By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
A professional services firm does not need to reveal its clients to have a credible PR campaign.
In fact, for many consultancies, accountancy firms, law firms, advisers and other expertise-led businesses, naming individual clients may be inappropriate, commercially sensitive or prohibited by professional obligations.
That does not mean the firm has nothing useful to say.
Journalists regularly need people who can explain:
what a new development means;
why businesses make a particular mistake;
how an industry is changing;
what public research tells us;
where common misconceptions come from;
and what somebody with genuine professional experience thinks is likely to matter next.
None of those contributions necessarily requires the expert to say:
“Let me tell you what Client X did last Tuesday.”
The important distinction is between using professional experience to inform useful commentary and disclosing information about an identifiable client.
Professional services firms often know a great deal because of the work they do.
Good PR helps them use that knowledge responsibly.
Why can professional services PR feel difficult?
A consumer brand can often talk openly about its product.
A restaurant can photograph its food.
A retailer can discuss a new shop.
A product business can send samples to journalists.
Professional services can be less straightforward.
The work may involve:
commercially confidential information;
personal financial circumstances;
legal instructions;
employment disputes;
business restructuring;
internal strategy;
unpublished financial results;
private correspondence;
regulated information;
or problems that a client would never want associated publicly with their name.
That can make firms cautious.
Sometimes too cautious.
A managing partner may assume:
“If we cannot talk about who our clients are, we cannot do PR.”
That is not true.
The firm's expertise exists independently of its client list.
An employment lawyer can explain a general legal development without identifying an employer they have advised.
An accountant can explain a recurring bookkeeping mistake without revealing a client's tax affairs.
A management consultant can discuss why a particular operational problem occurs without identifying the businesses where they encountered it.
Confidentiality changes the route.
It does not automatically remove the media opportunity.
Journalists often need expertise, not your client list
This is particularly important to understand.
A journalist writing about a new workplace issue may not care which companies your HR consultancy advises.
They may care whether your adviser can explain:
why the issue occurs;
what businesses misunderstand;
which employees are affected;
and what employers should think about.
A business reporter covering a change affecting SMEs may want an accountant who can explain the practical consequences.
A legal journalist may want a solicitor who can explain a new judgment or regulatory development.
The expert's usefulness comes from what they know.
The client list may be irrelevant.
This is one of the reasons expert commentary works particularly well for some professional services businesses.
The company receives visibility because one of its people contributes useful professional knowledge to a wider story.
The article does not have to be a case study about the firm.
My view from the journalist side
When I was working as a journalist, a professional saying:
“We are seeing this regularly among our clients”
could be useful.
The usefulness depended on the subject and how the statement was framed.
It became much stronger when there was something alongside it:
public data;
official statistics;
research;
a broader industry development;
or another credible source of evidence.
The professional observation could then add practical context.
For example:
Official statistics show X.
The accountant says they are seeing a related issue among the SMEs they advise.
That does not mean the accountant's client base proves the national trend.
It means their real-world professional experience helps explain what the wider evidence may look like in practice.
That distinction is extremely useful.
Professional observation is not the same as statistical evidence
Suppose an HR consultant says:
“We are seeing more clients ask about managing employees who work remotely from another country.”
That can be a perfectly legitimate professional observation.
It should not automatically become:
“Most British businesses now have employees working overseas.”
The consultant has not established that.
Perhaps they advise 15 international technology businesses.
Perhaps their own positioning attracts companies with exactly this problem.
Their experience may be highly relevant without being representative of every employer.
A good PR campaign protects that distinction.
You can say:
“This is something we are seeing more often.”
You may not be able to say:
“This is happening across the entire market.”
unless suitable evidence supports it.
Five media angles that do not require naming clients
There are several strong routes available to professional services firms that want earned media but cannot discuss individual assignments.
1. Explain a public regulatory, legal or industry development
This is one of the cleanest routes.
Something changes publicly.
The expert explains it.
An accountant might discuss a Budget measure.
