Public relations for a law firm is the work of shaping how the firm, its lawyers, and its clients are perceived by the press and the public, carried out under the same professional conduct rules that bind the attorneys themselves. Anyone the firm retains to speak on its behalf inherits those limits. That is what makes law firm public relations a specialty rather than general corporate communications: the ethical framework decides what can be said, when, and by whom, and a careless statement can cost a case, a license, or the attorney-client privilege.
What a Law Firm PR Team Actually Does
The day-to-day work falls into three buckets. The first is reputation management: monitoring news coverage, legal directory listings, and search results, publishing thought leadership, and encouraging favorable client reviews so that a firm’s online footprint reflects its professional standing. For sensitive matters, that can extend to a privacy audit of the firm’s or client’s digital presence to identify information that could be exploited.
The second is crisis communication. When a malpractice allegation, regulatory investigation, or partner departure breaks into the news, a crisis team moves quickly with factual responses designed to contain speculation before it hardens into reporting. Media training sits alongside this function, preparing individual attorneys to handle press conferences and televised interviews with composed, on-message delivery rather than the stilted “no comment” that reads as evasion.
The third is ongoing media relations tied to active matters: press releases translating filings into accessible language, social media posts, and briefings for reporters covering the case. Every one of these outputs has to clear the ethics rules before it goes out.
The Ethics Rules That Bind the PR Work
Several ABA Model Rules set the perimeter. They apply directly to lawyers and extend to anyone acting at a lawyer’s direction, which captures a retained PR firm.
Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity
Rule 3.6 is the central constraint. A lawyer involved in a case cannot make a public statement that the lawyer knows, or should know, will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an ongoing proceeding.1American Bar Association. Model Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity The prohibition reaches other lawyers in the same firm and the PR consultants working under the legal team’s direction. Commenting on a witness’s credibility, speculating about the strength of evidence, or previewing testimony are all off the table if the statement could taint a jury pool. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this standard in Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991).2Justia Law. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991)
Rule 7.1: Truthfulness About the Firm
Rule 7.1 governs how lawyers and firms describe their services. No false or misleading statement about the lawyer or the practice, including a material misrepresentation or an omission that would make a statement misleading as a whole.3American Bar Association. Model Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 7.1: Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services Website bios, press releases, and social media posts touting a firm’s track record all fall under this rule.
Rule 8.2: Statements About Judges
Rule 8.2 prohibits lawyers from making statements they know to be false, or make with reckless disregard for the truth, about a judge’s qualifications or integrity. Courts have enforced this aggressively, including suspension and disbarment for baseless accusations of corruption or bias even in statements made outside court. For a PR team drafting anything that references the bench, this is a hard boundary.
A violation of any of these rules can produce discipline ranging from a private admonition to suspension or disbarment, depending on severity and jurisdiction.
What You Can Say While a Case Is Pending
Rule 3.6 is not a gag order. The rule itself lists categories of statements a lawyer involved in a matter can make publicly, and most of a litigation PR strategy is built around these safe harbors. Under Rule 3.6(b), you can state:
- The claims, offenses, or defenses involved and, except where prohibited by law, the identities of the parties.
- Information already contained in a public record.
- That an investigation of a matter is in progress.
- The scheduling or result of any step in the litigation.
- A request for assistance in obtaining evidence or information.
- A warning of danger about a person involved, when there is reason to believe a substantial likelihood of harm exists.
The ABA commentary notes that this list is not exhaustive, and statements on other topics may still be permissible if they fall below the “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” threshold.4American Bar Association. Model Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity – Comment Skilled practitioners frame public statements to stay inside these categories while still advancing a client’s narrative. The line between a permissible statement and a sanctionable one is often a matter of phrasing.
Keeping Client Information Confidential and Privileged
Bringing a PR consultant into the room creates two separate problems: the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6, and the risk that the outsider’s presence waives attorney-client privilege and exposes the communications in discovery.
Confidentiality Under Rule 1.6
Rule 1.6 bars a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation unless the client gives informed consent or disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.5American Bar Association. Model Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information The commentary also requires lawyers to take reasonable precautions against unauthorized disclosure by anyone participating in the representation.6American Bar Association. Model Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information – Comment Before sharing anything substantive with a PR consultant, get the client’s informed consent and put confidentiality terms in the PR firm’s engagement letter.
Privilege and the Kovel Problem
Attorney-client privilege protects lawyer-client communications from discovery, but adding a third party can waive it. The analytical framework comes from United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961), where the Second Circuit held that privilege can extend to a non-lawyer whose assistance is necessary for effective attorney-client consultation. The question is whether the communication was made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the lawyer.7Justia Law. United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961) If the third party’s expertise helps the lawyer give legal advice, privilege holds. If the client is really seeking the consultant’s advice, it does not.
