What causes friction between comms and legal — and how to fix it

Many communicators view legal as the fun police. You come up with a creative idea, and they stone-faced explain the 17 reasons why you can’t do it.

But this key relationship doesn’t have to be contentious.

“I originated the PR function at my firm years ago, and it took a long ramp-up period to get past legal’s perception that I had an ‘all press is good press’ mentality … and to get past my own perception that they were the ‘office of no,’” said Lara Hamm, chief communications officer at law firm Jackson Lewis P.C. She was part of a panel on bridging the divide between legal and communications at Ragan’s Employee Communications Conference earlier this year.

David P. Saunders, a partner at McDermott Will & Emory, was there to represent the attorneys. He identified two key issues that can cause misunderstandings with comms.

“First, prioritization of objectives: we’re both trying to protect the company, but in different ways. Second, making sure we speak the same language. The English language has different meanings legally and colloquially. A PR group may want to say one thing, but I might say, ‘We can’t say that because of what happened last week in a regulatory proceeding or court opinion.’”