Transcript
[00:00:03.420] - Imogen
Hello and welcome to Dear Comms, the coffee break podcast where we tackle your biggest corporate comms challenges. I'm Imogen.
[00:00:13.570] - Amanda
And I'm Amanda. We're here to give you practical, no-nonsense advice so you can focus on the things that will really drive influence, engagement, and impact.
[00:00:24.290] - Imogen
Now today, we're joined by Julian Hilton-Johnson, former global comms leader, prior to that, international lawyer, and now an executive coach to CEOs and the C-suite, navigating some of the thornier challenges that come with being a leader. Julian's career has taken him from politics to the boardroom and from litigation to crisis comms and strategic reputation management.
[00:00:48.990] - Amanda
Yeah, in this episode, we're diving into one of the most fraught but important relationships in the corporate world, the one between comms and legal. Why do we clash? Can we learn to speak each other's language? And how do we move from tension to trust? So welcome, Julian.
[00:01:07.180] - Julian
Hi, thanks for having me. And you're quite right, Amanda, it can be fraught, and the topic comes up time and time again. And as you well know, legal and reputational issues are both vitally important for the short and long-term success of an organization, but they can sometimes be difficult bedfellows.
[00:01:28.510] - Amanda
That's for sure.
[00:01:29.790] - Imogen
I think we've all felt that tension from time to time. But if we go to the very heart of it, Gillian, you've worked on both sides. You've been on the legal side, you've been on the comms side. Why does it so often feel that the two departments are pulling in opposite directions if they both are working for the longer-term good of the organization?
[00:01:52.570] - Julian
In both cases, you're trying to protect the business, but you come at it from different directions and you have quite different priorities. And as you will, as you would have seen, I'm sure, sometimes to reduce legal risk, the best approach is to deny liability, to understate, to say less, and even to avoid the areas of most interest to the media or other stakeholders. You may wish to say nothing rather than be transparent. Legals sometimes may wish to delay making a comment, favoring precision over speed of response. And as I'm sure you've also seen, sometimes that precision may involve technical legal jargon rather than everyday words and expressions, and that rarely works.
[00:02:40.320] - Amanda
Yeah, why is that? Because I think we see many cases of corporate reputational challenge From the outside, we look at that and say, you can't believe that that's working.
[00:02:55.150] - Julian
Yeah, and if you look at the technical legal jargon, I think that, you know, in working in Commons, we're obviously used to our words and expressions being scrutinized. But if you go to a court of law, it takes on a whole new dimension. And there are specific meanings that are attached to certain words that may be important. And I think this is exacerbated because, you know, most comms professionals quite understandably have a limited understanding only of legal issues. On the other hand, most lawyers, and just in case you hadn't noticed, just about everyone else thinks they're really good communicators, and that may or may not be the case. There are some people in other functions who are excellent communicators, but that kind of exacerbates the problem. And I do think as well you have to give the lawyers some credit for some areas or topics or scenarios carrying much greater legal risk than others. I mean, some business sectors are highly regulated, such as pharma and financial services. In some international organizations, there are some places where litigation is much more of a thing, you know, the United States being an obvious example. And, you know, some topics or projects carry a very inherent legal risk.
[00:04:15.600]
And so I think sometimes as communicators, we don't always give lawyers the credit for particular areas or topics that are particularly sensitive for them. The other point which I think is worth making is that there are some chief executives who don't really understand legal issues either, and they may be reluctant to follow legal advice. So if you put that all together, you've got a cocktail which can work beautifully on on occasions, but there are some times where the legal and comms sort of bump into each other a bit, shall we say.
[00:04:47.970] - Amanda
And I think we've all been in situations where the balance was out of kilter, where, you know, legal focused on minimizing liability, and quite rightly so, and comms wanting to move fast with empathy, protect trust with the outside world. I was thinking about this, earlier, and obviously Deepwater Horizon comes to mind. But you know, that was 2010, and we're still using that case study.
[00:05:15.120] - Julian
Yep.
[00:05:15.840] - Amanda
Nobody was talking to anybody, and nobody was aligned in, in that case. I think there's a, a more recent one I think that's really interesting, and that's Blake Lively versus Justin, uh, Baldoni legal battle. Interestingly, both of those parties are using PR tactics like celebrity name drops and, and media leaks. And that's, that's really clashing with the courtroom.
[00:05:41.740] - Imogen
And I think for, for any listeners who are like me, not up with their cultural references and have absolutely no idea what that court case is about, um, I will find out something about it and I'll put a link in the, the show notes for us all.
