Agon Partners: On a delicate mission

Combining legal advice with communications expertise: Agon Chairman Patrick L. Krauskopf, Board Member Béla Anda, and Head of Communications Michel Rudin (from left to right). (Photo: Chris Reist)

m&k Agon Partners is a unique law firm: It not only provides legal advice to clients but also—when necessary—advises them on litigation PR matters. How did this «combined service» come about?

Patrick Krauskopf: I worked in the U.S. almost twenty years ago. There, I noticed in many legal disputes that twenty to thirty percent of success tends to depend on the substance of the case, while about seventy percent has to do with the accompanying communication—both inside and outside the courtroom. After returning to Switzerland, I tried to apply the lessons I’d learned in the United States here. And so, bit by bit, the company we are today took shape. Of course, we offer all our services separately: Depending on the case, we may work «only» in the legal or compliance field, or «only» as consultants for value-based communication. It all depends on the clients’ needs.

Let's stay with litigation PR for a moment. In what situations do people typically reach out to you?

Curly-haired: Well, companies come to us either because they don’t want to end up in the crosshairs of regulatory agencies or courts in the first place. In other words, the company needs proactive, preventive communication to avoid a legal dispute. If it’s already too late for that—or even if you’ve made a conscious decision to pursue a legal dispute—we’ll handle the communication both inside and outside the courtroom throughout the proceedings. Finally, there’s post-litigation communication, which is important whether you win or lose. After all, you can win a case but still be seen as the loser in the public eye—and vice versa.

While you, Mr. Krauskopf, are primarily responsible for the legal aspects of the work, you, Mr. Rudin, take the lead in the area of public affairs. Why is it particularly important in litigation PR that you work hand in hand with the attorneys?

Michel Rudin: Litigation PR is just as complex as political communication. When legal disputes become public, there are certain expectations placed on everyone involved. There are many parties to consider when making a statement: the public, the media, a company’s owners or shareholders … Communicating professionally with these very diverse groups at all times is an enormous challenge. And to be successful here, you must discuss the objectives with the lawyers handling the case—and work together to pursue those goals.

You, Béla Anda, are the third member of this group. You are new to Agon’s Board of Directors, but you are also known as a former German government spokesperson and deputy editor-in-chief of the *Bild* newspaper. What appeals to you about this role in Switzerland?

Béla Anda: Crisis communication, along with litigation PR, is one of my areas of expertise in my work as a consultant and owner of a communications agency with several branches in Germany. In our interview last year, I mentioned that I like to go where things get really tough. (laughs) And take a look specifically at the field of litigation PR: it’s tough there—the pressure is intense! Michel Rudin has already mentioned various stakeholders to keep an eye on, but his list isn’t exhaustive. After all, even within companies, nerves are on edge when a lawsuit is underway. Then the marketing or sales teams come in and say, «Oh my God, here we go again—we’re under fire in the media. How are we supposed to approach our clients with confidence now?» The press office chimes in and asks, «That matter was supposed to be confidential—how did this or that information leak out?» And then there’s the CFO or the CEO, who may not have made any mistakes themselves but is worried that some of the blame will «stick» to them. Coordinating all of this and ultimately achieving a positive outcome for everyone—that’s a challenge that’s as significant as it is exciting.

Rudin: What happens in a company when the competition authority shows up in the morning and conducts a search? This inevitably leads employees to think that someone in their company must be committing a crime. And if a hierarchical system is in place, people will come under suspicion. This must be prevented, because otherwise normal day-to-day business will grind to a halt.

Should we occasionally put a «spin» on our communication—perhaps hold back on certain things for the time being or «redirect» attention?

Rudin: We would generally advise against that. This type of communication can only be conducted based on facts. It’s dangerous not to rely on facts. This is especially true because transparency is achieved very quickly these days. Anything digital can become public. Imagine you’re facing a legal proceeding and then it suddenly comes to light that you deliberately misled the public?! So we’re not «spin doctors»—I’d describe us more as «translators.».

Please explain that in more detail.

Anda: Let’s take female journalists as an example: In the past, when a trial attracted public interest, the media would typically have experienced court reporters on site. Today, there are hardly any of them left—instead, and I say this with great respect, we now have journalists who cover numerous other topics in their day-to-day work. This, of course, can lead to them being unfamiliar with typical legal terminology and interpreting statements that actually speak in the client’s favor in exactly the opposite way. This is where we come in as «translators» and try to provide clarity.

