Part of EPR's Legal and Crisis Communications coverage.
Originally published February 2025. Updated June 2026. EPR Editorial Team.
Litigation communications operates at the intersection of legal strategy, press cycle management, and the Rules of Professional Conduct that govern attorney public statements about pending matters. The 1991 ABA Model Rule 3.6 (and the equivalent state rules adopted across most jurisdictions) constrains what attorneys can say about pending cases. Pre-trial publicity that creates "a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding" is sanctionable. The cases that anchor the modern playbook — O.J. Simpson, Harvey Weinstein, Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard, Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, Alex Murdaugh — define what works and what crosses the line.
The regulatory frame
ABA Model Rule 3.6 (Trial Publicity). Attorneys cannot make extrajudicial statements likely to materially prejudice a proceeding. Permitted categories include the claim/defense, identity of involved persons, public-record information, scheduling, and the existence of an investigation. Prohibited categories include opinions on character, credibility, results of tests, anticipated testimony, prior criminal records, and statements about guilt or innocence.
State variations. Most states adopted Rule 3.6 with modifications. California operates a stricter framework. New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois operate distinct variations. Litigation communications has to operate state-by-state.
Judicial gag orders. Courts in high-profile cases (Sam Bankman-Fried, Murdaugh, the Trump federal cases) increasingly issue gag orders restricting attorney and party public statements. Communications strategy has to navigate the gag-order risk on every high-profile matter.
Court of Public Opinion vs. Court of Law. The fundamental tension. Aggressive media strategy that wins the press cycle can produce disciplinary exposure or sanctions in the underlying case. Defensive silence that protects the case can lose the press cycle entirely.
The canonical litigation communications cases
O.J. Simpson (1994–1995). The defining modern litigation communications case. The Simpson defense — Robert Shapiro, Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Alan Dershowitz — operated one of the most aggressive media strategies in modern legal history. The prosecution under Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden ran a substantially less coordinated press operation. The case anchors litigation communications doctrine on jury selection (the change of venue analysis), the racial framing of the press narrative, and the gap between courtroom verdict and public opinion.
Harvey Weinstein (2017–2020). The Ronan Farrow/New Yorker and Jodi Kantor/Megan Twohey/New York Times reporting that produced the Weinstein criminal convictions also produced one of the most-cited modern litigation communications failures. Weinstein's defense communications strategy (including the contested Lisa Bloom advisory engagement that surfaced in the reporting) damaged the defense rather than protecting it. The case anchors the limits of aggressive defense PR when the underlying conduct is well-documented.
Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard (2022). The Fairfax County, Virginia defamation trial that ran simultaneously on Court TV broadcast and the broader social media ecosystem. The Depp legal team's communications strategy — including allowing extended broadcast access — produced a courtroom victory and a sustained social-media narrative win. The Heard side's communications strategy struggled with the platform-tribal social media response. The case anchors how televised trials and TikTok-amplified jury influence reshape litigation communications in the post-2020 era.
Sam Bankman-Fried (2023). The FTX founder's pre-indictment media tour (the New York Times DealBook interview, the Twitter Spaces appearances, the broader extensive media engagement against counsel's reported advice) became one of the most-cited examples of how defendant media engagement against legal advice produces worse case outcomes. The eventual conviction and 25-year sentence followed extensive pre-trial communications that prosecutors used against him.
Elizabeth Holmes / Theranos (2018–2022). The Wall Street Journal investigation by John Carreyrou, the subsequent SEC enforcement, criminal indictment, and 2022 conviction. The Holmes defense communications strategy emphasized founder narrative and circumstance rather than evidence engagement — a strategy that did not protect against the underlying evidentiary record.
Alex Murdaugh (2023). The South Carolina double-murder trial that produced sustained national press coverage. The case anchors how state-court matters with broadcast access and substantial local-press depth operate distinct litigation communications dynamics from federal cases.