[00:05:54.880] - Amanda
Believe me, even Taylor Swift is involved in that one.
[00:05:57.850] - Imogen
Oh, I know who Taylor Swift is, so I think that's good. Okay, that's a start. Um, moving back to the actual topic, there must There must be a bridge though. There must be something we can do to try and mitigate this clash of priorities.
[00:06:16.060] - Julian
I would start by saying I think there's been real progress in recent years. I mean, I've been in this area for more years than I care to count. Some time. Yeah. And you know, and over this time, you know, business, as you well know, has become more nuanced, more responsible and accountable. Brands have been— have tried to become more human. And at the same time, the media has increasingly sought out poor behaviors. So there's a much greater understanding of this kind of area. And because of that, comms and legal have started to work together more closely, I would say. And I mean, just think back a few years. It wasn't that long ago when the legal advice would have been never to say sorry. Or if you do give a sorry, you give a sorry-not-sorry kind of answer, because it would imply an admission of legal ability. And now everyone's saying sorry. You know, we've definitely moved on from that.
[00:07:08.870] - Imogen
Thankfully.
[00:07:11.680] - Julian
But to your point, Imogen, challenges remain.
[00:07:16.080] - Amanda
Julian, let's zoom out a little bit if we can. I think one of the areas where it's really important that lawyers and communicators work together is when the pressure comes in a crisis situation. What can comms teams do to build stronger relationships with their legal counterparts before ever that kind of situation hits?
[00:07:42.230] - Julian
I mean, I completely take the point about crisis. What I would say is that the majority of the interaction between comms and legal isn't in a crisis situation. It's in the day-to-day work of comms, such as media statements or getting legal input into comms programs and initiatives. And just as you were suggesting, Amanda, relationships and understanding should be developed really well in advance of the crisis. It's kind of from day one. And, you know, there's no real magic to this, but it's that kind of regular, regular get-togethers, the touchpoints, understanding shared scenarios. And if you, if you do that, you should be much better placed to identify, understand, and align on both the areas of risk, legal risk and reputational risk, but also the risk appetite. And this sometimes doesn't get talked about, but in each situation, you have to understand what level of risk is appropriate. And that's going to vary depending on what you're talking about. And the other thing, of course, is that hopefully, you know, whereas lawyers in particular tend to talk about risk, there's also opportunity. So what are the opportunities beyond the risk where you can work together? So it's, it's that kind of flip side of the coin which sometimes doesn't get talked about, which I think can also be important.
[00:09:05.070] - Amanda
One thing I did when I was working, uh, with a client in the gas and oil sector was at their legal conference to run a crisis scenario workshop, but they had to be the communicators for the day. So, they had to put themselves in the communicator's shoes, and then they had to see how what they developed played out and the reaction to it. And that was incredibly effective, actually. So, that's a tip if anybody wants one.
[00:09:34.460] - Julian
Yeah, I can imagine. I can imagine that was fun.
[00:09:37.270] - Amanda
Of course.
[00:09:39.370] - Imogen
I think so. I think this point about Not meeting legal for the first time when you're in the middle of a crisis is a really important one. You wouldn't bring on a communicator in the middle of a crisis if you'd never met them before. So, why would you think that relationship would work with legal as well? I think building those relationships early and trying to make them part of the process. So, Amanda, with your communications crisis exercise with the lawyers, what you were trying to do is actually get them to understand from the other side and understand where we as communicators are coming from. And we can do that in a more day-to-day role by explaining what we're trying to achieve and why we're trying to achieve it and how we want to do it. And just by letting them into our thought process a little bit, it should make things a bit easier. When in doubt, and this is a mantra that Amanda will have heard many times before, but when in doubt, ask the question. And ask their advice and see what you can do to work together to make that sign-off process a little bit easier, a little smoother.
[00:10:53.220] - Amanda
I think that's great common sense advice and approach, but it doesn't happen very often. Well, yeah, but, you know, we forget that giving background and context can sometimes be incredibly important for what you're trying to achieve. So let's stop knocking the lawyers.
[00:11:11.590] - Imogen
Why?
[00:11:11.920] - Amanda
What's the one thing— what's the one thing the comms professionals should understand when it comes to working closely together? What's the one wish?
