The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Foot-in-Mouth Media Interviews by Clients in High-Profile Cases

By Gina F. Rubel
Special to the Legal

What do divorce, homicide and sexually deviant behavior have in common in today’s media? It all makes for hot news but bad media interviews for clients in high-profile cases. That’s the bottom line.

Gary Giordano, Kris Humphries and Jerry Sandusky are three men who are all currently involved in unrelated, high-profile court cases. Giordano is the sole suspect in the high-profile disappearance case of American Robyn Gardner in Aruba. Humphries is involved in a public divorce battle with reality TV star Kim Kardashian. Sandusky, as the world knows, is the former Penn State University assistant football coach involved in the highly publicized child sex abuse case. All three have come under criticism for their alleged deviant and criminal behavior, not to mention their recent media interviews that appeared stiff, insincere and all-around unconvincing.

Giordano appeared twice on “Good Morning America” to defend himself with Jose Baez, the famous Casey Anthony attorney, by his side. He seemed unable to clearly answer questions as to why he and Gardner were snorkeling when Gardner was known to hate swimming, why he became suddenly distressed in the water and swam for shore, and why he waited over an hour to report Gardner as a missing person to the local authorities. Giordano has been criticized for coming off as unemotional and heartless in his interviews. However, a possible defense tactic was made public to create doubt that perhaps Gardner was abducted by human traffickers from Venezuela, which is only a 30-minute boat ride away. Hmmm. I wonder.

From a media relations perspective, when a high-profile individual answers questions with the same answer verbatim, over and over again, it becomes clear that the person isn’t speaking for himself. It’s an issue of credibility. We saw this with the recent Kris Humphries interview on “Good Morning America.” He repeated the same statement over and over again when asked pointed questions regarding his divorce from Kim Kardashian. Humphries appeared unnatural and stiff with unemotional body language. He repeated a canned statement that, in my opinion, diminished his credibility.

The most baffling media interview is that of Jerry Sandusky regarding the various counts of child molestation he is facing. From a public relations perspective it’s hard to understand why Sandusky’s attorney, Joseph L. Amendola, would allow him to speak in public.

During a telephone interview on NBC's "Rock Center" on Nov. 14 with Bob Costas, Sandusky said he was not guilty of the criminal charges against him, but recognized that he did engage in inappropriate behavior with children, including taking showers with boys. Later, in a partially videotaped interview with the New York Times, it is clear that Amendola was directing Sandusky’s comments for clarification.

While Amendola has a long-standing reputation as a well-known criminal defense attorney, he, too, has been caught up in media firestorms in the past. It is going to be interesting to see how the Sandusky case plays out in the end. At least they made one very smart decision: to waive Sandusky’s preliminary hearing Tuesday.

It is important for attorneys to learn how to manage the media message. Sometimes it is better just to say that while the matter remains in the courts, you are going to refrain from “trying the case in the court of public opinion.” At least that’s better than saying, “no comment.” In these cases, even I might say “no comment” would have been better than the statements made by Gary Giordano, Kris Humphries and Jerry Sandusky.

Gina F. Rubel is the owner of Furia Rubel Communications Inc., a public relations and marketing agency with a niche in legal communications. A former Philadelphia trial attorney, public relations and marketing expert, she is the author of Everyday Public Relations for Lawyers. She and her PR and marketing firm have won numerous awards for legal communications, public relations, media relations, web and graphic design, strategic planning and leadership. She maintains a blog at www.ThePRLawyer.com, is a contributor to National Law Review, The Legal Intelligencer Blog and The Huffington Post. You can find her on LinkedIn or follow her on Twitter. 

Reporter Live-Tweeting Hearing on Fair Share Act

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

The state Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to hold another hearing on a proposal that would change Pennsylvania's liability regime, and I will be live-Tweeting from it beginning at 12 noon today.

The state House of Representatives voted last month in favor of the Fair Share Act, which would change Pennsylvania's doctrine of joint and several liability so that defendants that are apportioned responsibility for causing a plaintiff's injuries at 60 percent or less would only pay the portion they were found liable for, rather than being on the hook if other liable defendants can't pay their portion of the plaintiff award. If the legislation passes the Senate, it will likely become law.

