By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
Legal questions sit underneath an enormous number of news stories.
Employment disputes.
Divorce.
Property.
Inheritance.
Consumer rights.
Technology.
Privacy.
Business deals.
Intellectual property.
Regulation.
High-profile court proceedings.
The public may understand what happened while having very little idea what it means legally.
That is why good legal experts can be extremely useful to journalists.
The strongest legal media commentary does not attempt to turn every news story into an advert for a law firm.
It helps the audience understand the law, the process, the uncertainty and the possible implications, while respecting the professional limits that apply to the lawyer giving the comment.
Why do journalists seek legal experts?
Journalists are not normally practising solicitors themselves.
A breaking story may contain a legal concept that needs translating.
A government announcement may change a particular process.
A court decision may establish something important but be difficult for a general reader to interpret.
A consumer story may raise a simple-sounding question such as:
Can my landlord do this?
What happens to debt when somebody dies?
Can I cut branches from my neighbour's tree?
What rights do employees have if a company suddenly dismisses them?
A lawyer can turn the legal mechanics into understandable context.
That can make them a very strong source.
What subjects can lawyers comment on?
The sensible answer is: the subjects they genuinely practise in and understand.
Employment lawyers can potentially explain workplace rights and employment developments.
Family specialists may contribute to divorce, separation and parental issues.
Private-client lawyers may discuss wills, probate and inheritance.
Property lawyers may be useful on ownership, leases, conveyancing or neighbour disputes.
Commercial solicitors may contribute to business transactions, company law, contracts and corporate developments.
Technology and intellectual-property specialists may comment on disputes involving software, copyright, trademarks or data.
But the title "lawyer" is not a licence to comment on every legal issue.
Practice area matters.
So does jurisdiction.
Fair has worked with legal experts across very different stories
Our historical work with UK law firms including Atkins Dellow and Buckworths demonstrates how broad the editorial territory can become when the correct specialist is matched to the correct story.
Both are established UK law firms, and Atkins Dellow is currently recorded by the Solicitors Regulation Authority as an SRA-regulated firm. Buckworths likewise states that it is regulated by the SRA and specialises particularly in start-ups and high-growth businesses.
For Atkins Dellow, Fair's historical coverage records include consumer-friendly legal commentary from Rob Dellow on whether homeowners can cut branches overhanging from a neighbour's tree, published by woman&home. The same wider campaign history includes commentary around employee confidentiality, business spin-offs, landlord deposits and wills. The woman&home result and a later Raconteur contribution demonstrate how legal expertise can move between practical consumer issues and business subjects when the source's experience fits the question.
Our work with Buckworths covered another range of topics, including employment rights following the P&O Ferries dismissals, consumer refund rights when a business enters administration, intellectual-property litigation and corporate/regulatory developments.
The lesson is not that every lawyer can discuss all of those subjects.
It is the opposite.
Legal commentary works when you match the story to the right legal expertise.
Can a solicitor comment on a high-profile legal case?
Potentially, but with considerable care.
When I was a journalist, what I generally wanted from a lawyer commenting on a legal story was not theatrical certainty about who would win.
I wanted them to explain:
what the legal issue actually was
what the relevant process meant
what possible outcomes might exist
what an ordinary reader should understand
The lawyer also needs to distinguish public facts from assumptions.
That becomes particularly important with active proceedings.
A commentator who is not involved in the case does not have access to every document, private conversation or piece of evidence.
Useful analysis can therefore include:
"Based on the facts currently in the public domain..."
or:
"If the court finds X, the likely next question would be Y."
That is more credible than pretending uncertainty does not exist.
Professional rules matter
Lawyers should treat media commentary as part of their professional conduct rather than as a separate world where ordinary obligations disappear.
For solicitors in England and Wales, the SRA Code requires client affairs to remain confidential unless disclosure is permitted or required, and also requires publicity relating to a practice to be accurate and not misleading.
In the US, professional rules are state-based, so the precise rule depends on the lawyer's jurisdiction. The ABA Model Rules are influential rather than automatically binding everywhere. Model Rule 1.6 addresses confidentiality, while Model Rule 3.6 restricts certain public statements by lawyers involved in litigation where they create a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing proceedings.
Canadian lawyers are regulated provincially and territorially. The Law Society of British Columbia's current code, for example, expressly allows lawyers to communicate with the media subject to their obligations to clients, the courts and the administration of justice, while restricting statements likely to materially prejudice a fair trial or hearing.
This article is not legal advice on professional conduct.
A lawyer considering commentary should apply the actual rules governing their own practice and jurisdiction.
What makes a legal expert credible to a journalist?
Professional status is important.
So is the precise practice area.
A useful biography might identify somebody as an employment solicitor with fifteen years of experience advising employers and employees.
