By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
A professional services firm does not need a new office, product launch, funding round or award every time it wants to be useful to the media. Law firms, accountants, advisers and consultancies often become newsworthy by helping journalists explain something that is already happening: a rule change, a consumer problem, a workplace question, an emerging business risk, a recurring misconception or a pattern the firm's specialists are genuinely qualified to discuss.
The important word is useful. Expertise is not automatically a story, and having an opinion does not make somebody quotable. The strongest opportunities usually exist where a real audience question meets credible specialist knowledge, timely evidence and a journalist who needs a clear answer.
Why does "nothing has happened at our firm" not mean there is no PR story?
Many professional services businesses think about publicity in announcement cycles. They contact a PR agency when they hire a senior partner, open an office, release a report, win an award or launch a service, then assume there is nothing to say in between.
That is understandable because those events are visible. But editorial newsworthiness is not the same as company activity.
A journalist writing about employment rights after a major redundancy announcement may need an employment lawyer. A business reporter covering insolvencies may need an accountant who can explain cash-flow warning signs. A workplace publication examining a new management trend may need an experienced HR consultant. A consumer journalist reporting on a housing dispute may need a property lawyer.
None of those experts needed to launch anything that week. The reason to speak to them came from the outside world.
As a former national journalist, I would describe this as the difference between asking, "What can the firm announce?" and asking, "What does the reader need help understanding today?" The second question produces far more durable PR opportunities for knowledge businesses.
What is the difference between being an expert and being quotable?
Professional expertise is the foundation. Quotability is the ability to turn that expertise into material an editor can actually use.
A credible expert may still be difficult to quote if their answers are excessively technical, heavily qualified without reaching a conclusion, promotional, late or so broad that they could have been written by almost anyone.
A useful media source usually does five things well:
- stays inside their real competence
- answers the precise question rather than delivering a general lecture
- explains the issue in language a non-specialist can understand
- distinguishes fact, professional judgement and uncertainty
- responds within the journalist's working deadline
The journalist is not looking for the cleverest paragraph in the room. They are looking for an accurate contribution that improves the story.
That is why the best media positioning is often narrower than a firm's website positioning. "We advise businesses on growth" is a commercial proposition. "I can explain the contractual and shareholder risks when founders disagree about control" is a media subject.
How do you turn everyday expertise into an editorial opportunity?
I use a simple opportunity matrix. Start with the event or question, then work backwards to the expert and the evidence.
| Editorial trigger | Useful expertise | Evidence or source | Likely media beat | Important limitation | Possible format |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New employment rule or major workplace dispute | Employment solicitor or HR specialist | Official guidance, legislation, public facts | Business, HR, national news | Do not advise on facts not established | Quote, interview, explainer |
| Interest-rate or tax change | Accountant or appropriately regulated finance specialist | HMRC, central bank or regulator source | Business, money, SME | Avoid personalised financial advice | Quote, Q&A, analysis |
| Corporate failure or administration | Insolvency/accounting or legal specialist | Public filings, administrator statements | Business, money, consumer | Do not speculate beyond public evidence | Rapid comment, explainer |
| Recurring client misconception | Consultant with direct subject experience | Public evidence or responsibly aggregated insight | Trade, business, specialist | Protect confidentiality | Feature pitch, expert comment |
| New technology affecting an industry | Sector consultant or specialist lawyer | Primary source, research, regulation | Trade, tech, business | Separate evidence from forecast | Comment, contributed analysis |
The matrix forces discipline. If you cannot fill the "evidence" or "limitation" column, you may not have a responsible pitch yet.
Can professional services firms interpret developments rather than create them?
Yes, and this is one of the strongest routes.
News creates questions. Journalists often know that something happened but need help explaining what it means.
A new court judgment may create practical questions for employers or consumers. A government consultation may affect a profession. An economic release may raise questions about cash flow, recruitment or pricing. A large company's collapse may expose consumer rights or supplier risks. A change in platform policy may affect businesses using that technology.
The expert's job is not to hijack the headline. It is to add context.
A poor response says, "This shows why businesses should hire our firm."
