no longer waiting until the eve of trial to think about litigation communications. They are developing clear articulations of their values, building response frameworks in advance of a filing, and thinking proactively about how they will manage risk and reputation across a range of scenarios as a litigation matter plays out. This kind of preparedness, which involves legal, communications, and business leadership working together, is helpful for organizations to navigate high-stakes litigation most effectively and it is great to see businesses and leaders prioritizing this.
The second is the increasing disintermediation of information. The media environment has fractured and centers of influence are more diffused than they have ever been, which means that traditional communications tactics need to be rethought. Companies need communications strategies that give appropriate weight to non-traditional media, independent journalism, direct stakeholder engagement, and digital channels where their core audiences actually consume information.
Artificial intelligence is accelerating both of these dynamics. AI makes content generation faster and more scalable, which is valuable. But it also raises the bar on authenticity. In a world where AI-generated content is ubiquitous, the communications that create real value are the ones that reflect genuine human judgment, authentic voice, and strategic intent.
What are the key growth areas for you over the next 12 months? What are the drivers behind that growth?
One growth area over the past twelve or so months (which we expect to continue) is pre-litigation and preparedness advisory, including preparation for potential enforcement actions and government investigations. The regulatory and enforcement landscape is inherently cyclical, and smart organizations understand that the environment can shift quickly as priorities evolve across administrations and legislative bodies. The most sophisticated clients are engaging litigation communications advisors earlier because they recognize the payoff from sound preparedness. We are continuing to see growing client demand for our capabilities around scenario planning, message development, and cross-functional preparedness exercises.
How do you collaborate with counsel as advisors to a mutual client to help advance legal strategy while also protecting reputational interests and achieving key business objectives?
One of the most important initial steps we take is establishing strong infrastructure for strategic decision-making. That means setting up the right cadence and forms of collaboration that bring together legal counsel, communications advisors, and key client stakeholders to review strategic decision points, upcoming milestones, and developing issues. This is what allows advisory teams and clients to see the entire playing field rather than operating in silos.
When that infrastructure is in place, it enables the ability to identify opportunities and risks early enough to plan rather than react. If a significant filing is approaching, we work with counsel weeks in advance to understand the legal strategy, identify the communications implications, and prepare accordingly. If a ruling is expected, we have prepared for multiple outcomes.
Ultimately, effective collaboration with counsel and other key business leaders is what allows us to help achieve positive outcomes from our clients. We understand the legal imperatives that drive counsel's decision-making, and we bring an informed communications perspective that ensures business and reputational objectives are not sacrificed in service of a purely legal strategy.
Can you walk us through how TLG approaches a high-stakes trial or bet-the-company litigation from a communications standpoint – from early case assessment through verdict and beyond?
Ideally, our approach begins well before the matter becomes public and before a complaint is filed. During early case assessment, we work with counsel to understand the legal theories, the factual landscape, and the universe of stakeholders whose perceptions matter. What is the current public narrative? What do key audiences currently believe? Where are the vulnerabilities, and where are opportunities to shape understanding? While circumstances may not always allow for this preparatory phase, it can be incredibly helpful as we chart the go-forward litigation communications plan.
From here, we work closely with the client and outside counsel to develop a communications strategy that maps to the litigation calendar. That includes developing core messaging frameworks, building media and stakeholder engagement plans, and most importantly, working with counsel on how legal filings and procedural milestones can be leveraged as communications moments. These filings can be effective communications tools as they are often the most credible and authoritative public statements a client can make, and they reach audiences well beyond the court. We work closely with litigation teams to ensure that filings are strategically framed for the broader audiences who will read them.
Each litigation juncture – from a motion to dismiss, class certification, or summary judgment to a settlement negotiation or a trial – carries distinct communications implications, and we prepare scenario plans for each so that the response is strategic rather than reactionary.
The work also may look different depending on which side of the ‘v’ we are on. For plaintiffs, the communications challenge is often about building public understanding of an issue, establishing credibility, and creating the conditions for accountability whether through a courtroom verdict or a negotiated outcome. For defendants, the challenge is more often about protecting reputation, maintaining stakeholder confidence, and ensuring the public narrative reflects the full picture rather than one-sided claims. In both cases, we prioritize disciplined messaging, proactive stakeholder engagement, and communications strategy that is fully integrated with the legal strategy.
How do you manage cross-border litigation communications, and what are the biggest pitfalls companies face in multijurisdictional disputes?