[00:11:27.240] - Julian
Well, I'm going to be a bit naughty here, Amanda, and ask for more than one wish, but let me— I'll keep it very brief if that's okay. The first One that comes to mind is actually really, really simple, but it happens the whole time and is the biggest source of friction. And that is legal is very busy. It's usually inundated with requests. Everyone's request is very urgent and by far the most important. So actually giving them time, starting the dialog early, letting them know in advance when you're going to need some input is, I think, probably the simplest and yet the single most effective thing.
[00:12:02.370] - Amanda
Yeah.
[00:12:02.530] - Julian
Um, what lawyers will tell you though is that people can be very careless in what they write down. It wasn't so long ago that if you wrote something down, you either wrote it down on a piece of paper or you typed it on a piece of paper or something like that. Now we all of us fire off WhatsApps the whole time. It's very easy to do. We do it when we're a little bit emotional. But it is quite likely that most, if not all, of these will come out in any subsequent legal proceedings. And they can be highly embarrassing. And we've seen this in the media in many, many cases. So be very careful about what you write down and before you press send. The biggest thing though, and this is quite challenging, but it's big, is that there is usually a way around a legal issue. It's very rare that you say, no, that's against the law, you can't do it, drop it, go away. That may be the impression sometimes that's being given, But there is usually a way around it. It might not be the best way, it might not be ideal from a comms perspective, but if the comms person can be creative and flexible in the way that they approach it and in the way that they propose and, you know, and discuss very different options with their legal counterparts, you're likely to be able to find a way through.
[00:13:20.760] - Imogen
And that's where that relationship building comes in, isn't it? Because I think I certainly used to feel, my thoughts have changed a little bit, but I used to feel that legal were there pretty much just to say no to any good idea you had. And that was their role. They just had the stamp which said no. But I think if I had tried to build those relationships a little bit better, then I could have absolutely worked with legal to think about the ways around situations that still achieved my own objectives, but also were not causing liability for me or for the company. And I think because comms are always very busy as well, we forget that there are other people in the organization who are just as busy and just as under pressure and firefighting as we are. And having a little empathy and a little understanding that you're not the only one who's under that pressure, I think that could go a long way.
[00:14:23.320] - Amanda
So, we've come a long way, things are getting better. Any stories you could share in terms of either working together brilliantly or clashing in a way that derailed the plan? We love a good case study.
[00:14:38.410] - Julian
It's a little difficult to tell because I have to anonymize it and keep the topic a little bit vague, I'm afraid. But I was leading one project. It involved a lot of money, and I'm talking a lot of money. And it was very complex, both externally and what we were doing, but also internally. And the approach I was taking was really quite counterintuitive. And a number of very senior company members had strong opinions on how to approach it that differed from mine. And I was actually nervous about the result, but I was even more nervous about me and my own position. Dealing with some very, very— you know, in a gunfight, I know who was going to win. And the lawyer we had on the team— the team was only very small, about 5 people— the lawyer we had was brilliant, and she was great from a legal perspective with the big picture legal issues. She was great on the detail, but she also asked some really good questions and made some observations about the project and our approach overall. So this was just beyond the legal dimension to it. And, you know, this was extremely helpful, but it was also very reassuring to me at a time when I felt very exposed personally.
[00:15:53.470]
So, I mean, I, you know, I remember we went out for— I took the team out for lunch when this all finished. And I remember— I can remember that kind of feeling of, you know, we'd done what we needed to do, but I'd felt supported in what I was doing from the team. And I didn't actually feel the support from elsewhere. And the lawyer was— the lawyer could have been a right nuisance on that. And she wasn't. She was absolutely brilliant. So I remember that very, very fondly.
[00:16:24.110] - Amanda
I think that's a great example where there's lots of nuances, and it's not just about strategy and business outcomes, but to a certain degree, from what I'm hearing, an element of trust and rapport that was built up to give you the outcome that you needed.
[00:16:44.990] - Julian
Very much so, yeah.
[00:16:46.820] - Imogen
And it's great that you had a relationship with her, which meant that her questions were helpful and reassuring to you. One of the massive bugbears I have about lawyers is lawyers who think they know better than you do around communications. I've always believed that just because something needs to be signed off by legal, it doesn't mean it needs to be written by them. They are there to advise on risk. They're not there to completely rewrite your communications into a bunch of legalese, which sounds impressive, but doesn't actually mean anything or hit the audience in the same way. How would you like communicators to work with the legal team when it comes to requesting legal sign-off on press releases, on communications, etc.?
