This draws on several matters. Names and details are left out to protect the clients.
The other side starts telling its story early. Months before trial, the only version in public is theirs. Every lawyer I work with has the same worry: the people who will one day hear the case have already heard about the client.
The rules on trial publicity leave room to answer. A lawyer may respond to publicity the other side started, within limits, to protect a client from its effect. I work inside those limits and under counsel’s direction. Nothing goes out without written approval from the lawyer on the case. A text or an email is enough. Without it, nothing is sent.
On one matter, a defense team pitched a story about my client to 60 Minutes.
I started with a baseline. Before I did anything else, I measured what the public thought of the client and where those views came from. That told me what had to be answered and where.
I checked every fact myself before a reporter saw it. A client who is already doubted cannot afford one wrong detail.
I kept the story on the institution. The question was never who my client was. It was what the defendant knew and what it did about it.
I briefed reporters early, on background, so they had the full record before they wrote.
No client or family member spoke unless they chose to, in writing. Some never spoke at all, and their story was still told.
When the 60 Minutes story was headed for air, I spoke with the producers. I made the story boring. I showed them why it was not news, and the segment did not run.
I kept the coverage going. One story does not change how people see a client. Steady, accurate coverage over months does.
I do not guess whether the work is working. I use social listening software to track what people are saying online about the case. I take a baseline at the start and watch it move.
Over the months, the coverage changed. The first stories were about my client. The later ones were about what the defendant knew.