Nearly Half of General Counsels Surveyed Haven’t Updated Their Crisis Management Plans

A story in General Counsel magazine published today points out that 47 percent of GC’s have not updated their crisis-management plan to take account of the risks they may face in 2012, compared with only 36 percent who said they had.

As someone who has long advised lawyers, law firms and companies on crisis management, here are some immediate actions these GC’s (and their outside law firms) might take:

1) Create a crisis communications team right now if you don’t have one. Depending on the company size, the team should include the CEO, COO, GC, key outside attorney, HR officer, chief marketing officer,  top public affairs/public relations staffer (or senior person from outside PR agency) and heads of information technology and building security. If your company has multiple offices, include the top executives in those offices as well.

2) Gather the team in a conference room to assess/discuss brewing crisis situations. Some could be leftover from 2011 and others might be right over the horizon. Every company has a few on any given day. They range from disgruntled employees, crimes committed by employees or executives, allegations of sexual harassment, allegations of age/race/religious discrimination, lawsuits alleging faulty products, or a negative story about the company’s products or services that are  about to be published in a major business magazine, online and on radio/television. Of course, there are also the many “no fault” crisis situations like natural disasters and terrorism that every business needs to plan for.

3) Adjust your crisis management/crisis communications plan to include these scenarios and the real crisis situations that you know are particular to your company right now and in the near future.

4) Have your public relations professionals begin to DRAFT media statements that would respond to any of the crisis situations that you know are about to happen or to prepare for some of the items listed above in #2. Then, rehearse how your team will respond to various crisis situations. Some key things to remember here: insure that all members of the crisis communications team know their roles in a crisis, that everyone has full contact information of the entire team, and that the company speaks with one voice.

5) Check your social media. Are you answering customer complaints quickly and responsibly? Are you using Facebook/Twitter/YouTube to communicate your company’s goodwill and mission? Do you have a SENIOR person managing these accounts who understands online reputation and not just the technology?

Finally, please note that there are three key timelines in a crisis: Before, During and After. Too many companies don’t pay attention to these issues until they are in the middle of a crisis. So get prepared long before the crisis hits.

To read my articles published by Law.com and others on this subject, please visit my LinkedIn profile at http://www.linkedin.com/in/richkleinny and scroll to the bottom to download a PDF (Box.net). You can also learn more at www.LawFirmsPR.com. If you need help with a brewing crisis, please email rich@LawFirmsPR.com or call 646-789-5459.

 

 

 

 

Lin Wood Statement Doesn’t Help Herman Cain

Howard Kurtz makes a great point in his latest Daily Beast piece on Herman Cain and his attorney Lin Wood by asking if Wood was asleep during the Clinton Administration.

Kurtz made the quip after reading a statement released by Wood in response to another allegation of sexual harassment:

“This appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life,” Wood said.

Kurtz is right and I’ll go further.  Wood, who has experience with suing media companies, doesn’t seem to understand basic media relations AND political history. It’s naive to suggest a candidate’s sex life is off limits but it also invites MORE questions and coverage when an attorney tries to lecture the media about what is and what isn’t a “proper” subject of inquiry.

Whether Wood issued this statement himself or got outside PR help is unclear but the statement doesn’t work.

Attorneys should stick to what they do best: practicing law. The job of drafting a press statement on behalf of a client (particularly those in crisis mode) should be left to experienced PR professionals who understand how the media operates. The attorney should review the statement  to make sure it does not jeopardize the legal strategy but should also read it to see how it can HELP his or her client’s reputation.

Too many defense lawyers get nervous at the mere mention of putting out a statement. So they say,  “we’ll argue this in court and not the courthouse steps.” It says nothing and does nothing to help a client’s legal case or reputation.

When a client is in a serious crisis as Herman Cain is, then it makes sense to issue statements that can contain the damage from rumors and false allegations that are sure to end up in print, broadcast and online. These statements need to support the legal strategy (often more long term) for sure but it’s often more important for the statement to defend the client’s reputation ASAP.

If attorneys are truly concerned about advocating for their clients, then they would treat the use of public relations professionals to help influence the court of public opinion with the same respect they give to retaining expert witnesses to win in the court of law.

Finally, for Lin Wood, here’s a list of political sex scandals covered by the media.

