For attorneys across Colorado, litigation is rarely just about what happens in the courtroom. Whether representing a client as outside counsel or advising from within an organization, today’s disputes often carry a second layer of risk that can be just as consequential: public perception.
Even routine matters can quickly attract attention from reporters, industry observers, employees or social media audiences, as a complaint may be summarized in a headline within hours, shaping how stakeholders understand the dispute before the legal process has fully begun.
In that moment, the case is no longer confined to pleadings and proceedings but is also evaluated in the court of public opinion, where reputational risk travels alongside legal risk. Attorneys must be prepared to guide leadership through both without compromising legal strategy or ethical obligations.
Why cases attract attention
Not every dispute becomes news, but many share characteristics that increase the likelihood of coverage. Matters involving well-known companies, novel legal theories, significant financial stakes or compelling human stories tend to draw interest. Even routine cases can gain traction if they intersect with broader trends such as data privacy, employment practices or consumer protection. In those instances, the dispute becomes part of a larger narrative that reporters are already covering.
Whether a case attracts attention is not fully within counsel’s control. Preparing for that possibility, however, is.
Start with a dual risk assessment
At the outset of any matter, attorneys are trained to evaluate legal exposure. That same discipline should be applied to reputational risk. Ask early: If this filing were summarized on the front page of a business publication, would we be comfortable with how it reads?
If the answer is no, adjust before the document is finalized. This does not mean softening legal arguments. It means eliminating unnecessary rhetoric, ensuring factual clarity and anticipating how language may be interpreted outside a legal audience.
When a case draws attention, filings often become the primary vehicle for communicating the position. Reporters rely on complaints, motions and briefs to frame coverage, shaping the narrative long before the case is resolved.
In some situations, directing reporters to publicly available filings is more effective than offering off-the-cuff statements. Filings carry credibility and present facts in a controlled format, but anything filed may also be quoted or simplified in ways that amplify certain points. Drafting with that reality in mind is part of modern advocacy.
Prepare for the realities of the media cycle
Many leaders, particularly those who have not faced public scrutiny before, underestimate how quickly narratives can take hold. They may expect that “no comment” will suffice or assume that the legal process will speak for itself. In practice, silence often creates a vacuum that others fill. While restraint is often the right strategy, there is a difference between saying nothing and saying something disciplined and controlled.
Preparing means setting expectations early. Explain that some coverage may be unfavorable, reporters may work on tight timelines, and not every story can be corrected in real time. It also means reinforcing that consistency and credibility matter more than winning any single news cycle. Even well-managed cases may generate difficult headlines, and part of counsel’s role is helping leaders weather that period.
Coordinate legal and communications
One of the most common breakdowns occurs when legal and communications teams operate in silos. Communications professionals may push for rapid response, while attorneys focus on long-term legal outcomes. Misalignments can create risk. At a minimum, counsel should work with internal teams to establish a clear protocol: who handles media inquiries, what can be said and how quickly responses must be approved. Pre-approved holding statements can be invaluable here, allowing organizations to acknowledge an issue without speculating or disclosing sensitive information.
Equally important is internal alignment. Employees, executives and board members are all potential audiences and, in some cases, inadvertent spokespeople. Inconsistent internal messaging can quickly become external confusion.
Protect privilege while enabling collaboration
Bringing communications professionals into litigation strategy raises an important legal consideration: attorney-client privilege. Courts do not automatically treat internal communications staff as part of the privileged relationship, which means their involvement in litigation discussions can risk waiving privilege.
To manage this, attorneys should structure communications support carefully. Engaging outside communications counsel through a law firm, clearly defining the role as part of legal strategy and routing communications through the attorney can help preserve privilege.
Monitor and respond with discipline
Once a case enters the public domain, monitoring becomes critical. This includes traditional and social media, where narratives can evolve quickly. Not every mention requires a response. In fact, overreacting can draw more attention to unfavorable coverage. But where clear inaccuracies arise, a measured correction can protect credibility.
Establishing a process for monitoring and escalation ensures the legal team is not learning about developments after they have already gained traction.
The bottom line
Litigation today often unfolds on two parallel tracks: the courtroom and the public sphere. Colorado attorneys who prepare for this reality are better positioned to protect legal outcomes, long-term relationships, brand value and stakeholder trust. The goal is not to win the media cycle, but to ensure nothing in it undermines the case you are trying to win.
Monica Smith is the founder of Integer, a communications, crisis and public relations agency. She may be reached at info@integerpr.com.