A solicitor might explain the practical significance of a new judgment.
A recruiter might discuss official labour-market data.
A management consultant might explain the implications of a new business regulation.
A technology adviser could explain a new industry standard.
The underlying source is public.
The professional adds interpretation.
No client needs to be identified.
When this works
The expert genuinely understands the subject.
The development is relevant now.
The explanation helps the publication's audience.
The source remains within their professional competence.
When it becomes weak
The expert merely repeats the official announcement.
Or the comment becomes:
“This shows why businesses need to hire our firm.”
Journalists need interpretation, not a disguised sales message.
2. Explain a common professional problem
A specialist can often discuss mistakes, misunderstandings and operational problems without describing a particular client's case.
An accountant might explain why growing businesses fail to reconcile certain records properly.
A solicitor might discuss common misconceptions around contracts.
A recruiter might explain why a hiring process is putting off good candidates.
A consultant might explain why founders struggle to delegate once a company reaches a certain size.
These can be strong consumer, business or trade features.
The source should talk about the problem in general professional terms.
They do not need to say:
“Last week, Company X came to us after completely messing this up.”
Useful structure
The problem
What regularly goes wrong?
Why it happens
What do people misunderstand?
The consequence
Why does it matter?
What somebody should consider
What practical lesson can the reader take?
That is journalism.
It is not a case-study brochure.
3. Comment on independently available data
A professional services firm does not need to own the statistics.
Government agencies, regulators, trade bodies, academic institutions and established research organisations publish enormous amounts of data.
A credible professional can add the interpretation.
For example:
official insolvency data is published;
an accountant explains what particular changes might mean for smaller businesses.
Employment data is released;
a recruiter discusses what they are seeing in hiring.
Housing data changes;
a property lawyer explains a practical legal issue.
The evidence belongs to the original source.
The firm's value comes from making it understandable.
This route is particularly useful when the firm wants to avoid turning confidential client experience into public research.
4. Correct a professional misconception
Journalists like useful counterintuitive ideas.
A lawyer could explain:
Why signing a contract does not necessarily mean what many business owners think it means.
An accountant could explain:
Why profit and available cash are not interchangeable.
A recruitment specialist could explain:
Why a large number of applicants does not necessarily mean an employer has a strong candidate pool.
A consultant could explain:
Why hiring another manager may not fix an organisational problem.
The media value comes from the expert correcting an assumption.
No client story is required.
But the expert needs to explain why the misconception exists and what the more accurate position is.
5. Use the founder or specialist's own professional experience
Sometimes the expert's own career creates the story.
A partner may have spent 25 years working in one industry.
A founder may have built and sold businesses.
A recruitment specialist may have hired thousands of people across a particular profession.
A lawyer may have worked on one type of issue for decades.
A consultant may have personally led organisations through a problem they now advise others on.
That experience belongs to the expert.
It does not require disclosure of somebody else's confidential information.
The key is not to stretch the experience beyond what it genuinely supports.
Media-angle framework
| Route | What the expert contributes | Client identity required? | Main risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public development | Explanation and consequence | No | Comment outside competence |
| Common professional problem | Practical experience | No | Presenting anecdote as universal fact |
| Public research/data | Interpretation | No | Misreading the evidence |
| Professional misconception | Clear correction/explanation | No | Becoming promotional |
| Own career experience | First-hand expertise | No | Inflated credentials or authority |
These routes can sustain a substantial PR programme.
They are not second-best substitutes for named case studies.
In some campaigns they are the primary media strategy.
What if a journalist asks for a real client example?
Be honest.
If confidentiality means the client cannot provide one, say so.
At Fair, we would rather tell a journalist:
“The client cannot discuss individual customer cases because of confidentiality obligations.”
than invent a case or pretend we have permission that does not exist.
Then consider what else can genuinely be supplied.
Perhaps the expert can explain the pattern generally.
Perhaps aggregate evidence exists.
Perhaps there is a public case elsewhere that illustrates the issue.
