If Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Barak can shake hands, attorneys and PR professionals can work together.

Attorneys are warriors, PR pros are peacemakers. That needs to be acknowledged and addressed before they work together. Which might beg the question, why should they? Because when that happens, the client can win in both the court of law and the court of public opinion.

It's a litigious world out there, and more crises and high-profile issues have legal elements. Attorneys need to be mindful of visibility management, a far cry from "no comment." And PR professionals need to be mindful of legal problems they could cause or help address before they launch their communications campaigns.

Attorneys find it hard to overcome the training on which their careers are based. Cooperating with PR pros is difficult for attorneys because they tend to:

• take time to do their work; completing anything takes a very long time;
• want to muzzle the client, inside, outside and at home with the spouse;
• have a disregard for the media's demand to know and to publish;
• withhold information, believing that full disclosure weakens the legal case;
• use a legal form of the language that is off-putting to non-lawyers; and
• want to win, with the direct implication that the other side is going to lose.

Lest we fault attorneys, consider the idiosyncrasies of PR pros that get in the way.

Public relations is about communicating ... lots. Cooperating with attorneys is difficult for PR pros because they tend to:

• talk too much, disclosing too much to too many people;
• talk too quickly, trying to meet deadlines and media timeframes;
• jeopardize attorney-client privilege in many ways;
• lean towards simple explanations (law is never simple);
• lean towards blanket statements (risking unrelated liability issues); and
• do thing that may inadvertently damage the legal case.

Having been brought in on several legal issues and active litigation, I know that when PR pros make attorneys crazy, it is a no-win. The client in a legal battle is going to listen to the attorneys, even when they say to get rid of the PR pros.

But I believe the two camps can work together if they consider five suggestions.

Attorneys should say more; PR pros should say less. Attorneys play things very close to the vest, even with their allies and the client. While understandable, it should be modified in high-profile situations. PR pros who know more provide better counsel and perform more effectively. My people don't do well in the absence of information.

PR pros are talkers by nature and share information by profession. In legal situations, less is more. PR pros should not discuss legal cases "off the record." They should not brief their staff (it's need to know, folks). They should not commit all thoughts, ideas and questions to paper (discovery can be a nasty discovery).

Attorneys should learn haste; PR pros should learn patience. Law moves at a snail's pace. However, attorneys should try to allow some communication faster than is their wont. Silence is damning; communicating anything is helpful. Even before the complete legal strategy is mapped out, if possible.

PR pros need to acknowledge that legal outcomes take a terribly long time. That means no jumping ahead. PR pros need to slow down media expectations, explaining what they can and why they can't explain what they can't... at this point in time.

Attorneys should listen more; so should PR pros. Attorneys will benefit from listening about how the media work, how public perceptions are formed and modified, and what might be possible. They should listen to PR pros' ideas because sometimes they will be right on.

PR pros also have to learn about the legal process. There are almost always unseen ramifications to current situations and attorneys are sensitive to these. And PR pros need to listen to why it isn't possible to do act sometimes and be patient.

Attorneys should be more inclusive; PR pros should be more exclusive. This is like saying more or less, but is a broader principal. Attorneys who include PR pros in strategy formation will undoubtedly benefit from another valuable perspective.

PR pros should practice need-to-know and be slower to bring in the B Team and support staff. The more people who know, the more likely something will leak. Leaks are bad. Litigation support is best handled at the highest levels.

Attorneys should learn the art of peace; PR pros should learn the art of war. Being a warrior in court doesn't preclude an attorney from being a peacemaker in the public eye. Attorneys whose comments are more conciliatory, less accusatory and solution-oriented will get better results, especially in the media.

But, unless a case is settled out of court (which happens more and more often), there will be a win-lose when the judge and/or jury rule. PR pros need to be mindful of that and not jeopardize the ultimate ability to win.

Crises and high-visibility legal situations are resolved in both the court of law and the court of public opinion. Winning in one and losing in the other is a Pyrrhic victory. That's why it is critical that attorneys and PR pros bridge the gap and work together ... for the ultimate good of the client and its many constituencies.

First published in the Law Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, November 11, 2000