Herman Cain, Penn State and Crisis Management

The twin scandals this week that kept Herman Cain and Penn State at the top of the news left us PR practitioners with lots of material to examine crisis management and crisis communications. Here’s my brief analysis:

5 Crisis Tips For Law Firms (And Any Business) Before Hurricane Irene

For many years I’ve advised law firms on crisis communications. With Hurricane Irene taking aim at the East Coast of the United States this weekend, here are some suggestions for all law firms:

1–Make sure that every member of the law firm crisis communications team has a hard copy AND digital copy of the team’s home and cell numbers and personal email addresses (Gmail/Yahoo, etc.)  in the event your office loses power or worse.

2– Don’t have a crisis communications team? Appoint one TODAY before the storm! It should include the managing partner and include senior staff  from departments like information technology, human resources and marketing/PR, if applicable. Firms that have a public relations firm on retainer would be wise to include them here to advise on communications issues/challenges that could arise.

3– Make sure all office data is also stored in a secure cloud AND on a zip drive and CD/DVD. You should always have at least two backup copies of all data that is stored off site, according to tech guru Leo Laporte.

4– If the storm damages your office (s), make sure you have access to sufficient office space elsewhere to get through the initial aftermath. Hotel conference rooms are a good choice, particularly for solo and small firms.

5– Communicate with clients to assure them that you are “weathering the storm”, that their data is safe, and that attorneys/staff are still working on their matters, even if it’s from their homes for a few days. Use the homepage of your website — as well as Twitter and Facebook if possible — to communicate information such as any temporary relocation of staff, downed phone lines/website, etc.

New ABA President Seeks To Improve Funding of State Courts & Increase Diversity

Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III, the new president of the American Bar Association, said at the ABA Annual Meeting in Toronto this past weekend that he will hold a press conference on the steps of every state capital in the United States to promote the need for increased funding of state courts.

Bill Robinson

“Our courts are inadequately funded,” he said in addressing the ABA’s General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Division at an ABA breakfast session the day before his inauguration. He reiterated the ABA theme of “No Courts. No Justice. No Freedom” that will be the slogan behind the court funding campaign throughout his one-year term as ABA President that started this week.

Another key issue on his agenda is diversity, something his predecessors have increasingly focused on in recent years.  ”This Association must set the standard (on diversity),” he said. “There’s a tremendous amount of talent out there.”

Robinson is the member-in-charge of the Northern Kentucky offices of Frost Brown Todd LLC, a regional law firm with over 450 lawyers in nine offices located in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and Indiana.

He is a past president of the Kentucky Bar Association, a past president of the Kentucky Bar Foundation and founding chair of Kentucky’s Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) program. He also served as board chair of the Kentucky and the Northern Kentucky Chambers of Commerce, and as board chair of the Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

Lawyer Moshe Gerstein Indicted; Gibson Dunn Misses Opportunity To Speak Out

News late today that a 35-year-old associate at Gibson Dunn has been indicted on two counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child and five counts of possessing a sexual performance of a child brings us back to the issue of how big law firms manage crisis situations.

“These images are not pornography…these are babies, these are toddlers and children being brutally raped, sexually assaulted and exploited by adults on camera,” said Manhattan D.A. Cyrus R. Vance Jr.

So far, the firm has removed Moshe Gerstein’s biography from the firm’s website, which was a good start. But the firm and managing partner Kenneth M. Doran missed a golden opportunity to say SOMETHING about how horrible it is to find out one of your attorneys was allegedly involved in one of the most despicable crimes imaginable.

This wasn’t about an adult shooting photos of himself in a gym and then sharing a provocative photo with young women on Twitter.  It was a grown man allegedly in possession of some 5,000 images of very young children on three home computers and an external hard drive, some reportedly who were victims of violent sexual assaults.

The Gibson Dunn spokesperson was quoted as saying that “we don’t comment on personal matters.” I would advise the firm differently. The firm could have issued a measured statement and said it was cooperating fully with prosecutors in their investigation to make sure none of the firm’s computers contained any materials that Gerstein is alleged to have acquired.

Why would the firm say that? Well, if someone has 5,000 images of child porn on three home computers, wouldn’t lawyers at least consider the possibility that one of those photos ended up on his Gibson Dunn computers?

Saying “no comment” or declining comment because of “personal” or “personnel” matters only harms a law firm’s reputation further because it lets the media and others control the crisis story.

In this case, it’s even worse because Gibson Dunn heavily promotes its pro bono work for an organization called the Alliance for Children’s Rights, an organization that provides free legal services and advocacy to protect the rights of impoverished and abused children and youth so that they have safe, stable homes, health care and the education they need to thrive.