That immediately gives the journalist much more information than:
"Legal expert and entrepreneur."
Relevant experience may include particular types of legal work, sectors or clients where that can properly be disclosed.
But confidentiality should never be sacrificed to make the biography sound impressive.
Anonymised experience may sometimes provide context.
Private client information does not suddenly become public property because it would make a good media anecdote.
How should lawyers explain complicated legal issues?
Start with what the audience actually needs.
A consumer publication may need the legal position translated into ordinary language.
A business publication may want more detail about commercial implications.
A legal trade title can tolerate and expect substantially more technical terminology.
When I was a journalist, the useful lawyer was somebody who could understand the complexity and then choose how much of it the reader needed.
That is a genuine communication skill.
Consider this sentence:
"The claimant may seek interlocutory injunctive relief pending substantive determination."
Accurate in an appropriate context.
But for a general consumer article, something closer to:
"The claimant could ask the court for a temporary order while the wider dispute is being decided."
may be much more usable.
The expertise has not been diluted.
The language has been translated.
What should lawyers avoid?
Speculation is a major risk.
So is commenting outside one's legal specialism.
Confidential client matters should obviously be handled with enormous care.
Lawyers should also be wary of presenting one possible legal outcome as inevitable when the answer depends on facts that are not yet known.
Promotional answers create another problem.
If the journalist asks what happens when somebody dies without a will, the response should explain the relevant legal concept.
It should not spend half the quotation describing the firm's probate package.
The attribution already provides visibility.
The answer needs to provide value.
Can lawyers comment when they have a commercial interest?
Potentially, provided the position is transparent and professional rules permit it.
A solicitor specialising in employment law plainly earns money from employment-law work.
That fact does not prevent them from explaining an employment-law development.
But the contribution should not masquerade as independent legal analysis while secretly functioning as an advertisement.
Transparency, professional judgement and editorial relevance all matter.
Why might one lawyer get quoted over another?
The same factors that apply to other experts become particularly important.
Precise relevance.
Clear credentials.
Speed.
Accessible language.
A useful interpretation.
An answer that distinguishes fact from uncertainty.
And a willingness to answer the journalist's actual question.
A solicitor can be extraordinarily experienced and still lose a particular opportunity if another appropriate expert gives the journalist the usable explanation first.
That does not diminish their legal competence.
It reflects how deadlines work.
Is media commentary worthwhile for law firms?
It can be.
Repeated relevant commentary can create a public record showing that a lawyer understands a particular field.
It can strengthen professional visibility.
It can provide independent coverage for prospective clients to discover.
It may generate backlinks or referral traffic where a publisher chooses to link.
And a journalist who has previously found the lawyer useful may remember them for another appropriate story.
None of those outcomes is guaranteed.
PR should not be presented as proof of legal competence.
Professional competence comes from the underlying qualifications, experience and work.
Media coverage makes that expertise more visible.
Can a PR agency help lawyers become media experts?
Yes, where there is genuine underlying expertise.
Fair can identify suitable journalist opportunities, establish the lawyer's approved commentary areas, gather their legal interpretation, help translate that into accessible editorial language, pitch journalists and manage the surrounding PR process.
The lawyer remains responsible for the legal substance.
We would never invent a legal opinion in somebody's name.
Nor would we encourage a solicitor to stretch beyond their practice area simply because an attractive national-media opportunity appeared.
That would damage both the journalist relationship and the client's credibility.
When does a law firm need broader PR?
Expert Commentary PR is deliberately individual and specialist.
A law firm opening an office, announcing a merger, launching a new practice area, making senior appointments, conducting original research or seeking wider corporate and founder positioning may need a broader campaign.
That is where Professional Services PR or Standard PR becomes more appropriate.
How can a lawyer explain a breaking story without commenting on a client's case?
A breaking legal story often creates a gap between the headline and what the public understands. A journalist may know that a claim has been filed, a hearing has taken place or a decision has been announced, but still need help explaining the process. A legal expert can add value by describing the relevant distinction between allegation and finding, an early procedural step and a final judgment, or a general rule and an exception.
The expert does not need access to confidential client information to explain those distinctions. Imagine a news report about an employment dispute. A suitable lawyer might explain, in general terms, what a tribunal is being asked to decide and which issues normally depend on evidence. They should not assert that either party is truthful, speculate about documents they have not seen or imply inside knowledge of the dispute. The quotation must distinguish what is publicly confirmed from what remains untested.
This is one reason carefully limited answers are often stronger than broad predictions. 'The court will certainly find in favour of X' is a dramatic line, but it may be professionally inappropriate and factually indefensible. 'The legal question is whether the stated obligation applies in these circumstances; that will depend on evidence the court considers' can help readers without pretending the expert knows the outcome.