The Trump federal cases (2023–2026). Multiple federal proceedings (Manhattan DA, Special Counsel Jack Smith, Georgia state, Florida documents) operated alongside sustained public communications by the defendant. The judicial gag-order responses, the campaign-period communications strategy, and the eventual case outcomes anchor modern political-figure litigation communications doctrine.
What works in litigation communications
Coordinate counsel and communications from minute one. Litigation communications cannot operate downstream from legal strategy. Statements that contradict the case theory, admissions that constrain settlement leverage, or framing that triggers gag-order risk all produce worse outcomes than disciplined coordinated communications from day one.
Stay inside Rule 3.6 boundaries. Permitted categories of statement (claim/defense, public-record information, scheduling) operate without disciplinary risk. Prohibited categories (opinions on guilt, character, anticipated testimony) produce disciplinary exposure and sanction risk that often exceeds the press-cycle value.
Distinguish media voice from courtroom voice. Counsel positioning a case to potential jurors through media is a different exercise from arguing the case in court. The voice, framing, and substantive emphasis differ. Litigation communications specialists run the media voice; trial counsel runs the courtroom voice; both coordinate on substantive framing.
Reckon with social media amplification. The 2022 Depp-Heard trial established that contemporary high-profile cases operate alongside sustained TikTok and Twitter amplification that no traditional press strategy alone can manage. Litigation communications now requires platform-native response capacity.
Anticipate journalist sourcing. Defense counsel routinely face the question of whether to engage with reporters, decline comment, or operate selective engagement. Each option has consequences. The decision should be made before the reporter calls, not in the moment.
What kills you in litigation communications
Defendant media engagement against legal advice (the Sam Bankman-Fried template). Aggressive defense PR that contradicts the evidentiary record (the Harvey Weinstein template). Disciplinary-exposed statements about character, credibility, or anticipated evidence. Statements that trigger or violate gag orders. Inconsistent messaging across the legal team, the client, and the communications operation. Press strategy uncoordinated with case strategy.
The American Bar Association's model rule on trial publicity. Attorneys cannot make extrajudicial statements likely to materially prejudice a proceeding. Permitted categories include the claim/defense, identity of involved persons, public-record information, and scheduling. Most states have adopted Rule 3.6 with modifications.
Why is the O.J. Simpson case the canonical litigation communications case?
The Simpson defense operated one of the most aggressive media strategies in modern legal history while the prosecution ran a substantially less coordinated press operation. The case anchors doctrine on jury-pool exposure, racial framing, change-of-venue analysis, and the gap between courtroom verdict and public opinion.
What did Sam Bankman-Fried do wrong from a communications standpoint?
Extensive pre-indictment media engagement (NYT DealBook interview, Twitter Spaces, broader media tour) against counsel's reported advice. The communications were used against him at trial. He was convicted and sentenced to 25 years.
What is litigation PR?
The communications discipline operating alongside active litigation. Combines press strategy, social media response, jury-pool considerations, regulatory communications, and Rule 3.6-compliant attorney statements. Coordinates with trial counsel rather than operating independently.
What is a judicial gag order?
A court order restricting attorney and party public statements about a pending matter. Courts increasingly issue gag orders in high-profile cases (Bankman-Fried, Murdaugh, Trump cases). Communications strategy has to navigate the gag-order risk on every high-profile matter.
How did the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial change litigation communications?
The Fairfax County, Virginia 2022 defamation trial ran simultaneously on Court TV broadcast and across TikTok/Twitter amplification. The case established that contemporary high-profile litigation operates alongside sustained platform-tribal social media response that traditional press strategy alone cannot manage.
What separates effective litigation communications from generic legal PR?
Coordination with trial counsel from minute one, disciplined operation inside Rule 3.6 boundaries, distinct media voice and courtroom voice, platform-native response capacity for social media amplification, and pre-built journalist engagement frameworks rather than in-the-moment improvisation.
Related: Legal · Crisis Communications · Public Relations and Law Firms
