![]() |
|
Bork Communication Group, (formerly Bork & Associates), helps corporations and counsel manage the public risk inherent in high-profile litigation. We help clients use the techniques of modern communication to avoid litigation, win litigation, and above all, protect reputation. We have designed and implemented communications strategies in some of the most important cases in recent years. Clients have included companies at every stage of litigation: from those anticipating a legal assault to those appealing bad verdicts. They span a broad range of industries and types of litigation. We have been retained in class actions and individual lawsuits involving securities fraud, toxic torts, product liability, regulatory battles, antitrust enforcement, and employment discrimination, to name but a few. In every instance we work closely with counsel to carefully craft and test messages that resonate with critical audiences and support courtroom and negotiation strategies. We pride ourselves on our ability to insert facts into the noise and confusion of a lawsuit, to establish corporate credibility, clarity of message and critical mass of opinion. We tell our client’s story so that it is heard, understood and remembered.
Litigation Communication Speakers Bureau
Download Our New "E-Brochure"
| ![]() How to convince people that white is black By Robert H. Bork, Jr. · Monday, January 04, 2010 There is a lesson for us all in this blog post by William Poundstone from Psychology Today. I'm not sure, but it might be the rebuttal to Lincoln's famous comment that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Certainly, for communicators the important observation is that even if you have a PR problem, it might not look so bad in comparison. At least, that's one tactic to try.
When lawyers play hardball litigation PR By Robert H. Bork, Jr. · Monday, December 14, 2009 When Greg Land, a reporter from the Fulton County Daily Report, called me about this case I didn't know quite what to say at first. You don't often see lawyers suing over comments made in a press release about a lawsuit. In litigation the plaintiff's counsel usually recites the allegations against the defendant in a release and the defendant mostly choses not to comment. Sometimes, however, they fire back their own accusations, but that's where the pavan stops. A defamation lawsuit is a new twist. Read Greg's article and, btw, my comments here.
Cheat sheet for litigation PR counselors By Robert H. Bork, Jr. · Monday, February 23, 2009 Here's a cheat sheet for corporate communications types who have to manage their company's litigation PR. Walter Olson at Point of Law gives you a list this morning of where the trial lawyers are expanding with the help of Congress and the Obama Administration. Start getting ready for more employment discrimination, HIPAA, whistleblower, and med-mal lawsuits, for example. State AGs are going to be more aggressive, too. Change you can believe in.
Do I have to say it until I am blue in the face? Well, yes. By Robert H. Bork, Jr. · Sunday, February 08, 2009 You can never say it enough to your client: "Stay on message… Remember to bridge back to the message… Repeat the message... Say it again and again." Clients hate this. They get bored repeating the same messages over and over. They start to ad lib. The next thing you know you have a new, bigger, more complicated problem on your hands. So the next time you are advising a client to stay on message and keep repeating the messages you can point to three studies highlighted in this month's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 96(1), Jan 2009, 32-44. Here is the abstract:
Repeat after me: “Repetition increased the persuasiveness of weak and strong arguments…. .” I believe that this research also validates the recommendation to engage in a broad campaign of so that the audience are hearing the messages from multiple sources. Apparently, the echo chamber works. Hat tip to JuryVox at Twitter for bringing the blog post at Crime & Federalism to my attention.
What Ponzi Scheme? By Robert H. Bork, Jr. · Thursday, February 05, 2009 How do you explain being taken in the biggest Ponzi scheme in history? This is the quite real challenge confronting the many investment firms and money managers who invested their clients’ wealth with Bernard Madoff. That wealth is has now evaporated. What lingers are some hard questions: Did they do their due diligence? Were they in on the scheme? Were they just duped? And, the inevitable lawsuits have begun. Already the sharks are circling. Some of the big-name plaintiff’s firms are already populating the web prowling trolling for clients. “We believe you may have legal claims…please contact us immediately,” urges one firm. “Click here to contact a financial fraud attorney,” says another. Even silk stocking defense firms are setting special units. although the analysis is that the winnings will be small potatoes, $20 million or Still some people got some ‘splaining to do, as Desi demanded of Lucy. And the answers sound almost as credible as the ditzy redhead’s: "We have worked with Madoff for nearly 20 years," said a former federal regulator and the head of an investment firm facing losses of $7.5 billion. "We had no indication that we...were the victims of such a highly sophisticated, massive fraudulent scheme." It's a sentiment a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: "I've known [Madoff] for nearly 35 years, and I'm absolutely astonished." "You get hundreds and hundreds of letters and emails; there's no guarantee the SEC is going to catch" any given wrongdoer, said another former commissioner. That said, the commish made clear that there are no excuses. Frankly these explanations don’t scan. “I didn’t see it coming,” “I got fooled,” and “We get lots of mail,” probably aren’t good legal defenses. And in the court of public opinion they won’t work at all.
More Blawg Entries >> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| © 2010 Bork Communication Group - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | |||||
| |||||
| Read Our Disclaimer | |||||