How should you choose a defined legal media specialism?
'Lawyer' is not a sufficiently specific description for every story. Journalists covering an employment dispute, a family-law proposal, an intellectual-property conflict and a business acquisition often need entirely different expertise. Even within one field, your experience may be concentrated in advisory work rather than litigation, or in one type of client rather than all possible audiences.
Begin by describing the actual cases, transactions, research or advisory situations your work gives you legitimate knowledge of, without disclosing confidential information. Next, define the public questions arising from that work. A specialist in employment law may explain general workplace rights, changes to employer duties or common misunderstandings about procedure. A corporate lawyer may be more relevant to governance, commercial transactions or contract clauses. A family lawyer may be able to explain legal process while being particularly careful not to sensationalise individual disputes.
This clearer positioning helps the newsroom make a quick decision. It also helps the PR team avoid pitching your name for an impressive headline outside your competence. You are likely to be more credible in a narrower, well-supported subject than in a long list of areas that simply sound newsworthy.
What if a story involves another jurisdiction?
Legal systems are not interchangeable. An England-and-Wales solicitor may be highly experienced but still not be the right source for a detailed question about US state law. A lawyer admitted in one US jurisdiction may not be qualified to explain the law of another. Differences can involve substantive rules, procedure, terminology, court structures and professional conduct obligations.
Before responding, establish where the events occurred, which law governs the issue and what exactly the journalist is asking. Sometimes the question concerns a general principle that an expert can discuss at a high level; sometimes a jurisdiction-specific practitioner is essential. If the relevant court or regulator has not published clear information, it may be appropriate to say that the picture is incomplete.
Avoid borrowed certainty. A quotation based on how a similar case might work in your own jurisdiction can mislead readers if the article does not explain the difference. Stating the limitation clearly is not a weakness; it demonstrates the very judgement that makes a legal source useful.
How can law firms develop story ideas without manufacturing controversy?
The strongest proactive subjects often come from recurring questions or practical misunderstandings. A business-law team may frequently encounter confusion about contract termination clauses. An employment lawyer may see repeated questions about the difference between company policy and legal obligation. An intellectual-property specialist may explain what a trademark protects and what it does not, using an appropriately hypothetical illustration.
A news hook can make these subjects timely, but it must not be contrived. A newly published judgment, a genuine regulatory consultation or an emerging business practice may provide a legitimate reason to explain an issue. The PR team's job is to connect the legal insight with a story that matters to readers, not to suggest that every routine advisory point deserves a national headline.
Before pitching a proactive idea, ask whether the journalist's audience will learn something they did not know, whether the explanation can be independently verified and whether the expert has something different to contribute from the information already publicly available. If the answer is no, another channel such as a client briefing or firm newsletter may be more appropriate.
How do you turn a technical legal explanation into a usable quotation?
Start with the practical question, not the statute number or procedural jargon. If somebody needs to know why a dispute may take time to resolve, explain which stages are involved and where uncertainty arises before discussing specialised terms. An expert can then add the relevant legal qualification so the answer remains accurate. This ordering makes the substance accessible without removing its precision.
For example, a weak response to a general question about contract disputes might include a dense paragraph of definitions followed by an advertisement for legal services. A more useful response could explain that a disagreement over contract wording does not automatically determine the legal outcome: the actual terms, factual circumstances and governing law may all matter. A journalist can work with that explanation and request further detail if necessary.
Do not try to squeeze every possible exception into one quotation. Select the caveat that changes the reader's understanding and offer additional background separately. Provide an accurate professional title, name and jurisdiction for attribution, but keep promotional claims outside the answer. Editorial independence means the publication chooses what to include.
What should legal experts prepare before a media interview?
A short professional biography should state the exact role, practice areas, relevant jurisdiction, credentials and the sort of work supporting the expert's perspective. It may also identify subjects the lawyer will not discuss. Make sure the headshot, professional details and contact route are accurate and that any internal media permissions have been obtained. The need for approval may differ between a partner, employed solicitor and independent practitioner.
For interviews, establish the nature of the publication, the likely questions, the deadline and whether the conversation is intended as background or for direct quotation. Do not assume an informal telephone call is automatically off the record. If confidentiality, reporting restrictions or other professional obligations could apply, address them before agreeing to disclose information.
It can help to prepare two or three key explanatory points, each with a clear example and the caveat needed to avoid misunderstanding. That is different from scripting answers so heavily that the expert cannot respond naturally. A useful legal interview is a professional explanation, not a rehearsed advertisement.
How should a lawyer respond to a question with an inaccurate premise?
