Diana Jennen, in Cinco Días: “A crisis is not considered closed simply with a favourable ruling; real success is measured in terms of public perception, not just legal outcomes.”

The legal profession is undergoing a significant shift in its relationship with the media. Lawyers are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of effectively communicating about their cases and litigation, as public opinion and media perception can influence the outcome of a trial.

Today, legal battles are fought not only in courtrooms but also in newspapers and on social media, leading to a rise in litigation communication.

Our partner, Diana Jennen, shares her perspective on this issue in a recent Cinco Días feature, alongside Alba García (LLYC), Roberto Ruiz Ballesteros (Ballesteros Comunicación), Valvanuz Serna (Proa Comunicación), and Pablo Zamorano (Kreab España).

What reputational damage can well-known individuals suffer when subjected to an investigation or criminal trial? How does it affect their lives?

Firstly, there is an inevitable loss of public trust in both individuals and organisations, leading to reputational harm. Simply being associated with a criminal case can cast doubt on a person’s integrity, even if they are ultimately found innocent.

Additionally, there is a high risk that media narratives oversimplify the facts, portraying individuals as “guilty” before trial. This can reinforce prejudices that are difficult to reverse. The names of public figures become permanently linked to negative headlines, making it harder for them to restore their image in the long run.

On a personal and professional level, the consequences can be severe: social rejection, loss of trust, professional allies and positioning, increased vulnerability, and loss of privacy. Financially, the high costs associated with the legal process can lead to significant instability.

Social media plays a crucial role, amplifying the reach of scandals at an unprecedented pace, allowing rumours and negative comments to spread rapidly—often without any factual basis. Even after an acquittal, the stigma may persist, severely limiting an individual’s ability to rebuild their image and credibility.

What are the key criteria for this type of advisory service? How is reputational damage measured? Is an initial assessment of the individual’s public image conducted?

Each strategy is fully customised, adapted to the severity of the case, the profile of the affected individual or company, and the media context.

The first step is to assess reputational risk—evaluating the severity of the case, the level of public exposure, and the media and public opinion landscape. Next, a narrative control plan is established by analysing current media and social media discourse and defining key messages while selecting the most suitable spokespeople.

Constant monitoring is essential to determine when and how to interact with the press and to track social media narratives, preventing misinformation and preparing for potential leaks. In some cases, legal action for defamation or moral damage due to misinformation campaigns may even be considered.

The essence of Litigation PR lies in its alignment with the legal strategy, serving as support and defining the reputational approach before the legal process even begins.

Regarding the measurement of reputational damage, public perception is assessed using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, sometimes incorporating artificial intelligence and big data tools when necessary. Media coverage—whether negative, neutral, or positive—is monitored at both national and international levels.

For the initial image assessment, strengths and weaknesses in the individual’s prior positioning are identified, with media and social media narratives being tracked. Additionally, key influencers amplifying the crisis and potential allies who can help mitigate the damage are identified.

It is crucial to note that the goal is not just to manage the crisis in real-time but also to implement a long-term image rehabilitation strategy. Through rigorous initial assessments, impact measurement, and strategic interventions, the effects of reputational damage can be mitigated and, in some cases, even reversed over time. This is why scenario planning is essential—evaluating potential case outcomes and designing strategies for each.

Are certain media channels prioritised? What are the most critical moments for communication during legal proceedings? Should one speak to the press when entering and leaving court? If so, should statements adhere to a pre-agreed script?

Litigation PR communication strategies vary depending on the case type, the individual or company’s profile, and media impact, with priority given to the most relevant media in each affected sector. Social media is crucial for crisis management, real-time narrative control, and the dissemination of strategic messages.

Regarding the most critical moments in communication during legal proceedings, the investigation phase and potential initial leaks are the most sensitive, as public opinion is quickly shaped by headlines and rumours. At this stage, it is crucial to respond swiftly to prevent a negative narrative from taking hold, clarifying or contextualising information when necessary.

