Trafigura - also test case on role of lawyers and PR in organisational reputation

Now that Trafigura has withdrawn its injunction against the Guardian, it is time to look over the entrails of a fascinating episode which surely will be a much studied event for its implications for corporate social responsibility, online PR practice, crisis PR, organisational reputation and legal practice.

The role of the whistleblowers site, Wikileaks needs to be recognised.  This I understand was where the Minton report - a chemical analysis of the waste material in the hold of the ship - first appeared in a publicly accessible location and the initial Guardian injunction also forbade it to publish the link.  Wikileaks, based on Wiki software is a haven for whistleblowers to bring documents to public attention which governments and organisations wish to keep buried. You can see on the Minton page on Wikileaks, how it operates with about eight different servers in different countries, and which enhances the overall resilience of the system to being closed down in one particular country.

The role of social media in the event has been well covered.  Perhaps we can say that the "Court of Public Opinion" has overwhelmed the "Commercial Courts" and certainly it was interesting to hear Lord Goldsmith, a former Attorney General the morning on the BBC Today programme, acknowledging that the law would need to look at the implications of technology.  It is also worth noting that a Norwegian lawyer, representing NRK, the Norwegian broadcaster which covered this incident highlighted that in fact the rights of news media are protected more strongly than they realise by European human rights law.

However, another consequence, I would suggest, is that over time it will have enhanced the corporate reputation of PR in the corridors of power.   This may seem strange when surely every professional body involved with Trafigura has come out with some reputational damage.  However, Carter Ruck, the legal firm representing Trafigura has been promoting their role as guardians of corporate reputation based on their use of judicial injunctions to suppress unpleasant news.   A technique which the early proponents of PR in the last century, seeking to control communications, would have understood well but modern PR practice knows is just not feasible.  It also appears that Carter Ruck were the lead counsel in the handling of this event, not the PR advisors, Lord Bell and Bell Pottinger., as is often the case as legal advice carries great weight in the corridors of power and the hierarchy of external opinions.  

But if the "Court of Public Opinion" has become the highest court in the land, on occasions when society judges an injustice is being done or freedoms are being infringed, a function amplified by social media, then the skillset of lawyers basing their defence on law not rhetoric or dialogue (where many such as Michael Mansfield are actually very strong); then lawyers may  not be best suited to putting a case to this "court" while PR has a better understanding of this role on behalf of organisations, as PR Week has highlighted in an interesting commentary by the Editor on the challenges and opportunities for the profession at a senior level.