A better response says, "The immediate issue for small suppliers is whether they are secured or unsecured creditors, because that changes where they stand in the payment queue. Businesses should first establish the contractual position and avoid assuming that an unpaid invoice will be treated the same as protected customer funds."
The second answer gives the journalist information. The firm earns visibility because the expertise is useful, not because the copy contains a sales message.
Can recurring questions become newsworthy?
Not every useful story has to be tied to breaking news.
Journalists repeatedly revisit problems because readers repeatedly experience them. Neighbour disputes, employee confidentiality, late payments, shareholder conflict, redundancy, consumer refunds, business succession and tax deadlines are not new concepts. What changes is the context, timing or audience need.
A professional firm can build a "recurring questions" bank from genuine experience:
Which questions do clients misunderstand before they seek advice?
Which mistakes create avoidable cost?
Which terms sound simple but have important exceptions?
Which seasonal deadlines create confusion?
Which public news events repeatedly trigger the same practical question?
Which myths cause people to take the wrong action?
Which issues have become more common or more urgent?
The PR value comes from converting that knowledge into a timely editorial angle. "Five things our firm does" is not a story. "The contract clause small suppliers overlook before a customer enters administration" may be one if it is accurate, timely and relevant to the publication's audience.
How can firms use client patterns without exposing clients?
Professional services businesses often sit on valuable observational knowledge, but confidentiality comes first.
Solicitors and accountants in particular have explicit professional duties around confidential information. Consultants may also be bound by contracts, data-protection law and client expectations. A PR campaign should never treat private client material as a convenient content library.
The safer routes include:
using public or official data and adding professional interpretation
describing a genuinely aggregated pattern only where it can be done responsibly
removing identifying details where that is lawful and genuinely sufficient
discussing a hypothetical example clearly labelled as hypothetical
focusing on the expert's method or judgement rather than a client's facts
asking the client for explicit permission where a real case is essential and disclosure is appropriate
The SRA requires solicitors to keep client affairs confidential unless disclosure is required or permitted by law or the client consents. ICAEW's current ethical framework also includes confidentiality as a fundamental principle.
ICAEW confidentiality guidance.
We have a separate detailed guide on this exact problem.
Can correcting a misconception create a media angle?
Often, yes.
Journalists like useful friction. A widely repeated belief may be wrong, incomplete or outdated. A qualified professional can explain the difference without becoming deliberately contrarian.
For example, a legal expert might explain why a commonly repeated consumer "right" does not apply in every circumstance. An accountant might distinguish turnover from profit when a public discussion confuses the two. A consultant might explain why a fashionable management metric is being interpreted too simplistically.
The key is to challenge the idea, not manufacture controversy.
A useful test is: if the expert removed their company's name, would the correction still improve the article? If yes, it probably has editorial value. If the only point is "our approach is better", it is more likely to be marketing copy.
How do you turn technical language into a story editors can use?
Professional services firms often have excellent raw material trapped inside specialist language.
Consider this invented line:
"Organisations should undertake a holistic review of contractual governance mechanisms in order to mitigate exposure arising from counterparty distress events."
It may be technically defensible, but it is not friendly to a business reader.
A clearer version might be:
"If a major customer looks financially unstable, check what your contract says before the invoices stop being paid. Suppliers often focus on the debt after it appears, but retention-of-title terms, notice requirements and security can matter much earlier. The exact position depends on the contract and jurisdiction, so businesses should get advice on their own circumstances."
The clearer version keeps the qualification. It simply leads with the practical question.
This is where good PR writing earns its fee. The aim is not to make an expert sound simplistic. It is to remove the language that prevents the expertise reaching the reader.
How can you test whether an idea is genuinely newsworthy?
Before pitching, I would put the idea through six questions.
1. Is there an audience need?
Who benefits from knowing this now? "Business owners" is too broad. "Small employers deciding how to handle a new statutory requirement" is clearer.
2. Is there something new, timely or newly relevant?
The expertise itself may be longstanding, but the reason to discuss it should be current or evergreen in a way the publication actually covers.
3. Is the spokesperson genuinely qualified?
A founder is not automatically an expert in law, medicine, finance or psychology because their company operates near that subject.
4. Can the important facts be verified?
Use primary sources where possible. If a trend claim comes from three conversations, do not present it as a market-wide statistic.