Perhaps the firm can discuss a particular experience after stripping out identifying details and completing the appropriate internal review.
Or perhaps the answer is simply:
We cannot give you a specific example.
That may weaken a particular story.
It is still better than breaching a client's trust.
Case studies can strengthen journalism, but they are not always essential
When we develop data-led or research stories, journalists often ask for a person who illustrates the trend.
That can make an article much stronger.
But professional services firms should not feel compelled to create a customer case where none is available.
If we know at the start that a journalist is likely to want a case study, we can sometimes work with the client to identify somebody who genuinely wants to participate.
That person should understand what is involved.
If nobody is available, we tell the journalist.
Transparency is part of media relations.
Can an anonymised client experience be used?
Potentially.
But this is much more complicated than changing a name.
Imagine a consultant says:
“One client is a 43-year-old female founder of a veterinary software company in Harrogate who raised £4.2 million last year and recently reduced her team from 47 people to 31.”
They have not given a name.
They may still have effectively identified the company and person.
The UK Information Commissioner's Office specifically warns that people can be indirectly identifiable through combinations of information such as age, occupation, location and other available facts. It also makes clear that simply stripping direct identifiers is not necessarily enough to create genuinely anonymous information.
That principle is very relevant to PR.
Journalists are professional researchers.
If three details allow them to identify the supposed anonymous company with a Google search, the information was never meaningfully anonymous in practice.
Pseudonymous is not necessarily anonymous
Calling a client:
Client A
does not solve the problem if the firm itself can reconnect the information to the person, or if other details make identification possible.
Current ICO guidance distinguishes pseudonymised information from genuinely anonymous information. Pseudonymised information remains personal data when it can be attributed back to somebody using additional information.
Professional services firms should therefore ask:
Could the client recognise themselves?
Could a competitor identify them?
Could the journalist?
Could another client?
Could somebody combine this with Companies House, LinkedIn, local reporting or other public information?
If yes, more review may be needed.
Permission does not eliminate every professional obligation
A client may say:
“I'm happy for you to mention it.”
That can be important.
It may not be the only consideration.
Different professions can have contractual, regulatory, ethical or professional-conduct obligations around confidentiality and disclosure.
Fair PR is not going to tell a solicitor, accountant, financial professional or regulated adviser what their specific professional rules permit.
The firm should complete the appropriate internal review.
Our job is to help create the story once the client is satisfied the information can properly be used.
Would Fair create a composite client example?
Not and present it to a journalist as though it were a real case.
Imagine three confidential clients have experienced similar problems.
Combining their circumstances into:
“Sarah, a 42-year-old founder from London, lost £100,000 after making this mistake”
would be misleading if Sarah does not exist.
A fictional or composite example can be useful in educational content when it is clearly labelled hypothetical.
I use hypothetical examples throughout Fair's own explanatory blogs for exactly that reason.
What we should not do is fabricate a client and invite a journalist to believe that person or case is genuine.
If the real evidence is:
“We have seen versions of this problem across several client assignments”
say that.
Hypothetical example 1: accountant
Situation
An accountant regularly finds that owner-managed businesses confuse accounting profit with immediately available cash.
The accountant cannot discuss any client's financial affairs.
Weak approach
“One of our clients made £500,000 profit but nearly went bust because they spent all their cash.”
If the client has not approved this, it should not be pitched.
Better approach
“Business owners sometimes assume a profitable set of accounts means the same amount is immediately available to spend. In practice, cash can be tied up in unpaid invoices, stock, tax liabilities and other commitments.”
The accountant can explain:
the distinction;
common misunderstandings;
questions owners should ask;
and relevant public evidence.
No client needs to be named.
Hypothetical example 2: solicitor
Situation
A solicitor is advising several businesses around a legal issue but cannot discuss any instructions.
A new public judgment is issued.
Weak approach
“Several of our clients are terrified by this case and are already changing their contracts.”
That may disclose too much, may exaggerate the reaction and may not be the most useful interpretation.
