Public relations professionals versus legal professionals
Posted in Advice on November 25, 2008
I have a client, a start-up company, who seems much more enamored with legal counsel than public relations counsel.
I’ve experienced this type of opposition before — I’ve worked for Merrill Lynch in New York City, and have been a public relations counselor to Sprint Wireless in Las Vegas (just a couple examples that come to mind).
Why is it that passing the bar exam carries more weight than a public relations professional being Accredited by the Universal Accreditation Board (the public relations industry’s nearest equivalent to a state bar; see praccreditation.org)?
I was recently told by a representative of my client that all the biographies of company executives would come from legal counsel. Never mind the central purpose of a public relations practitioner: to help prepare strategies, messages and tactics for telling a company’s story, primarily to the media.
My humble opinion is that business communicators who are accredited are on a level playing field with state certified attorneys and doctors.
Most professional communication organizations have their own type of accreditation program. There’s the ABC for IABC and the APR for PRSA.
The challenge PR professionals have is that thanks to the First Amendment, anyone can lay claim to practicing public relations. We’ve all seen less than perfect examples, spin doctors and just plain liars who say whatever they’re paid most to say.
Integrity is as important in the practice of public relations as it is in medicine or law. And we can find examples, good and bad, in all industries.
Business communicators need to do a better job of communicating what it is that makes their knowledge, skills, abilities and experience part of a much needed professional service industry.
Other working professionals ought to recognize the value of accreditation programs and continuing education that sets the professional communicator apart from his or her counterparts.
In my view, management shouldn’t take sides with either legal or public relations counsel, but all should work together as a team for the common good. Without trained, skilled professionals offering opinions on all sides of an issue, how could any company expect to truly make an informed decision?
Everyone’s heard the jokes about attorneys – they make the easiest things the most convoluted nonsense one’s ever tried to read.
For decades, PR professionals and lawyers have been at odds with each other. One wants to communicate. The other advocates silence. As consumers, shareholders, stakeholders, other audiences and regular plain ol’ folks want and expect greater authenticity and transparency from companies, organizations and agencies, the tension between PR pros and attorneys will become even more strained.
I agree with Pete on all counts. It’s especially frustrating to be second-guessed or discounted by the very person who sought and hired you. Then it’s up to us to decide if the client is worth the hassle and personal frustration a.k.a. is the money worth it?
I expected to get some pushback with regards to the process for receiving an APR versus passing the bar exam. Thanks for the dialog.
I agree, being an attorney takes more perseverance in school and a whole lot of book smarts and studying to pass the bar exam.
I also agree the APR exam is not quite on par with a bar exam. But it’s the best we PR folk can do. Our profession is not, and hopefully will not ever be, regulated (back to my previous First Amendment comment).
Doctors and attorneys pass a state administered test that serves to set the bar (pun intended) for the profession.
The APR is a distinction that sets the bar in public relations practice. It says, in essence, “Hey, CEO, you should listen to my communication counsel. I’ve been around the block and am an experienced, professional communicator. Even if you disagree with me and ultimately disregard my counsel, what I have to say is as important as any of your other professional advisors.”
My point is: an attorney’s credentials shouldn’t trump a public relations practitioner’s credentials, especially when it comes to preparing content for a press kit.
How many instances have you heard of where an attorney was told his or her patent application would instead be submitted by the company’s public relations person?
We’re talking about different skill sets.
An attorney, of course, should be involved in a company’s messaging and provide counsel from a legal perspective.
In the same vein, a public relations practitioner ought to be involved (in my book, he or she ought to have the final say) in development of a company’s press kit.
You’re messin with the priesthood buddy. When they give you the law license they give you the power of mumbo jumbo. It elevates you to an ethereal plain that others can’t enter. Even the guys with the money who we work for.
I have some medical problems with my legs (and other stuff). At Mayo the docs told me I had idio pathatc peripheral neuropathy, later at the Cleveland Clinic, I was told I had Crypto pathic peripheral neuropathy. Boy are these guys smart, and how in the world did they make the subtle diagnostic distinction between Crypto and Idiopathic peripheral neuropathy.
The subtle distinction of course is that one is Greek and the other Latin for unexplained leg pain. — And you really think you can do the same thing as the Lawyers. Good lord where are your respect and good sense man.
While the disparity is real, I don’t believe an APR is anywhere near the equivalent of being an attorney. Law school and the bar exam are far more thorough and technical than the APR. Technically a bachelor’s degree and a few years experience is all that’s needed for an APR; law school is in no way comparable. I received my APR having never taken a single class in public relations, for example.
That said, executives ignore both legal and PR counsel at their own peril.