5. Can the contribution be made safely?
Check confidentiality, permissions, regulated advice boundaries and any internal approvals.
6. Is there a suitable editorial format?
Some ideas are two-sentence comments. Some need a full interview. Some are stronger as trade features or authored analysis. Forcing everything into a press release is unnecessary.
Deal-breakers include an unverified claim at the centre of the pitch, an expert outside their scope, a confidential client story without permission or a subject whose only purpose is to promote the firm's services.
What is a "source bench" and why does a firm need one?
A source bench is a small, organised group of people who can speak on defined subjects.
For a multidisciplinary law firm, this might be:
employment partner: redundancies, workplace contracts, confidentiality
property lawyer: boundary issues, conveyancing, lease questions
corporate lawyer: shareholder rights, company structures, acquisitions
family lawyer: divorce process, cohabitation, wills where within expertise
For an accountancy practice:
tax partner: tax changes and deadlines
SME adviser: cash flow, business planning and financial controls
audit specialist: governance and reporting within appropriate boundaries
For a consultancy:
founder: the firm's core method and industry trends
specialist director: one defined technical area
data lead: methodology and research interpretation
This avoids a common PR failure: sending every question to the most senior person regardless of subject. A journalist benefits from the right source, not merely the highest job title.
How does a journalist's working day affect whether expertise gets used?
Deadlines matter more than most businesses realise.
On a fast-moving news story, a reporter may ask for comment at midday and file by 3pm. A perfect answer delivered tomorrow is not useful. On a long-lead feature, the same journalist may have days or weeks.
That does not mean experts should rush unsafe comments. It means the PR process should decide in advance who can approve what.
Here is an invented example of the kind of concise response that can work:
"Businesses should not assume that a supplier entering administration automatically cancels every contract or wipes out every obligation. The first step is to check the agreement, any termination rights and communications from the administrator. If money is owed, the company's status as a creditor and any security will matter. Directors should avoid making irreversible decisions based only on headlines, because the legal position can differ between contracts and jurisdictions. Where the sums are significant, get advice on the specific agreement rather than relying on a general media explanation."
That is roughly the size of a usable expert contribution. It gives a clear answer, includes sensible limits and leaves room for the journalist to ask a follow-up.
What does Fair PR's legal-sector work show about everyday newsworthiness?
Atkins Dellow is a useful example because the campaign did not depend on one corporate announcement.
We provided six months of PR support. In the wider historic press archive, the firm's lawyers appeared across different editorial subjects. woman&home used Rob Dellow to help explain what householders can do about overhanging branches from a neighbour's tree.
Sage used employment-law partner Adrian Green in guidance on employee confidentiality.
The reason those stories worked was not "Atkins Dellow has launched something". A real reader question existed, and a lawyer with relevant knowledge could help answer it.
Buckworths offers a founder-led example. We supported founder Michael Buckworth for six months.
Startups.co.uk used his legal expertise in a piece about protecting a small business from an unwanted takeover.
When Missguided entered administration, the i Paper used Michael to explain customer rights around returns and refunds.
Both case studies have wider historic coverage archives that extend beyond the six-month engagement, so I would not turn those archive totals into six-month performance claims. The proof we can responsibly take from them is that relevant professional expertise can travel into business and consumer journalism when it answers the actual story.
Should you pitch a quote, feature, interview, survey or authored article?
Different ideas need different formats.
A reactive quote is best when the journalist already has the story and needs expert interpretation. It is fast, focused and usually short.
A planned interview is useful when the person themselves is interesting, the subject needs depth or the editor wants to explore several questions.
A feature pitch works when there is a broader editorial concept, several useful points and a reason the publication's audience needs the subject now.
A survey or proprietary-data story can be powerful if the methodology is robust and the finding is genuinely interesting. A weak survey created only to manufacture a headline is less persuasive.
An authored article can work in some trade and specialist publications where the outlet accepts contributed pieces. It should still be editorially useful rather than a disguised brochure, and acceptance policies vary.
The wrong format creates unnecessary rejection. A two-sentence reaction does not need a 700-word press release. A complex research story may need more than a quick email.
How can a professional services firm create a safe monthly PR workflow?