The most common pitfall is when companies apply the same messaging, media strategy, and stakeholder engagement framework across every jurisdiction. The challenges on this are both regulatory and cultural. Different jurisdictions have different legal constraints on what can be said publicly about pending litigation. The sub judice rules that apply in the United Kingdom, for instance, are fundamentally different from the First Amendment environment in the United States. Failing to account for those differences can create legal exposure for the client and undermine counsel’s strategy.
The cultural dimension is also critical when it comes to litigation communications. Audiences in different geographies have different expectations, different information sources, and sometimes fundamentally different viewpoints on the same issue. Take bankruptcy proceedings for example – in the U.S., companies in bankruptcy continue to operate and can emerge from bankruptcy, versus in Europe where the term is commonly understood to be synonymous with liquidation. This distinction informs different market-specific communications strategies.
Our approach to cross-border matters starts with understanding the specific legal, regulatory, media, and cultural landscape in each relevant jurisdiction. We then develop a framework that maintains strategic coherence and consistent messaging, while allowing for meaningful adaptation at the local level.
Many of the world's leading law firms turn to TLG for their own communications needs. What does that say about the firm's positioning, and how does that expertise translate to client work?
We deeply value the partnerships we have built with the world's leading lawyers and law firms, through which we have developed a unique understanding of how firms operate and make decisions, and how to effectively partner with litigation teams to achieve both legal and reputational objectives. We have found that this deep understanding translates directly to client work and makes our collaboration with clients and outside counsel more efficient and effective from the start.
Firms themselves are increasingly the focus of reputational scrutiny and are navigating the communications challenges that come with rapid growth, the impacts of AI, geopolitical turmoil, and generational shifts. These dynamics create a set of communications needs that didn't exist even several years ago. It is very rare to find a communications firm that serves as a strategic partner to so many in the legal industry. Our firm has spent years embedded in the legal industry advising law firms not just on how to promote their practices or advise clients on litigation communications strategies, but on how to navigate the most sensitive moments and significant opportunities as global institutions. That perspective is what allows us to serve as a true strategic partner to firm leadership, whether on behalf of a shared client or on the behalf of the firm itself.
Is technology changing the way you interact with clients and the services you can provide them?
Absolutely! Technology – and, of course, the rapid advancement of AI – has meaningfully improved our ability to serve clients, particularly in the areas of media monitoring, stakeholder intelligence, and the speed at which we can deliver analysis. We can identify emerging narratives and respond more quickly than was possible even a few years ago.
AI-powered tools are also enhancing our research and analytical capabilities. We can process larger volumes of information – court filings, media coverage, social media commentary, regulatory developments – and synthesize it more efficiently. That allows our teams to spend less time on information gathering and more time on strategic judgment, which is ultimately what is most valuable to clients.
That said, we are clear-eyed about what technology can and cannot do in our discipline. Litigation communications is fundamentally a judgment-intensive, network-driven practice. The decisions that matter most – like how to frame a narrative, when to engage, and how to navigate numerous sensitivities and nuances – all require human judgment, experience, and the kind of contextual understanding that technology cannot replicate. We use technology to make our people more effective, not to replace the expertise that makes our advice valuable.
We are also attentive to the implications of AI for our clients’ communications more broadly. As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, the premium on authenticity increases. Audiences are becoming more sophisticated in their ability to instinctively distinguish between communications that reflect genuine thought and those that feel formulaic. Helping clients navigate that dynamic is an important part of our work.
What’s the most common misconception clients have about litigation PR when they first engage you?
First misconception: only lawyers and courts care about ongoing litigation. This is obviously false.
Some clients are focused on a narrow set of audiences who may be directly impacted by the potential litigation and may fail to anticipate a broader stakeholder reaction. In fact, proper litigation support efforts take into account a range of stakeholder perceptions.
The reality is that in many bet-the-company matters, the audiences that matter most range from the general public who read headlines, to regulators and policymakers, to investors and analysts, and employees. A comprehensive litigation strategy includes a communications and stakeholder engagement plan designed to protect the client’s reputation while in service of litigation objectives. This means ensuring a litigation communications support team is in place to tailor messages for specific audiences and ensure that the proper channels are in place to reach them.
Second misconception: clients who don’t want to comment publicly don’t need communications support.
Some prospective clients believe that they do not require active communications support throughout litigation simply because a company or its legal counsel may not wish to comment in some circumstances or hopes that there will not be media coverage of ongoing litigation. A. Hope is not a strategy. B. The most effective engagements are those that are in place often long before any public-facing activity is needed because early engagement allows for shaping narratives and strategies (including those designed to minimize noise) rather than waiting until there is a cacophony of inquiries that must be managed.