During the phase of formal charges and court summonses, news of an indictment or summons can trigger a crisis peak. Here, it is essential to anticipate with messages that reinforce the presumption of innocence in the case of the accused party, issuing official statements and avoiding improvised declarations.

Throughout the trial, every testimony, piece of evidence, or leak can alter public perception. Therefore, it is important to manage public statements carefully to avoid compromising the legal defence, monitor media coverage in real time, and act immediately in response to misinformation.

Finally, the verdict and case closure phase is decisive for long-term reputation. If the verdict is favourable, a media reinforcement strategy should be implemented, whereas if it is unfavourable, a pre-prepared message should be delivered to mitigate the impact and outline potential avenues for appeal.

Speaking to the press when entering and leaving court depends on the case. In many situations, it poses a high risk due to potential contradictions or if the individual is unprepared, the case is highly controversial, or lawyers advise silence to protect the legal strategy. However, it can be beneficial when transparency, resilience, and a strong, concise message need to be conveyed.

Sticking to a pre-agreed script is essential to avoid missteps or negative interpretations. Planning should cover key messages, red lines, possible questions and answers, as well as tone and body language.

What are the key pillars of crisis communication plans in litigation?

It is based on four key pillars: analysis and strategy, narrative control, management of key audiences, and risk mitigation.

In the initial planning phase, it is essential to conduct a situational analysis to identify risks and opportunities and define the strategy. This includes identifying key stakeholders (both allies and detractors), conducting a reputation assessment, and forecasting potential scenarios.

Communication must be clear, consistent, and strategic to ensure that public opinion is not shaped solely by accusations. Key messages should be concise, impactful, and aligned with the legal defence. The tone should be tailored to the profile of the individual or company and the broader context, with the appropriate spokespeople selected and responses to potential sensitive questions prepared in advance.

Regarding media, social networks, and stakeholders, issuing statements alone is not sufficient. It is crucial to determine which media outlets and actors are allies or critics, monitor social media trends, and manage relationships with other stakeholders, such as employees, clients, or investors.

Finally, it is important to emphasise that in Litigation PR, crisis management must be proactive—anticipating possible scenarios, continuously monitoring the existing narrative, preparing responses to potential leaks and adverse developments in advance, and implementing a long-term reputation rehabilitation plan.

Ultimately, the goal of Litigation PR is not only to help secure a favourable court ruling but also to ensure that the individual’s or company’s reputation remains as intact as possible.

I understand that this type of reputation management must align with an individual’s legal team and defence lawyers. What challenges do you encounter when working with criminal lawyers? Are they generally reluctant? Has there been a positive evolution in awareness, or is there now greater recognition of how this can benefit a client, particularly when they are a public figure?

Collaboration between Litigation PR experts and criminal lawyers is essential for the comprehensive management of a high-profile case. While challenges still exist in many countries, in recent years, there has been a positive shift in lawyers’ awareness of the importance of reputation management alongside legal strategy.

In countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Netherlands, there is a much higher level of awareness regarding the necessity of Litigation PR, and countries like Spain are gradually following this trend.

One of the main challenges we encounter is the common belief that silence is the best strategy when, in reality, a proactive rather than reactive approach is often required. Additionally, lawyers and their clients frequently fail to recognise the need for a litigation communication expert until the legal process—and sometimes even the reputational crisis—is already underway, rather than engaging this expertise from the outset. It is crucial to understand that the parallel trial of public opinion—through the media, social networks, and other platforms—plays a significant role throughout the entire legal process.

Lawyers also sometimes fear that a poorly judged public statement could be used against the defendant in court. This is why it is essential for a Litigation PR expert to work alongside lawyers and their client to define the strategic narrative. Litigation communication partially challenges the traditional notion of absolute legal confidentiality in order to preempt media and public opinion crises, ultimately supporting both the legal and reputational strategy.