The firm’s management is proud of this pro bono work –as it should be — but that also means it’s educated about abused children. That’s all the more reason that the firm should have issued a statement today.

Law Firm Public Relations Lessons From 9-11 Ad Controversy

Ad that stirred controversy

There is so much to talk about after the New York Post broke the story about the way Worby Groner Edelman and Napoli Bern Ripka — two New York area law firms — advertised for plaintiffs who were harmed at Ground Zero.

But in the interest of time, here are three quick lessons for all law firms based on PR mistakes made by these two firms and their advertising agency:

Lesson #1 — When it comes to 9-11, it is in extremely poor taste for any organization or person to use misleading statements and false images. Yes, ad agency Barker DZP claims the model, Robert Keiley signed a release and that there was a disclaimer about the identity of the person in the ad. But just because it was legal, doesn’t make it ethical. UPDATE: Barker DZP reportedly apologized late today.

Law firm management would be wise to have an experienced law firm public relations/reputation management professional (separate from an ad agency) to review the ad for content, to validate it’s accuracy, and to alert the partners if the ad might result in the kind of public outrage now being expressed online.

Lesson #2 — When the media calls your law firm about a controversial ad, it’s the law firm(s), that should issue a media statement immediately — instead of referring all calls to the ad agency. Such a statement should have said the current ad was being pulled immediately. The law firms could also apologize to all 9-11 victims and take responsibility for signing off on the ad without carefully analyzing the content. So far, these two law firms have been silent as the negative story grows in the online media and most likely on social media sites. When law firms go silent in the face of controversy, the court of public opinion will always assume guilt. (As of 2:45 p.m. ET today, there has been no press statement on either of the law firm websites.) Most firms can ill-afford that kind of damage to their reputations, particularly when there are a few hundred versions of the same negative news story swirling on Google and on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

Lesson #3 — When law firms and their agents make honest mistakes or deliberately mislead in their advertising, it not only hurts the firms involved but harms the reputation of the entire legal profession. The partners at Worby Groner & Napoli Bern have a responsibility to their colleagues –and their bar associations — to acknowledge any mistakes and apologize to those offended (including the firms’ many 9-11 clients).

Finally, this controversy comes at a particularly bad time because lawyers/law firms continue to battle many state bar advertising rules that are over reaching and based on 20th century communications.

I hope that this event does not give more ammunition to state bars and other oversight groups that seek to stifle law firm marketing. If it’s one bad example of lawyer advertising, then the profession should deal with it — but it should not stop the movement for more freedom to advertise (ethically) online and off.

ABA Survey: People Rely On Their Social Networks To Find “Trusted” Lawyers

“People would not use social media avenues to a substantial degree to assist in finding a lawyer for a personal legal matter, but relatively few lawyers market their services through these avenues at this time.” — American Bar Association/Harris Interactive survey

A  recent survey conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of the American Bar Association found that 46 percent of respondents who need a lawyer for a personal legal matter would ask a friend, family member or colleague. Now that’s a social network. (Note: It didn’t say HOW they asked so I’m thinking that it’s possible that some are asking their “social network” on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn). Only 34 percent said they would contact a lawyer they knew or had used before, indicating that attorneys may need to try even harder when it comes to client service.

The survey revealed that few people are using social media and Web 2.0  to find a lawyer — but correctly noted that this could be because few lawyers use social media to market their services. That is true but thankfully that is starting to change, albeit slowly. So if  prospects are already asking their “social network” to refer them to a “trusted” lawyer, doesn’t it make sense for more lawyers to use social media? The answer is a resounding yes, particularly since the survey also said that lawyers should seek “a higher public profile” to become a trusted source of referrals.

What do you think of lawyers using social media and the ABA survey?

And for those who want to learn more about social media for lawyers, please see my blog post from December 2010,  “How Law Firms Can Use Social Media in 2011.”

Japan Disaster, Mideast Events=New Crisis Management Mindset for Global Business

The catastrophic earthquake/tsunami in Japan occurred while Libya was exploding into civil war. And that event followed closely the citizen uprisings in Egypt, Bahrain and Tunisia. Now the Saudis have entered Bahrain to protect the Sunni monarchy, adding to an already tense situation in the Middle East.

These somewhat simultaneous world events should remind companies, particularly those with people and offices across continents, to be more prepared than ever to Monitor-Act-Speak (MAS) when multiple humanitarian disasters strike.