During his budget address in March, Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, said that he would sign legislation abrogating the doctrine of joint and several liability, arguing legal liability scares jobs away and leaves minor players stuck paying the full price of lawsuits.

However, the state Senate is considering an alternative to the Fair Share Act: Senate Bill 500, which is primarily sponsored by state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery. That bill would not be as radical a shift as the Fair Share Act. In that legislation, joint liability would be abolished for any defendant whose percentage share of liability is less than the percentage share attributed to the plaintiff. The bill would bar a plaintiff from recovering damages from the defendant in excess of the defendant's percentage share.

Follow me on Twitter at @AmarisTLI as I live-Tweet from the hearing, which is set to start 12 noon today at the Philadelphia Bar Association's building. 

 Amaris Elliott-Engel is a reporter for The Legal. She can be contacted at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter: @AmarisTLI.

Eight Tips for Solid Radio Interviews

By Gina F. Rubel
Special to the Legal

Every law firm should have a marketing and public relations strategy that should include a mix of media that reaches your target audiences. A corporate law firm that does business with Fortune 100 companies will have a drastically different strategy from a localized general practice. Regardless of the size and scope of your business, there may be a time when radio interviews come into play -- especially if you're dealing with high profile litigation.

Here are a few tips you should keep in mind:

Focus on your objective: Don't get bogged down in statistics or lengthy explanations. Speak briefly, directly and to the point. Correct any misstatements or misperceptions. You should have prepared key messages before speaking to the media. Make sure you know what they are and that you get them across in your interview.

Choose your messages with care: Radio reaches a very specific listening audience and depending on the time of day and programming, the audience may change. The producers have chosen to interview you based on a topic that you have already agreed upon. Stick to that topic or the reporter will cut you off and move on.

Pace yourself: When recording a message, pace your delivery. Practice makes perfect so take time to record what you plan to say and listen to it in advance of your interview. Listen to how each word sounds. Make sure your words don't run together. Have someone else listen and provide you with feedback -- then tweak the message as necessary.

Remember to say your firm name: When you are first introduced, the reporter will generally mention your name. It is important for you to mention your firm's name when it is appropriate and comes naturally, so the listening audience will remember it.

Speak in plain English: Speaking in plain English will ensure that your message gets across to the masses. In other words, avoid legal jargon. It's important when dealing with radio to speak in layman's terms so your audience understands you and so that your messages are clear.

Stay calm, cool and collected: Remember to stay still. Don't sway back and forth or shake your feet. Take deep breaths. Pause between thoughts. If you can, stand during the recording. Your voice will project better.

Speak in short sound bites: Practice your topic in sound bites. Radio is a great medium for short, quick nuggets of information that the listeners can remember. Then, repeat what you really want listeners to remember.

Spare the details: Most radio stories run for less than 90 seconds. Radio reporters aren't looking for hours of drawn-out details. Be concise and get to your point. If you are being interviewed, count for two seconds before answering. The slight pause before you answer will make your responses sound fresh and thoughtful.

Gina F. Rubel is the owner of Furia Rubel Communications Inc., a public relations and marketing agency with a niche in legal communications. A former Philadelphia trial attorney and public relations expert, she is the author of "Everyday Public Relations for Lawyers." Gina and her agency have won numerous awards for legal communications, public relations, media relations, strategic planning, law firm websites, corporate philanthropy and leadership. She maintains a blog at www.ThePRLawyer.com and you can find her on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/ginafuriarubel or follow her on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ginarubel. 

Reporter Live-Tweeting Nutter's Remarks to Lawyers

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter is slated to talk today about the city budget and how it intersects with the Philadelphia legal community. I'll be live-tweeting what the mayor says about court budget cuts, the city's business privilege tax and anything else the mayor brings up at this Chancellor's Forum at the Philadelphia Bar Association.

The forum will be held 12-1 p.m. today. Follow me at @amarisTLI. Join in the conversation with hashtag #nutterforum.

