When a major judgment is handed down, new legislation is announced or a legal controversy begins to develop, journalists often need expert comment within the hour. They may approach or receive comments from several lawyers at once. More often than not, only a small number will make it into the final article.
The difference is rarely who has the longest CV or works at the biggest firm. It is usually who responds quickly, explains the issue clearly, offers a genuine view and can be relied upon to deliver without making the process difficult.
That is why some lawyers are quoted once, while others become the first person a journalist calls whenever a story breaks in their area. Understanding what journalists actually need is the first step towards becoming one of those go-to legal commentators.
Speed Matters More Than Most Lawyers Expect
A brilliant comment delivered after the journalist has filed the article is worthless.
News deadlines are often measured in hours and, on major breaking stories, sometimes minutes. A journalist may contact several lawyers or receive a flood of comments at once and will often use the first credible response that answers the question clearly. They are unlikely to hold the article while a comment moves between an associate, partner, marketing team and senior management.
Law firms therefore need a clear internal process for responding to media requests. The appropriate expert should be identified quickly, the deadline should be understood and any approval process should be proportionate to the risk involved.
For reactive media commentary, two concise paragraphs delivered within an hour will usually be more valuable than a polished two-page analysis sent the following morning.
Availability also matters. Lawyers do not need to accept every request, but they should be realistic about what they can deliver. If you agree to provide a comment by 2pm, the journalist needs to receive it by 2pm. Repeatedly missing deadlines is one of the quickest ways to stop receiving opportunities.
Clarity Over Caveats
Journalists need a clear explanation that they can understand and quote, not a compressed legal opinion filled with qualifications.
Lawyers are trained to identify exceptions, competing arguments and areas of uncertainty. That discipline is essential when advising clients, but it can make media commentary almost impossible to use.
A response that begins with “it will depend on the precise facts and circumstances” may be professionally accurate, but it does not immediately tell the journalist or their readers what the development means.
The skill is to lead with the clearest conclusion and then include the qualification that genuinely matters.
For example:
“This judgment significantly increases the pressure on employers to review how they classify workers. Its application will still depend on the working arrangements in each case.”
The journalist receives a strong, quotable line, while the necessary legal qualification remains intact.
This is not about compromising accuracy. It is about communicating expertise effectively. The best legal commentators can translate a complicated development into plain English, identify its practical consequences and explain why the reader should care.
Taking a Position
Journalists usually want to know what a legal development means, not simply what the judgment, regulation or government announcement says.
Restating the facts may demonstrate knowledge, but the journalist can usually obtain that information from the original source. What makes legal commentary valuable is the judgement added by the expert.
Is the decision surprising? Who should be concerned? Is the law likely to achieve its stated purpose? What will happen next? Has the announcement created more uncertainty than it has resolved?
“It depends” is rarely a memorable quote. Sometimes it is the only responsible answer, but it should not become a way of avoiding a clear opinion.
A stronger response might be:
“The outcome will depend on the evidence in each case, but the direction of travel is clear. Companies relying on this interpretation are now carrying considerably more risk.”
Taking a position does not mean creating controversy for the sake of attention. Journalists do not need lawyers to make exaggerated claims or offer opinions that they cannot support.
They want experts who are prepared to say what they genuinely think and explain the reasoning behind it. A clear, considered opinion will nearly always be more useful than a summary of the law that offers no additional insight.
Reliability Builds the Relationship
Journalists return to commentators who deliver useful material on time and without creating unnecessary problems.
A single quote can secure valuable coverage, but a consistent pattern of helpful responses is what builds a media relationship. Over time, the journalist learns which lawyers can explain a difficult issue quickly, who will answer the question they have actually asked and who can be trusted to deliver when they say they will.
Reliability also means being honest when you are not the right person to comment. A quick response explaining that the issue sits outside your expertise is more helpful than accepting the request and later failing to provide anything useful.
Understanding the publication is equally important. A national news reporter may need two sentences within an hour. A legal publication may want an 800-word analysis by the end of the week. An industry title may need the legal consequences explained specifically for its readers.
Sending the same material to all three suggests that the commentator is thinking about their own exposure rather than the journalist’s needs.
Lawyers who consistently make a journalist’s job easier are far more likely to receive direct requests in the future. This reputation is built over months and years, not through one successful placement.
What Legal Commentators Should Avoid
The quickest way to damage a relationship with a journalist is to make a straightforward request unnecessarily difficult.
Do not routinely ask to approve the full article before publication. It may be reasonable to ask to check your own technical comments for factual accuracy, but the journalist retains editorial control over their work.
Avoid demanding extensive sign-off rights, repeatedly rewriting quotes or attempting to turn every comment opportunity into an advertisement for the firm.
Do not send generic press releases to journalists who do not cover that type of news. Repeatedly sending irrelevant material will train them to ignore your emails, including on the occasions when you have something genuinely useful to offer.
Finally, do not disappear after one placement. Thank the journalist, share the article appropriately and remain available to support them in the future. Media relationships should not be treated as one-off transactions.
Becoming a Journalist’s Go-To Legal Commentator
Journalists want legal experts who respond quickly, explain complicated issues clearly, offer a genuine view and deliver consistently.
Technical ability is the foundation, but usefulness is what creates repeat opportunities. The lawyers who become regular media commentators are not necessarily the ones with the most impressive credentials. They are the ones journalists know they can rely on when a deadline is approaching.
Our legal PR services help lawyers and law firms develop the processes, commentary skills and media relationships needed to become trusted expert sources.
For the practical steps involved in identifying opportunities, approaching journalists and securing coverage, read our guide on how to get your law firm in the media.