Courts have applied Kovel skeptically to PR firms. Multiple federal courts have found that including PR consultants on attorney-client communications waived privilege because the PR firm’s assistance was not needed for the legal purpose. The test courts tend to apply is whether the consultant’s involvement was “nearly indispensable” to the attorney-client communication, not merely useful or convenient.
To improve the odds of preserving privilege, experienced practitioners have outside counsel (not the company) retain the PR firm directly, specify in the engagement letter how the PR firm’s expertise is necessary to help counsel give legal advice, mark communications as confidential and privileged, and make sure the PR firm understands confidentiality is essential. Even with all of that, privilege protection for PR communications is never guaranteed and varies by jurisdiction.
Extra Rules for Public Company Clients
When the client is publicly traded, SEC Regulation FD adds a federal layer on top of the ethics rules. Reg FD requires that whenever a company selectively discloses material nonpublic information to certain outside parties, it must simultaneously (for intentional disclosures) or promptly (for unintentional ones) make the same information available to all investors.8eCFR. 17 CFR 243.100 – General Rule Regarding Selective Disclosure
Litigation information can easily be material. A pending lawsuit, a regulatory investigation, or a settlement discussion can move a stock. If a PR team briefs select journalists or analysts on such developments ahead of a public filing, the company may be violating Reg FD. The SEC has enforced in this area, including a 2024 action against DraftKings for selectively disclosing nonpublic company information through the CEO’s social media accounts.9U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC Charges DraftKings with Selectively Disclosing Nonpublic Information Via CEO’s Social Media Accounts
Reg FD does include an exception for disclosures to a person who owes a duty of trust or confidence to the company, such as an attorney, or who expressly agrees to keep the information confidential.8eCFR. 17 CFR 243.100 – General Rule Regarding Selective Disclosure A PR consultant bound by a confidentiality agreement likely sits within that exception for internal briefings. The moment the PR firm takes the information outward to the press, the exception stops helping, and the company needs a proper public disclosure in place.
Running Media Strategy Alongside the Case
Day to day, the PR team coordinates with counsel so every public statement supports the strategy being advanced in court. A statement that contradicts a filing can be introduced as evidence. One that crosses Rule 3.6 can trigger discipline.
Practitioners track court dockets in real time to anticipate media inquiries after rulings. Pre-approved statements go out when a decision drops, which is the difference between shaping the story and chasing it. Public statements get timed to procedural milestones (a motion, a hearing, a ruling) so the firm’s narrative stays tethered to the public record.
“No comment” still has a place, but a flat refusal reads as evasion to reporters and as guilt to the public. The better move is to use the safe harbors: acknowledge the case exists, point to public filings, offer something factual and neutral. Distributing filings directly to journalists, with a plain-language summary, is another common technique: it influences framing without disclosing anything that is not already public.
What It Costs
Legal PR pricing varies with firm size, matter complexity, and whether the work is proactive brand-building or reactive crisis response. Monthly retainers are the standard structure.
- Solo practitioners and small firms: $3,000 to $8,000 per month for ongoing reputation management and practice-area visibility.
- Mid-size firms: $8,000 to $20,000 per month for growing specific practice areas or managing periodic media attention.
- Large firms: $20,000 to $40,000 or more per month for AmLaw-ranked firms with multi-practice communication needs and national media profiles.
Litigation-specific campaigns are priced separately. A high-profile case with active media management runs $15,000 to $75,000 depending on intensity and duration, with the most prominent matters reaching six figures. Crisis PR for malpractice allegations or regulatory investigations runs $10,000 to $40,000 for routine situations and more for major crises requiring long-term reputation recovery. Social media management as a separate add-on typically costs $2,000 to $5,000 per month. Bar association compliance review, which specialized legal PR firms build into their workflow, can add $500 to $2,000 per month to the retainer.
Bringing a PR Firm On
Before approaching an agency, prepare a case summary, a list of involved parties for conflict-check purposes, and a clear statement of goals (building the firm’s profile, managing coverage of a specific case, or containing a crisis). Many firms then issue a Request for Proposal to a shortlist of agencies, laying out the scope of work, timelines, and relevant media history so each agency can propose a strategy and quote a fee. Initial consultations should be structured with confidentiality in mind from the first call.
Once you choose a firm, formalize the engagement in a retainer agreement covering the scope of services, duration, fee structure, payment schedule, and billing for additional costs.10American Bar Association. Lawyer Retainers: Definition, Purpose, and Ethics For legal PR, the contract should also include strong confidentiality provisions, a clear process for pre-approving public statements through the legal team, and, where privilege protection is a goal, language specifying that the PR firm’s work is necessary to assist counsel in providing legal advice.
Signing the contract typically assigns a dedicated account manager as the primary liaison. The first deliverable is usually a communication timeline mapping upcoming legal milestones to planned media interactions, keeping the PR strategy synchronized with the litigation calendar.