by There is a common misconception, especially among legal teams without integrated communications counsel, that there’s no way to influence how a story is written and how issues will be framed in the public’s mind once a lawsuit is filed. This “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” attitude can lead to missed opportunities, and in high-stakes litigation, missed opportunities cost companies their reputations.
In litigation, the reputational damage doesn’t come from the verdict alone. It comes from the weeks, months, and sometimes years of media coverage that precede it. That coverage can be shaped by both plaintiffs and defendants — and the side with the stronger litigation communications strategy wins the story.
The Cost of a Reactive Approach
Consider a major B2B technology company, referred to here as “the Company” for confidentiality reasons. When a federal regulator filed suit, the Company’s initial communications strategy was entirely reactive. What followed offers a clear illustration of how quickly a narrative can be lost, and how it can be reclaimed.
On the day of the filing, before a single journalist had written a word, the regulator moved first. It issued a press release that was picked up by wire services and distributed to newsrooms across the country, which effectively became the source material every reporter referenced in their reporting in the first news cycle. The Company responded within hours, but the correction did not come quickly enough. By the time the correction arrived, the first draft of the narrative had already been written. The regulator had authored it.
Compounding the problem, the Company only issued a single press release, which is not a media strategy. There was no targeted outreach to key journalists. No briefings for investors, institutional partners, or policy stakeholders. No sustained effort to reach the audiences whose perceptions would ultimately matter most.
For the two years that followed, until the district court ruled against the Company, the national narrative was shaped almost entirely by the regulator.
The Shift from Reactive to Active
When the verdict was issued and the Company appealed, it stopped treating issues management and crisis communications as an afterthought and began a coordinated communication campaign to correct the record. This strategic shift from reactive to active changed the outcome of the public narrative.
The communications campaign ran parallel to the legal appeal and was organized around two distinct pillars. Each pillar targeted a different national media audience, while reinforcing the other.
Pillar 1. Broaden the narrative
The Company stopped leading with legal arguments when talking to the media. Instead, it explained the bigger picture of how the industry works, and why, if the district court’s decision was left to stand, it could have wide-reaching consequences for the broader tech industry. This gave non-legal journalists a new story to tell, and it gave reporters who had been covering the case through the regulator’s frame a new, legitimate reason to revisit it.
Pillar 2. Recruit a nationally credible third-party voice
An authoritative third party filed an independent statement of interest on appeal, raising substantive questions about the district court’s reasoning. When the statement arrived, the Company amplified it immediately, giving the business press a fresh, credible news hook to cover the appeal from a new angle.
Together, these two strategy pillars multiplied the number of outlets covering the Company’s position, reached new audiences, and began to shift the story. The appellate court ultimately reversed the district court’s decision unanimously.
The Takeaway
The takeaway is that an initial mischaracterization of a lawsuit does not have to become the permanent national narrative. Companies that integrate legal and crisis PR strategies before a filing arguably have the most control over the narratives that will follow. This is because they communicate the facts and context first, and that alone will shape all narratives and perceptions that follow.
Early preparation — ideally before any filing becomes public — gives individuals and organizations the opportunity to shape the story rather than simply react to it. But as this case demonstrates, it is never too late to course correct. Even after a mischaracterization takes hold, a proactive litigation PR campaign targeting the right journalists, outlets, and digital channels can effectively reset the story.
This is why every litigation should be treated as a potential crisis from day one – and why working with an experienced crisis PR firm from the outset is a strategic imperative. As we’ve written previously, litigation and crisis communications are inseparable, and the companies that understand this are the ones that emerge with their reputations intact.