In your opinion, is there a kind of «golden rule» for communication in crisis situations?

Rudin: «One Size Fits All»? I’m always skeptical of that. But there are certainly fundamental human emotions that frequently arise in crises. Anger, for example, when faced with the threat of a legal dispute. That’s because anger gives rise to the impulse to fight back immediately. However, it’s wiser than a knee-jerk reaction to wait and calmly weigh the pros and cons of a response.

Curly-haired: I'm speaking primarily as a lawyer here; Michel and Béla know a lot more about communication than I do. (laughs) Nevertheless, I would like to point out that reliability and credibility are a kind of «golden rule.» Legal disputes are nothing more than negotiations in a specific context. And in negotiations, it is disastrous to have a reputation for being untrustworthy. We have represented companies that were said to come across as dishonest—companies that, in some cases through petty underhanded tactics, destroyed the public trust they had built up over the years. You have to step in and rebuild that trust. That can take time.

Seventy percent of the outcome of a trial depends on communication—both inside and outside the courtroom.

In addition to your work in litigation PR, you’re also involved in values-based communication. You help companies identify social trends and position themselves accordingly. What’s driving our society right now?

Rudin: I believe there are currently two megatrends, at least in our Western society. One is environmentalism, and the other is diversity. What I find particularly fascinating is that, right up until the «»68 generation,« we had a society that was very strongly values-based. I was born in 1985, by which time that had already shifted, and a certain arbitrariness had set in. For several years now, however, values—genuine, lived values—have once again become enormously important. Consumers are literally demanding that companies act like moral individuals; that they »show character” …

Anda: … and that comes with its own unique challenges—including some that an outsider would hardly suspect. For example, I advised a major fashion company for several years. Naturally, they also sourced products from the Far East and the like. Although there was a «sustainability» department, it led a completely obscure existence. And when a new supply chain law was enacted in Germany, management issued a directive: «The competition is committed to sustainability—we’re going to do it too!» That’s when the people in charge stepped out of the shadows—suddenly, they were in high demand within the company. And they used that opportunity to first show all the other departments just how much they had suffered from a lack of attention over the years. They also demanded publicity—they wanted to announce major initiatives to the public. And that’s when, as a consultant for value communication, you say: «Hold on a minute. Get certified first. Don’t rush into anything. There are plenty of competitors, media outlets, and NGOs watching you and keeping a close eye on your every move.» And that’s how it ultimately became a success for the company as well.

Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, is another value being added to diversity and ecology? A value such as, say, the «moral integrity» of companies?

Rudin: There has certainly been a shift in values. For many people today, their way of life is more closely aligned with morality than it used to be with consumption. When it comes to environmental issues, it’s already taken for granted that we give these matters some thought: I might be able to afford a business-class flight—but is it okay for me to choose to fly for my trip? In a political context, these questions will become more common—and in some places, they already are. But this also carries risks: If we want companies to become politically active and take a stand—then it’s also possible that they might move in a direction we don’t like, isn’t it?! That they might say or do things we consider problematic. That they might even allocate resources to projects that harm a segment of society. As you can see, I do not view this kind of «socially engaged business» without reservations.

Especially since, even in public discourse, some issues are subject to relatively rapid changes, to which one would then always have to respond.

Curly-haired: In our culture, there are certain non-negotiable values, and companies are—rightly so!—critically scrutinized by the public for their adherence to these values. But there are also values that change in a political context. Take energy policy, for example. After Fukushima, the cry was, «No more nuclear power!» Now there are plans to bring the power plants back online because the goal is to reduce dependence on natural gas. Long-term strategies are giving way to short-term pressure to act. I wouldn’t overemphasize morality in such specific cases: morality always plays out within a political process. And our job is to support these processes as best we can. Anything beyond that, I would consider presumptuous.

What does «litigation PR» mean?

Litigation PR (roughly «public relations in legal disputes,» also known as strategic legal communication or litigation-related public relations) is a form of public relations in which external communication is managed before, during, and after legal disputes. The goal of litigation PR is to support the legal strategy of the prosecutors and defense attorneys involved, to influence the outcome of the legal dispute with the help of the public, and at the same time to prevent damage to the client’s reputation.