Better approach
“This judgment is likely to attract attention because it clarifies X. Businesses should be particularly careful about Y, although the effect will depend on the facts and existing contractual terms.”
The solicitor is commenting on a public legal development.
Their professional experience helps them explain it.
They are not disclosing client instructions.
Hypothetical example 3: management consultant
Situation
A consultant believes founder-led companies struggle when they reach approximately 40 employees because too much decision-making remains concentrated with the founder.
They have seen this among some clients.
Weak approach
“Our research shows companies with 40 employees start to fail because founders refuse to delegate.”
There is no research.
Better approach
The consultant finds reputable public research on management structure and organisational growth.
They explain:
“One issue growing businesses can encounter is that decision-making processes designed for a ten-person company stop working as the team expands. In my own consulting work, this is something I see regularly, although that professional observation is not a statistically representative study.”
Now the commentary separates:
public evidence;
professional interpretation;
and personal observation.
That is far more credible.
What makes specialist commentary useful to journalists?
Professional knowledge by itself is not enough.
A journalist needs usable communication.
The strongest professional sources usually provide six things.
1. Relevant credentials
The person's experience should fit the subject.
A solicitor specialising in employment law is not automatically the best source for every legal story.
An accountant is not automatically an investment adviser.
Specific beats generic.
2. A direct answer
Journalists often work quickly.
If they ask:
“Why are SMEs struggling with late payments?”
do not spend the first three paragraphs explaining when the firm was founded.
Answer the question.
3. Evidence
Use:
official statistics;
reputable research;
public regulatory information;
properly qualified internal observations;
or another defensible source.
4. Clear language
Professional services firms can be terrible for jargon.
Journalists generally need the source to translate technical expertise rather than demonstrate how many industry terms they know.
5. Useful examples
These do not always need to be client cases.
An expert can use:
hypothetical scenarios;
public examples;
simple analogies;
or general professional patterns.
The nature of the example should be clear.
6. Availability
A brilliant expert who replies next Thursday may lose today's opportunity.
In fast-moving stories, a professional should ideally acknowledge the request within a few hours even if the complete answer follows later.
Prepare before the journalist calls
Professional services businesses should not wait until a reporter has a three-hour deadline to decide what they can discuss.
Create an expert pack.
Know:
the spokesperson's title;
qualifications;
professional experience;
approved subject areas;
subjects they should avoid;
publicly usable examples;
current research sources;
professional biography;
headshot;
contact route;
and any internal approval requirements.
If the firm needs a partner, compliance officer or legal team to sign off certain subjects, understand that process in advance.
What information should never be pitched without checks?
This is where firms can get into trouble.
Confidential correspondence
An email being interesting does not make it public.
Unpublished client results
Even aggregated results may need review before disclosure.
Personal information
Removing the person's name may not be enough.
Commercially sensitive details
Pricing, strategy, transaction information and unpublished performance may belong to the client, not the adviser.
A fabricated composite client
Do not invent a real-looking client story.
Internal observations presented as research
“We have noticed this” and “our research proves this” are different claims.
Professional conclusions beyond the expert's competence
A commercially attractive headline is not worth damaging the expert's credibility.
Do you always need a client case?
No.
This point is worth emphasising because professional services firms sometimes feel at a disadvantage next to consumer brands.
A journalist may simply need:
a quote;
an explanation;
an interview;
a counterargument;
context around new data;
or professional interpretation.
A named customer can strengthen some stories.
It is not the price of entry to media relations.
Which publications should professional services firms target?
The right answer depends on who the firm wants to influence.
National media
National business or consumer publications can provide substantial visibility and credibility where the expert's subject has broad relevance.
Fair tends to aim strongly at national and international opportunities when the story supports them.
Trade publications
For B2B businesses, a specialist trade publication may reach an unusually concentrated audience of:
buyers;
peers;
referrers;
professional partners;
or industry decision-makers.
That can make the result extremely useful commercially.
Specialist media
Some expertise belongs naturally in a narrow specialist publication.