Amaris Elliott-Engel is a reporter for The Legal. She can be contacted at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter: @AmarisTLI

NBA Sideline Chatter, Twitter and a Defamation Claim

By Joshua D. Wolson
Special to the Legal

With the NCAA tournament upon us, we will no doubt see images of coaches' demonstrative reactions to referees’ calls. All of this will take place under an intense microscope of press and public scrutiny, just as it always has. But now, a new dynamic adds to the mix.  Members of the press are expected not only to write their articles, but also to "Tweet" interesting tidbits in something approximating real time. However, a lawsuit filed this week highlights the difficulties of doing so. 

NBA referee Bill Spooner filed suit this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (also home to Brady v. NFL) against the Associated Press and AP reporter Jon Krawczynski over a Tweet from Krawczynski during an NBA game. During the game, Minnesota Timberwolves coach Kurt Rambis complained about a call that gave the Houston Rockets free throws. After an exchange, Rambis reportedly asked Spooner how the Timberwolves would get the points back. Krawczynski tweeted about Spooner’s response: "Ref Bill Spooner told Rambis he'd 'get it back' after a bad call. Then he made an even worse call on Rockets. That's NBA officiating folks." Spooner denies promising a makeup call. 

The case raises two interesting legal issues. First, can what happens on an NBA court can ever be a private matter? Can an NBA referee ever conduct his activities outside of issues of public controversy? Or are major sporting events -- which are, after all, nothing more than a public exhibition -- inherently matters of public concern? 

The answer to that question, of course, determines whether a plaintiff must show "actual malice," meaning knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Spooner claims to conduct his activities "outside of, and uninvolved with, any issues of public controversy."

At first blush, it seems Spooner will have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that the Tweet in question touched on an issue of public concern. In his complaint, Spooner claims the Tweet accused him of making a false call -- a form of game fixing. And, according to Spooner, the issue of game fixing is highly sensitive for NBA referees because the public still remembers Tim Donaghy's admission two years ago that as a referee, he bet on games and made calls that affected the margin of victory. Donaghy pled guilty to federal criminal charges as a result -- surely an issue of public concern.

Spooner's claim that he is a private figure seems fundamentally in tension with his allegations that the influence of the Donaghy affair makes Krawczynski's Tweet particularly sensitive.

The suit also raises a second issue: are defamation standards different for Tweets than for other forms of speech? Twitter is, by its nature, a constrained form of speech. Some might argue that Tweets are inherently less reliable than other forms of communication, and Twitter users understand that to be the case. Certainly, Twitter lends itself to a speak-now-and-ask-questions-later mentality. Those quick hits make it difficult to do proper research, but they also might make it difficult to make a statement knowing its falsity, or even with reckless disregard of the truth. 

Thus, while the Twitterverse might not have its own standard, its fundamental nature -- at this time of year, one might say its "madness" -- will be important to evaluating Spooner's suit and other claims of defamatory Tweets. 

Joshua D. Wolson is a partner in the litigation department at Dilworth Paxson. He can be reached at 215-575-7295 or [email protected].

Fox News Bias Suit Stayed to Await Ruling on ‘Cat’s Paw’ Theory

By Shannon P. Duffy
U.S. Courthouse Correspondent

The scheduled Jan. 18 trial of a race discrimination suit against the Philadelphia affiliate of Fox News has been canceled now that a federal judge has stayed the case to await a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the suit, former Fox News reporter Thomas Burlington claims he was suspended for uttering an incendiary racial epithet during an editorial meeting while discussing a news segment about the Philadelphia Youth Council of the NAACP holding a symbolic burial for the epithet.

Burlington, who is white, claims he meant no offense when he suggested that the station should not refer to the epithet with the phrase "the N-word," but instead should say the word.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick ruled that a jury must decide whether Fox News applied an improper double standard by disciplining Burlington for his use of the word, but failing to impose any discipline on black workers who also used the word.

"To conclude that the station may act in accordance with the social norm that it is permissible for African-Americans to use the word but not whites would require a determination that this is a 'good' race-based social norm that justifies a departure from the text of Title VII," Surrick wrote in a Dec. 30 opinion.