We have seen that, in some recent high-profile cases, such as that of Elisa Mouliaá, she has made numerous television appearances, which have not always conveyed a coherent narrative. Does this harm her reputation? There has been significant scrutiny on social media.

Reputation management in media-sensitive cases is a delicate process that requires a well-planned and consistent communication strategy. In Elisa Mouliaá’s case, her multiple television appearances have created a perception of inconsistency in her narrative, leading to considerable criticism on social media.

Public appearances, if not aligned with a clear and consistent narrative, can negatively impact a person’s reputation. Media exposure without a well-defined strategy can result in varied interpretations and criticism, particularly on digital platforms, where information spreads rapidly.

In the context of Litigation PR, it is crucial that all public communications are carefully coordinated with the legal and public relations teams. This includes preparing key messages and selecting the most appropriate channels for dissemination to ensure the coherence and credibility of the narrative.

In summary, while media visibility can be a powerful tool for shaping public opinion, without a well-structured and consistent communication strategy, there is a risk that such exposure may ultimately damage the individual’s reputation.

Furthermore, the interrogation was leaked, in which the judge adopted a particularly harsh tone. Could this be part of a communication strategy aimed at discrediting judicial proceedings in the eyes of the public? Any technical insights on these specific cases or in general would be appreciated.

The leak of Elisa Mouliaá’s judicial interrogation, during which Judge Adolfo Carretero used a tone that many considered inappropriate, has sparked intense public and media debate. Such leaks can significantly influence public perception, both of the judicial system and of those involved in the case.

The objectives behind these leaks may include discrediting the judicial process, generating media pressure, and benefiting the party favoured by the disclosure. At the same time, leaks of this nature can lead to legal violations, compromise the impartiality of the trial, and strongly shape public opinion.

Another noteworthy case is that of Nacho Cano and the Mexican worker from his musical. She went viral for responding to journalists’ questions with several songs. Does this kind of behaviour discredit her, make her appear more relatable, or serve any purpose? And when he left the courthouse, instead of addressing questions about the case, he attacked the government, claiming he was being persecuted for supporting Isabel Díaz Ayuso. Do you think this was a tactic to distract from the investigation? Any technical insights on these cases or in general would be welcome.

Public actions by individuals involved in legal proceedings can significantly influence public perception and, consequently, their reputation. Unconventional communication strategies in judicial contexts, such as those used by Lesly Ochoa, can either undermine the credibility of her claims—making them seem less serious—or, conversely, convey authenticity and emotional connection with certain audiences. It is possible that this approach was intended to attract media attention and generate sympathy, setting her apart in the public narrative. Ultimately, this strategy can polarise public opinion, either benefiting or harming her image depending on how audiences perceive it.

Regarding Nacho Cano’s statements upon leaving court, these could be interpreted as an attempt to shift attention away from the labour allegations and towards a broader political debate. His remarks may have been aimed at rallying support from those who share his political views, but they also carry the risk of alienating others, particularly if the public perceives that he is avoiding the core issues of the case.

In summary, responses or actions that seem inconsistent can raise doubts about a person’s credibility. It is crucial to anticipate how the public and the media will interpret certain statements or actions. Deflecting attention from key issues may be perceived negatively if it is seen as an attempt to evade responsibility.

How far can litigation communication advisory extend? When is a crisis considered closed?

Litigation PR advisory is not limited to the active phase of legal proceedings; it encompasses everything from early detection of reputational risk to full reputation rehabilitation. Its duration depends on the severity of the case, media coverage, and public perception.

Not all crises have a clear closing point. However, three key criteria indicate that a case has been successfully managed and the crisis can be considered resolved: the end of media and digital interest, the restoration of reputation and credibility, and the minimisation of legal and social impact.

Ultimately, a crisis is not considered closed simply because of a favourable ruling; real success is measured in terms of public perception, not just legal outcomes. A poorly managed crisis can follow an individual for years, even if they are innocent.

You can read the full article here.