[00:17:39.530] - Julian
Yeah, it's a very good question, Imogen, and it does often cause problems. I think, you know, what I would say to start with is that sometimes lawyers can make some good observations stylistically. So I personally try not to be closed to them, but that's difficult when you're very busy and, you know, you're trying to meet a deadline. But I do try to stay open-minded. But I think the way to go about what you're specifically asking is to ask, you know, if a point carries legal risk or which points that legal is making carry the greatest legal risk. And that way you open a dialog about it and you invite the lawyer to say, look, actually, this is really important. And you can then see where they are saying things are not important, or if they try to justify it, they're justifying it from what is clearly not a legal perspective. So that's, that's the way that I would do that. And I've been, I mean, I've been in the situation many, many times before, and I think it's one of the things that I was able to bring is to understand that and to have that discussion.
[00:18:41.080]
And the lawyers were much more cautious with me on that basis. But it's, it's one of the hardest things, I think, to get right, because usually you're under pressure when doing this as well.
[00:18:50.650] - Imogen
And I think that comes back to what you were saying before, Julian, about communicators not having the breadth of legal knowledge that obviously a lawyer does. Sometimes when those changes come through, we see it as a stylistic change, but there may be a legal reason for that change that we just don't understand. So, going back to when in doubt, ask the question, I think asking the question, you know, do you want me to change this word because you don't happen to like this word, 'Or is this going to land me into some kind of a legal issue?' Yeah.
[00:19:23.470] - Amanda
And allowing time for that proper conversation to take place, you can't do that if you need to send a press release out at 8 AM in the morning and you're only consulting the lawyer the night before. Just, you're never going to get a proper outcome, I don't think, on that one. I want to get practical for our listeners. If they want to strengthen their relationships with their legal counterparts in the next quarter, what should be on the agenda for their first coffee meeting?
[00:19:58.520] - Julian
Well, perhaps they probably need to offer to pay for the coffee. That's always a good start, isn't it? Pastries usually go a long way. Look, we've already mentioned sharing scenarios, early alignment on areas of risk and risk appetite, and that all being set around the organizational business plan and company goals. You know, that's really important that you do things which are focused on what the company needs rather than just on your specific function. But in order to do that, just as you were saying, Amanda, you have to listen to each other. Listening, listening for understanding is very, very important. And that does take time. Bringing legal in right at the start so it's not just a sign-off, so that you understand where they're coming from, where they're likely to be concerned. If you— if the first thing they know about it is when you send it in for sign-off, be prepared for a delay, but also a series of pushbacks or what seems like, you know, really a no. It may be the case that you're taking a bit too much for granted as well, and legal may not even understand what you do as a function or in relation to a specific project or why you're doing it.
[00:21:03.000]
And as you well know from your international practice, corporate affairs and how it's practiced can differ wildly between countries, sectors, and organizations. So, so don't make those assumptions. Be prepared to explain and demonstrate what you do and why in order to bring things into three dimensions. And just to develop that point, and I think this is the really big one, and you've made this many times in your, in your podcasts, If you have and can clearly enunciate a strategic comms plan that is directly and obviously linked to the organization's business plan, if it's evidence-based and with KPIs that are focused on business impacts rather than just comms metrics that no one else really cares about, you're far more likely to be treated as an equal at the Xcode table with your legal colleagues. And, you know, if you can't do this, you're going to be taken less seriously by a range of different sort of functions, including legal. And, you know, it's not just about the legal function when it comes to that strategic comms plan. And I suppose what I would say generally is that a big part of this is for comms and legals to increasingly think and act as leaders rather than just functional heads.
[00:22:25.560]
And that's about joining the dots between functions and issues in an increasingly complex world. But hey, you know, welcome to the big time. This is the role of leaders.
[00:22:35.170] - Imogen
Julian, thank you so much for your insights there. I don't think I've actually ever enjoyed a conversation with a lawyer as much as I've enjoyed this conversation. But, you know, listening to you reminds me that I need to check myself a little bit and that it's a two-way street. And that there's lots that our legal colleagues need to understand about who comms is and what we do and why we do it. But it's also up to us to make sure we keep an open mind, that we realize that the legal teams are human as well, and that at the end of the day, we've both got a job to do.
[00:23:13.260] - Amanda
And if you're interested in speaking to Julian about executive coaching, we'll link to Julian's website, uh, Purple Maze Consulting, in the show notes. And of course, you can reach him via LinkedIn. Um, and if this episode sparked a question in you or you have a crisis you're grappling with, get in touch. We're always happy to tackle it in a future episode. Until next time, bye!
)
