Corporate PR
How legal departments quietly took control of corporate communications—and what was lost in the transfer
Legal departments took over corporate communications. The takeover happened slowly. Nobody planned it.
The old model worked like this. A journalist called. A communications officer answered questions or said the company had no comment. The decision was made in the communications department.
The new model works like this. A journalist calls. A communications officer drafts a response. The draft goes to legal. Legal revises or rejects. Days pass. The story publishes without company input.
The shift in corporate communications happened gradually, across boardrooms and legal offices nationwide.
The shift matters because lawyers and communications professionals think about language differently. A communications officer reads a draft and asks whether it will persuade. A lawyer reads the same draft and asks whether it could become an exhibit.
Pharmaceutical companies changed first. The FDA regulates promotional claims. Lawsuits over off-label promotion cost billions in the 2000s. Legal departments started reviewing everything that left the building. Conference slides. Journal article drafts. Replies to reporters asking about clinical trials.
A medical affairs director wanted to present data at a conference in 2018. Twenty-three legal revisions later, the presentation said less than he knew. Attendees asked questions. He gave incomplete answers.
He was not incompetent. He was complying.
Legal review expanded across industries as regulatory pressure intensified.
Financial services followed a similar path. SEC enforcement actions created risk. Anything written down could be subpoenaed. Legal review expanded.
Technology held out longer. Founders ran communications directly. Mark Zuckerberg approved Facebook posts about Facebook. Steve Jobs involved himself in Apple's press releases until he died.
The founder model broke down. Regulatory pressure increased. Antitrust investigations opened. Lawyers moved in.
Google's communications reported to the CEO in 2005. By 2015, communications reported through legal. Former employees say antitrust exposure drove the change.
The pattern repeated. Crisis hit. Board asked questions. General counsel said oversight was inadequate. Reporting lines shifted.
What gets lost in this transfer?
Speed, obviously. Legal review takes time. Lawyers have other matters. Communications waits.
Judgment about audiences gets lost too. Lawyers optimize for courtrooms. Communications officers optimize for publics. Courtrooms and publics want different things. A statement that protects against litigation may damage reputation. A statement that builds reputation may create liability.
The professions cannot both win. Someone decides which consideration dominates. The someone is now usually a lawyer.
Communications officers know this. Industry surveys find most of them frustrated. They trained for work they no longer do. They draft. Lawyers decide.
The tension between legal caution and communication effectiveness continues across industries.
Some argue the change was necessary. Corporate exposure increased. Litigation became more aggressive. Social media meant any statement could circulate permanently. Caution made sense.
The argument has merit. The question is whether the cure fits the disease. Legal review prevents some harms. Legal review also prevents some communications that would have helped. Nobody tracks the prevented communications. Nobody knows what was lost.
The pharmaceutical medical affairs director gave an incomplete presentation. The audience learned less than they could have. Some of them were physicians. Some of them had patients. The information gap had consequences that cannot be measured.
Multiply that case across industries and years. The aggregate effect is large. The aggregate effect is also invisible.
Communications professionals talk about "getting a seat at the table." The phrase appears in trade publications constantly. It means having influence over decisions rather than just executing them.
The phrase has appeared for twenty years. The seat remains elusive. Lawyers took it.