In both the prosecution and law firm settings, corporate leaders often face the initial stages of numerous legal crises. Whether an internal whistleblower exposes a company issue, a hefty damages lawsuit is served, or a dawn raid occurs, the nature of these crises varies, as does the response from management. While the specifics of each case are important, the success of crisis management hinges more on how the situation is perceived than on the nature of the crisis itself.
So, what risk management mindset should top decision-makers establish first in a legal crisis? The first step is to abandon 'manufactured reports' and confront the 'facts.' Uncomfortable information tends to be polished during reporting processes, with unfavorable figures downplayed and language softened. If optimism creeps in, believing that concerns are merely unfounded, management may find themselves in a blind spot. Leaders must actively seek out uncomfortable truths, persistently asking, "What is the worst-case scenario?" rather than seeking reassurance with, "Is everything okay now?"
Secondly, it is crucial to guard against vague optimism and to simultaneously plan for both the best and worst-case scenarios. While optimism can drive business forward, it can also be a deadly poison in a legal crisis. The belief that "we haven't done anything wrong, so it will be fine" is a natural self-defense mechanism, but in court, the outcome is determined by provable facts rather than the truth itself. Focusing solely on the best possible outcome is akin to gambling.
If decisions are based only on favorable outcomes, judgment will inevitably skew. Considering the potential impact of unfavorable results on the company, employees, and stakeholders will deepen the preparation for any given choice. Efforts should be made for the best outcome, but a contingency plan for when things do not go as expected must also be developed.
Thirdly, initial responses should not be left to the intuition of non-experts. Relying on instinct or internal non-experts for initial responses is like searching symptoms on a search engine for an emergency patient. Decisions about what to preserve, whom to consult, and how to communicate externally will shape the overall direction of the case. If there is an in-house legal team, they should be consulted, and depending on the gravity of the situation, the objective perspective of external experts should also be included to safeguard the critical initial response.
At some point in this process, the issue of 'who to consult' naturally arises. Legal issues are often too complex to resolve internally, and at some point, collaboration with external experts becomes necessary. When selecting a lawyer, several practical criteria can be considered.
First, lawyers who guarantee good results without reservation should be scrutinized. Regardless of their extensive legal experience, no one can predict the outcome of a case with certainty. A lawyer who prioritizes what the client wants to hear is difficult to trust.
A lawyer who addresses not only the strengths of a case but also its weaknesses and burdens is more valuable to management than one with a flashy resume or connections. Additionally, caution should be exercised regarding lawyers who have prominent names but do not actively engage in the case. While dividing responsibilities among a team is not inherently problematic, it is wise to verify whether the named lawyer is genuinely involved in the case.
Next, assessing a lawyer's competence through feedback from fellow professionals is often more accurate. Just as colleagues in the medical field know which doctors excel in diagnosis and surgery, a lawyer's abilities are typically revealed among peers. When a family member faces a serious illness, one tends to ask all known doctors for recommendations; similarly, evaluating a lawyer's reputation within the legal community, rather than relying on advertisements or past performance, is more reliable.
Finally, a competent lawyer is one who honestly acknowledges their limitations. A person who claims to handle every case alone is less effective than one who can distinguish their strengths and collaborates with others to find better solutions.
Up to this point, the discussion has been technical. However, managers need something beyond mere technical skills. Legal crises can threaten a company's reputation, the standing of its members, and the business and management philosophy built over time. Therefore, the person a manager should keep close is someone who understands what the company has protected and how it has come this far, rather than just a technician dealing with legal texts.
This person should sometimes deliver uncomfortable truths with clarity and, at other times, provide warm support, while considering the interplay of law, business, reputation, and people. This serves as a standard for clients and a commitment to oneself in the same line of work. Crises can strike anyone. Facing facts, discarding vague optimism, and recognizing the right people to have by your side are crucial for a company's survival in a legal crisis.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.