That is not a weaker result simply because the general public has never heard of the outlet.
Local and regional media
Useful where geography genuinely matters.
A professional firm opening an office, employing local people or serving a geographically concentrated market may have a natural regional story.
The key is audience fit.
Do not make publication prestige the only measure
Imagine a legal consultancy selling a £40,000 service to HR directors.
It receives:
one short mention in a general national lifestyle article;
and a detailed expert interview in a specialist HR publication widely read by its actual prospects.
The national logo may look more impressive in a pitch deck.
The trade interview may be more commercially relevant.
A good campaign can pursue both.
But the business objective should influence the priority.
Spectrum Search: expertise-led professional services PR in practice
Spectrum Search is a useful real Fair PR example precisely because its campaign did not depend on constantly promoting the executive-search service itself.
Spectrum Search is a specialist executive-search business.
The stronger media opportunity was Chief Strategy Officer Peter Wood's experience across artificial intelligence, technology, recruitment, entrepreneurship and business strategy.
Fair's documented case study records 86 published media opportunities across an 18-month campaign, with 81 originating from reactive journalist requests. Coverage included The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, Computer Weekly, Raconteur, ICAEW Insights, FTAdviser, IT Pro, TechRound, The Fintech Times and AI Magazine.
The important lesson for this article is not the number.
It is the model.
Peter could discuss:
AI;
recruitment;
skills shortages;
leadership;
technology adoption;
automation;
and the future of work.
Those subjects regularly appeared in journalism independently of whether Spectrum Search had company news to announce.
Fair identified where Peter's real experience matched the journalist's question and helped turn that knowledge into concise commentary.
The documented case specifically says the campaign could create repeated media opportunities without continually recycling promotional messages about Spectrum Search itself.
That is exactly the point professional services firms worried about confidentiality should notice.
The case study does not tell us that Spectrum's campaign was created specifically because it could not name clients.
So I would not claim that.
It demonstrates the broader principle that expertise itself can sustain a B2B campaign.
What should a professional services PR campaign measure?
Start with activity.
What has actually happened?
Angles developed.
Expert material written.
Journalists researched.
Pitches sent.
Interviews coordinated.
Then separate journalist interest.
Replies.
Requests for additional information.
Interview requests.
Requests for data.
Repeat contact.
Then measure published results.
Where did the company or expert appear?
Was the publication relevant?
Was the attribution accurate?
Was the expert associated with the right subject?
Was a useful backlink included?
Finally, look for wider business signals.
Referral traffic.
Branded search.
Prospects mentioning coverage.
Useful sales evidence.
New journalist relationships.
Search visibility.
Potential AI-search visibility.
But do not make unsupported claims that one article automatically creates rankings, recommendations or sales.
Results are not guarantees
Spectrum Search's 86 recorded published media opportunities are the documented result of that particular 18-month campaign.
They are not a promise that:
every recruitment firm gets 86 articles;
every professional services firm gets national coverage;
or every expert will receive the same level of journalist interest.
The relevant question is:
Does this firm have a credible media proposition?
Then the campaign can be judged against the activity and actual editorial response it produces.
When might a professional services firm not be ready for PR?
Confidentiality is not always the real problem.
Sometimes the business simply lacks a workable spokesperson.
PR may be premature if:
nobody will speak publicly;
the expert cannot explain the subject clearly;
every useful example is commercially restricted;
the firm refuses to discuss even general professional observations;
important claims cannot be substantiated;
or every proposed comment requires a two-week internal approval process.
The agency can remove a great deal of work.
It cannot invent the expertise.
What if the business says absolutely nothing can be discussed?
Then clarify whether that is genuinely true.
There is a large difference between:
“We cannot name Client X.”
and:
“We are not allowed to discuss anything we have learned professionally.”
For many firms, the second statement is unnecessarily broad.
The expert may still be perfectly free to discuss:
public legislation;
public research;
general professional misconceptions;
their own career;
industry developments;
and independently available evidence.