Here’s a brief breakdown of the three actions I recommend for organizations that want to fine-tune their approach to crisis management if faced with simultaneous crises:

1) Monitor — Must have intelligence gathering capabilities and the right tools/technology to closely monitor fast-breaking developments in real time.

2) Act - Must have a fluid crisis management plan that can quickly be placed into action. It should identify members of the crisis management team and delineate the responsibilities of each member for a wide variety of crisis scenarios.  Example: Someone will have authority to make all decisions relating to rescue and/or protection of employees and business assets in danger zones.

3) Speak – Using traditional media but especially social media like Twitter, Facebook & YouTube, a company must respond  24/7 to media/blogger inquiries as well as the concerns of a company’s critical audiences (employees/loved ones, customers/clients, government officials, investors, etc.). “Speak” also means “write” — so any backgrounders, fact sheets, press releases and social media posts that can be prepared in advance will make it easier to navigate a serious crisis. Spokespeople previously designated should have access to live video tools like Skype, iChat, Facetime, UStream, Justin.TV and Google Chat.  This will allow critical audiences to actually see and hear from the “face” of the company, which helps an organization to build/rebuild trust much faster. But that’s assuming the written and spoken messages put out by the company are entirely credible. In addition, most of these “apps” are available on a growing list of mobile devices.

For more information about crisis management/crisis communications and social media, please visit:

www.LawFirmsPR.com

http://lawfirmspr.wordpress.com

http://crisiscommunications.ning.com.

My colleague, Jonathan Bernstein, also has some great information at http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/.

Skippy Recall: Being Reactive Instead of Proactive With Social Media

Skippy recall

Skippy, the peanut butter brand owned by Unilever, is in the middle of an extensive recall of some of its products because of the risk they contain  salmonella. Whether the company’s lawyers are managing the crisis or playing a role in PR decisions or not, Skippy is limiting the use of its Twitter account to answer questions about the recall and referring people only to the official news release on the company website or to their toll free number. That’s a very good start in a crisis — but a company that  limits its online conversations to responding to questions is missing a golden opportunity to communicate effectively in a crisis.

The company announced the recall on Friday, March 4 in a news release posted on its homepage  and on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website. But nothing about the recall was noted on its Twitter account until Sunday, March 6 when the company began responding to recall questions that were posed publicly by Twitter users. However, all these Tweets did was to confirm the recall and then referred people to the news release or phone number.

So much more can, and should be, done to defend the company’s reputation. First, the company could have driven home the message online that the recall decision was made by the company after its own testing of the products — instead of a government agency investigating and mandating a recall. Corporate reputations are improved when companies look out for customer safety before someone is injured but they are harmed when there’s a perception that it is cutting corners and the government has to come in to slap their wrists or take legal action.

Unilever does not seem in sync with its own polices/guidelines regarding communications about its food products. Read this.

Skippy also should have been using Twitter (as well as YouTube, Facebook, etc.) throughout the first few hours/days of the crisis to tell the world what it was doing to resolve the crisis, to remind regularly that no one was reported sick from their products and that the company  is doing everything possible to ensure the safety of its customers. If proactive and corrective measures are already in play, why not tell the world?

YouTube might have been used to show an executive at Skippy talking about his or her concern for consumers and explaining the recall process and its full cooperation with the FDA. A video might also remind customers that the recall is limited to the reduced fat peanut butters. Digital video also allows a company to  (literally) put a human face to the brand and to be more personal with customers. That is exactly what’s called for in a crisis in which trust and credibility might be at risk.

(As the founder of the Crisis Communications Network on Ning.com, I refer you to a collection of videos there that show leaders facing the media in serious crisis situations.You can also find my earlier post about Skippy and its use of Twitter here.)

Finally, a company that was smart enough to buy the domain www.peanutbutter.com  (reportedly in 1998) shows it understood the power of the Internet. However, its “Skippy” Twitter account has less than 300 followers.  So even if  Skippy used Twitter more effectively today, its reach will be limited without multiple retweets and mentions. The lesson here is that companies need to build a strong online following in good times so that in a crisis you reach the masses with your messages, rather than people believing the many rumors and inaccuracies people often find on Google and Bing during a crisis.

What do you think? Is it enough to respond to customers or should Skippy/Unilever be more proactive and take advantage of all social media tools to defend its reputation?

And because I like nostalgia, here’s a classic Skippy commercial from the 1950′s..