A simple recurring system is enough.
Week one: review the news horizon. Look at scheduled policy announcements, court decisions, economic releases, industry events and recurring seasonal questions.
Week two: review the source bench. Confirm which experts are available, what they can discuss and whether any credentials, roles or boundaries have changed.
Throughout the month: react selectively. Do not respond to every vaguely relevant story. Prioritise questions where the expert can materially improve the article.
Once or twice a month: develop proactive ideas. These might come from a recurring misconception, public data, a genuine client pattern that can be responsibly shared, new research or an under-explained problem.
After pitching: record the result. Which subjects drew replies? Which experts were easiest to use? Which formats worked? Which ideas were ignored?
At the end of the month: refine the story bank. PR improves when the team learns from editorial response rather than simply repeating the same pitch.
This is also why Fair PR offers a distinct Expert Commentary PR service for eligible specialists and a broader Standard PR service for businesses needing wider campaign development.
When should you decide not to pitch?
Good media relations includes restraint.
Do not pitch when:
the expert is outside their actual competence
the central fact has not been verified
the comment would breach client confidentiality
the firm is trying to diagnose an individual or give personalised regulated advice through a newspaper
the story is based on a tragedy or sensitive event and the contribution would be opportunistic rather than useful
the only angle is "our firm can help"
a public statement could interfere with ongoing legal or regulatory matters
the spokesperson cannot respond within the required deadline
the idea duplicates something the firm has just pitched without a new reason
internal approval will make the response too late
I have rejected perfectly plausible PR ideas because the expert fit was weak or the evidence did not stand up. That is preferable to damaging trust with a journalist or putting a client in an uncomfortable professional position.
How do you build a newsworthy professional services firm without constant announcements?
Think of newsworthiness as a system rather than a calendar of launches.
The firm needs a small number of credible experts, clear topics, reliable evidence sources, fast approvals and a habit of asking what the reader needs. It needs to know the difference between a real trend and an anecdote, between useful professional explanation and individual advice, and between a timely opinion and an opportunistic pitch.
Over time, that creates a much larger opportunity set than waiting for the next office opening.
There will still be quiet periods. Not every idea will be published. Some months will produce more relevant news than others. But a firm with genuine expertise can remain media-ready without inventing company announcements.
Frequently asked questions
Do professional services firms need a product or service launch to get press coverage?
No. Journalists often need specialists to explain developments, recurring consumer or business questions, regulations, risks and misconceptions. A launch can be one route to coverage, but it is not a prerequisite. The expert still needs to be genuinely qualified, relevant to the story and able to provide an accurate answer the publication can use. Coverage is never guaranteed.
Can lawyers, accountants or advisers comment before their internal team has approved it?
That depends on the firm's own governance, professional obligations and the subject. A good PR workflow agrees approval boundaries in advance rather than improvising under deadline. Sensitive, regulated or client-specific material may need additional review. Speed matters to journalists, but it should not override confidentiality, accuracy, jurisdictional limits or professional conduct.
What if our firm cannot name its clients?
You can still pursue media opportunities using public evidence, general expertise, properly anonymised or aggregated observations where appropriate, hypothetical examples and commentary on external developments. Do not disclose confidential information simply to make a pitch stronger. Our detailed guide to press coverage without naming clients is here.
Can a small specialist firm compete with a much larger consultancy or law firm for media opportunities?
Yes, where the smaller firm's expertise is more relevant, clearer or more responsive. Journalists do not always need the biggest brand. They need a credible source who fits the question. A niche specialist can be particularly useful on a narrow subject. That does not mean publication is guaranteed, and credibility should never be overstated to manufacture authority.
Talk to Fair PR about professional services media opportunities
If your firm has genuine specialist knowledge but no obvious announcement to make, Fair PR can assess which subjects may be useful to journalists. Our Expert Commentary PR service is for qualified media-ready advisers; Standard PR is for wider business and founder campaigns. Explore Professional Services PR and tell us what your people can explain.
Written by Jordan Baker
Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations. He previously worked as a UK national journalist and now advises founders, experts and small businesses on earned media, journalist outreach and credible public positioning.
View Jordan Baker's media expert profile
