Embargoed judgments: For whose eyes only?

‘The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine’, according to the ancient Greek proverb, or at least they did until the internet came along. Long gone are the days when paper judgments are collected on foot and publishing the contents was of concern only to the editors of dusty law reports.

Now, the rush to be the first to announce a win is big business. Sharing the desired outcome for a client should be, where possible, an imperative part of any firm’s legal PR strategy.

As a former executive at Apple once said: “Advertising is saying you’re good. PR is getting someone else to say you’re good.” That someone else is a journalist. A figure who is trusted by its audience to deliver important and factually sound news. Effectively working alongside journalists will secure coverage that cements your position as the person clients want on their side.

But when it comes to embargoed judgments, the desire to get ahead and secure this reputational win can have serious consequences if you go too soon.

There have been several breaches in recent years, resulting in the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, warning: ‘‘In future, those who break embargoes can expect to find themselves the subject of contempt proceedings.”

His comments at a Court of Appeal hearing served as a stark reminder to all after a chambers’ marketing team published a pre-prepared press release a day before the ruling was handed down.

Breaches are usually a result of human error and if swift action is taken to rectify the mistake, the court looks more favorably on the offenders.

Vos MR, however, issued the sobering warning after the chambers in question failed to rectify the error on multiple occasions against a backdrop of the violation of embargoes “becoming more frequent”.

The Civil Procedure Rules are clear. The court may provide an embargoed judgment under the proviso that it will not be disclosed to others outside of the parties or used in the public domain. Its purpose is to enable corrections and let both parties prepare for the moment it becomes a public document. It is not to prepare press releases or social media posts.

From a legal PR perspective, this can pose quite a conundrum.

As a journalist, I received embargoed press releases on a daily basis which provided the breathing space to prepare a story that was ready to publish the moment the news became public. These embargoes, however, are a different beast. Although they still demand the same level of trust the repercussions are vastly different. Repeat media offenders will be blacklisted or frozen out from future announcements if they go too soon and break an embargo. Reputationally, it is a tight spot to be in for any respectable journalist but from a lawyer’s and legal PR team’s perspective, if you disobey an embargoed judgment the consequences are far more severe.

This is why it is important to have a trained media expert on hand. One who understands the serious legal implications of accessing an embargoed judgment but is still equipped to provide journalists with the correct background information that complies with the court while still providing the best chance of securing coverage, once it is legally possible.

Journalists do not have time to sift through a long judgment once it is handed down. They need to understand the background and implications of the judgment as quickly as possible, something that can be achieved with the right preparation and skill set.

It is a fine line to tread and one that must be executed in a slick and timely manner. To secure ongoing successful PR there must be open lines of communication between both PR professionals and the legal teams. By working together you can create effective PR materials that cover all potential outcomes of the judgment, ready for when it lands, while still honouring the embargo.

When both experts in their field work in unison, with a clear understanding of court rules, an effective strategy can be safely implemented and the only media coverage to appear will be that of the judgment, not a reputationally damaging contempt hearing.