If professional or contractual obligations genuinely restrict all meaningful communication, PR may not be suitable.
Is Expert Commentary PR enough?
For some firms, yes.
If the strongest media asset is one or more credible professionals who can contribute informed commentary to journalists, a narrower expert-led service may be exactly what is needed.
Fair's Expert Commentary PR is designed for that type of eligible source.
It includes:
research;
relevant opportunity identification;
gathering genuine expert input;
drafting;
direct journalist pitching;
follow-up;
and reporting.
It is not a cheaper version of a full company publicity programme.
If the business also wants:
company announcements;
founder positioning;
broader thought leadership strategy;
products or services promoted;
customer stories;
research campaigns;
or several proactive PR routes,
Standard PR is the wider service.
The bottom line
Professional services firms do not need to choose between:
breaching confidentiality
and:
never appearing in the media.
There is a large middle ground.
A credible professional can explain public developments.
Interpret independent data.
Correct misconceptions.
Discuss common problems.
Draw on their own career.
And contribute informed observations based on professional experience without identifying the people or companies behind that experience.
When a journalist asks for a real case and none can properly be provided, be honest.
When client details can be used, check them carefully.
When they cannot, do not manufacture a substitute.
Good professional services PR should build trust.
It should never require the firm to compromise the trust its clients already placed in it.
Frequently asked questions
Can a professional services firm get coverage without naming any clients?
Yes. A consultancy, advisory firm, accountancy practice, legal business or other expertise-led company may have substantial media potential through genuine specialist knowledge, public information and expert commentary. A journalist may need somebody to explain a legal development, interpret new research, correct a misconception or discuss a professional issue without needing a named customer at all. Client case studies can strengthen some stories, particularly when a journalist wants a human example, but they are not essential to every form of earned media. Individual coverage outcomes remain editorial decisions and cannot be guaranteed.
Can anonymised case studies be shared with journalists?
Potentially, but removing a client's name does not automatically make the information genuinely anonymous. A combination of location, job title, age, business type, dates, financial figures or unusual circumstances may still allow somebody to identify the person or organisation. Current ICO guidance emphasises indirect identifiability and the risk of linking apparently anonymous details with other available information. Before sharing a client-derived story, the firm should consider permission, contracts, professional duties, data protection and any relevant internal review. Fair can help shape the PR material, but does not replace legal, regulatory or professional-conduct advice.
Can lawyers or accountants talk about their work in the media?
Yes, potentially, but general professional commentary is different from discussing a particular client's confidential affairs. An accountant might explain a common bookkeeping problem or interpret a public financial development without identifying a business they advise. A solicitor may discuss a public legal development within their relevant jurisdiction and specialism without revealing private instructions. The precise professional rules depend on the profession, jurisdiction, facts and material being disclosed, so the individual or firm should check the appropriate professional requirements rather than relying on generic PR guidance.
Is expert commentary enough, or do we need company announcements?
Expert commentary can be a meaningful PR strategy in its own right when the business contains people whose knowledge journalists genuinely need. Spectrum Search's documented Fair PR campaign is one example of sustained B2B coverage built primarily around professional expertise rather than continual promotional company announcements. A business seeking wider company publicity, founder positioning, products, services, research-led campaigns or broader business news has a different requirement. Fair separates those needs through its narrower Expert Commentary PR service and wider Standard PR service.
Could your professional expertise be useful to journalists?
Fair Public Relations helps suitable consultancies, advisers and professional services firms develop credible media opportunities around their real experience.
Our Expert Commentary PR supports eligible experts with focused commentary research, writing, journalist pitching and follow-up. For wider company, founder and business publicity, explore Standard PR.
Get in touch to discuss which approach may suit your business. Editorial coverage cannot be guaranteed.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist with more than a decade of journalism and PR experience.
He works with founders, professional specialists and businesses to identify genuine editorial opportunities, translate technical expertise into useful journalist material and build earned-media campaigns around credible stories rather than promised placements.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