Sometimes the most important contribution is correcting the question. A reporter may have been told that a proposed rule has already become law, that filing a lawsuit establishes liability or that an early judicial comment settles the merits of a case. An expert who simply answers the question as asked may reinforce the misunderstanding.
A careful reply first identifies what is publicly known and then explains the distinction. For instance, 'A consultation is not the same as an enacted requirement' can be a valuable clarification, subject to verifying the particular jurisdiction and stage. The lawyer can then offer the useful answer: what the proposal would affect if adopted, which parties may need to prepare and what questions remain unresolved.
The tone matters. Journalists work to deadlines and may be reporting outside their specialist field. A patient explanation builds confidence; an irritated lecture rarely does. If the premise is so wrong that a safe response is impossible, say so and suggest an authoritative court record or regulatory source rather than trying to rescue the story with speculation.
What evidence can make a legal commentator more useful?
Experience is not just a job title. A journalist may want to know whether the lawyer regularly handles the relevant kinds of matters, has taught or written about the subject, understands the sector or can identify public records that support an explanation. You do not need to disclose a confidential case file to demonstrate expertise. Publicly available professional information, properly described experience and clear answers may be enough.
Where a claimed pattern is important, distinguish an observation from measured evidence. 'In my work, clients often ask me about X' is an observation based on practice. 'X happens in most workplaces' is a prevalence claim that may require independent data. Avoid turning the first into the second simply because a stronger-sounding statistic would be more quotable.
A useful expert may also explain which documents a journalist should read, which authority has jurisdiction and which questions would be fair to put to the parties. That sort of assistance is valuable even if the eventual article quotes only one sentence, and can help develop a professional relationship rooted in reliability.
How should a law firm judge whether media commentary is worthwhile?
A firm should begin by defining its aims. Is it trying to make a particular specialist better known, explain an important area of law, reach a relevant business audience or support a wider practice-area profile? Different purposes demand different publications and different stories. A national tabloid appearance is not automatically better than a carefully attributed quotation in a trade publication read by the firm's target clients.
Evaluate what can be verified: relevance of journalist approaches, accuracy of pitches, the expert's time commitment, interviews, published quotations, correct professional attribution and the audience of the final article. Consider whether the activity is building a reliable subject-specific profile rather than chasing unrelated mentions. Editorial publication decisions and commercial enquiries cannot be guaranteed.
It is also worth asking whether commentary alone covers the firm's ambitions. An individual solicitor may need support responding to specialist stories. A whole firm wanting to publicise appointments, launch a service, develop thought leadership and build a business profile may need wider campaign strategy. That distinction is why Expert Commentary PR and Standard PR are different services.
What should happen during the first months of outreach?
A responsible starting point is establishing a clear professional profile and boundaries. The PR team should know the lawyer's subject, jurisdiction, role, availability, approval process and off-limit matters. It can then identify relevant editorial opportunities and test whether the explanations being offered genuinely help a publication's audience.
The next stage is building a small number of useful themes and responding to appropriate requests. Some opportunities will never be published; others may require immediate comment or a further interview. The lawyer remains responsible for the factual and professional basis of their contribution, while the PR team can help draft and communicate the material. That division of responsibility should be clear from the outset.
When reviewing progress, judge the quality and suitability of the opportunities, not just a raw count of pitches. Ask whether the legal commentary is accurate, properly attributed and relevant to the intended audience, and whether the cooperation is manageable for the practice. Press coverage may come gradually or unpredictably. The aim is a credible process that can be sustained without compromising professional standards.
Frequently asked questions
Can a solicitor become a media expert without prior press coverage?
Yes. Relevant legal experience, suitable professional standing and a clear explanation of the law can make someone a useful source even without previous media appearances.
Can a lawyer discuss a case they are not involved in?
Potentially, but any comment must stay within their legal expertise and jurisdiction, distinguish public facts from speculation and comply with applicable professional and court-related restrictions.
Can legal experts discuss confidential client matters in media interviews?
They must follow the confidentiality duties and conduct rules applying to their practice. Publicity is not a reason to disclose protected client information or suggest a case outcome is certain.
Does an individual solicitor need the same PR service as a law firm launching a new office?
Not necessarily. A solicitor contributing genuine legal commentary may suit specialist Expert Commentary PR. Firm launches, appointments and wider company publicity are usually broader Standard PR needs.
Could your legal expertise help journalists explain the issues that matter?
Fair Public Relations works with credible professionals who have legitimate specialist knowledge to share.
Explore Expert Commentary PR if you want Fair to manage suitable expert-media opportunities, or Professional Services PR if the objective involves a wider law-firm campaign.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist with more than a decade of experience in journalism and PR. He writes about small-business PR, SEO and GEO strategy, AI search, earned media and practical ways businesses can build credible visibility without wasting money on work they do not yet need.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
