Big mistake.

Consider one of the dozens of stories about lawsuits appearing in the media every week: A major news outlet reports that a male ex-employee of a Fortune 500 company sued his ex-employer for same-sex harassment. The story is filled with compelling detail provided by plaintiff's lawyer about repeated instances of groping and complaints that the company failed to act upon. The fact that the employee was later fired for harassing a female intern was mentioned only at the end of the piece. Obviously there was more to the story than the plaintiff's attorney was letting on. But, rather than providing a persuasive alternative version of the facts, or even an explanation of why the company could not respond fully, the article concluded with the words, the company spokesman "declined to comment."

To illustrate how self-defeating such a response can be, one poll has shown that roughly 4 in 10 people think that if a lawsuit is filed against a corporation, the defendant must be guilty. That's bad enough. But the number goes up by about 50 percent, to more than 6 people in 10, if defense counsel responds to press inquiries with "no comment."

Attorneys can respond to media inquiries without running the risk of damaging their case. Indeed, a lawyer is under an ethical obligation to correct misleading media stories or misinformation put forward by the other side. At a minimum, an attorney can explain where the litigation stands and why a direct response to the reporter's question would be inappropriate at this time. A lawyer can also use a reporter's question to reiterate the themes and messages of the case developed in conjunction with a litigation communications specialist. In some cases it may be appropriate to go considerably further by trying out the possible courtroom arguments -- the legal equivalent of running it up the flagpole.

In any case, there's no doubt that "no comment" often creates as many problems as it is meant to prevent.