Now Surrick has granted a motion by Fox News to stay the case and delay the trial until after the U.S. Supreme Court hands down a ruling in Staub v. Proctor Hospital because the decision may impact Burlington’s case.

At issue in Staub is how courts should apply the theory of "cat’s paw" liability in which a plaintiff claims that the employer was motivated by the discriminatory animus of his co-workers.

Burlington's lawyers -- Stephen G. Console, Laura C. Mattiacci and Susan M. Saint-Antoine of Console Law Offices -- urged Surrick not to delay the trial because the defense team had waited until the eve of trial to seek the stay.

Surrick disagreed and found that the Staub decision could potentially lead to dismissal of Burlington’s case or a change in the jury instructions.

"We are unwilling to take this case to trial based on a legal standard that will almost certainly be clarified by the time the Supreme Court’s current term is over," Surrick wrote.

"It makes no sense to hold a trial now when the jury instruction that we would use regarding subordinate bias liability may well be inappropriate after the Supreme Court decides Staub. So much in this case depends on the standard for subordinate bias liability that there is an excellent chance that a second trial would be necessary after the Supreme Court issues its opinion in Staub," Surrick wrote.

The ruling is a victory for Fox News' lawyers -- Jerome A. Hoffman, Thomas K. Johnson II and Leora F. Eisenstadt of Dechert.

Where Are All the Women- and Minority-Owned Firms??

By Jaime Bochet

Of the Legal Staff

Every year, The Legal Intelligencer publishes a magazine called "PALaw: Annual Report on the Legal Profession," which provides hard data and analysis on PA's legal landscape, including our Managing Partners Survey (an anonymous survey currently accessible online at www.tlisurvey.com, password palaw),  and the 100 Largest Law Firms in PA.

One of the key sections we're looking to improve is the "Women- and Minority-Owned Firms." We believe there are a number of such firms that go unreported, and we want to collect more data and list more firms.

Maybe you're a woman who started her own solo or small firm, or you know someone who did. Maybe you work for a minority attorney who runs his or her own firm. Maybe you have a friend who knows someone ... see where I'm going with this? We want to include those firms, and it will help them to get their names out there and in front of the thousands of lawyers who use the PaLAW all year. 

And being included couldn't be easier. All you have to do is get in touch with me by e-mail or phone, and fill out a simple, one-page survey. That's it. And no, we don't charge anyone to be included in the magazine. 

In addition to giving greater exposure to the firms in the magazine, we'll get to know these firms better. This creates opportunities for them to be called for comment on stories we're working on, and to pitch articles for the paper and our special supplements.

I hope that you'll take a moment to get in touch with me, or tell someone else to give me a call. We want to know you're out there, and we want to make sure you're getting the recognition you deserve. Call me at 215-557-2368, or e-mail me now!

Hear From the Media: Podcast

On April 22, 2010, I moderated a fantastic panel that addressed How and when to share your opinion with the press.

The Philadelphia Bar Association has shared the program as a podcast on their website. 

Listen in and hear from:

-Bernard Dagenais, Editor, Philadelphia Business Journal

-Hank Grezlak, Associate Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, The Legal Intelligencer

-Lisa Hostein, Executive Editor, Jewish Exponent

-Guy Petroziello, Editorial Page Editor, Bucks County Courier Times

-Irv Randolph, Managing Editor, The Philadelphia Tribune

To hear what these journalists had to say about lawyers and the media, click on this link http://www.philadelphiabar.org/page/Podcasts_Speaker_Programs?appNum=4 and then the program name.

Gina F. Rubel, Esq.,is the owner of Furia Rubel Communications, Inc., a public relations and marketing agency with a niche in legal communications. A former Philadelphia trial attorney and public relations expert, Gina is the author of Everyday Public Relations for Lawyers. Gina and her agency have won numerous awards for legal communications,PR, media relations, strategic planning, corporate philanthropy, websites, marketing and leadership. She maintains a blog at www.ThePRLawyer.com, is a regular contributor to The Legal Intelligencer Blog and blogs for The Huffington Post. You can find her on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/ginafuriarubel or follow her on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ginarubel.  For more information, go to www.FuriaRubel.com.