Solicitor a poor choice of spokesperson: Bindmans’ Neil O’May
It’s easy to understand why solicitors often find themselves doubling up as a client’s media spokesperson. It feels like a logical extension of their existing role communicating with other parties to a dispute and, if not representing their client in court, at least ensuring a barrister is fully briefed.
But the court of public opinion is very different to a court of law. We are not always assumed to be innocent until proven guilty and there are no well defined rules to govern our treatment or judge to ensure fair play. That is to say lawyers and public relations professionals operate in very different cultures.
It’s this clash of cultures that leads Bindmans’ Neil O’May to let his client down on Channel 4 News, where he was interviewed on Christopher Galley’s motivation for leaking confidential information to the Conservative Party.
Right from the start Neil O’May refers to this written statement. This might be okay when talking to a print journalist, but reading written statements out makes for poor television. Broadcasters may be forced into reading out statements from time to time, but they really don’t like it and this is why they will have be so keen on an interview.
Moreover, we can’t assume viewers will obtain the statement elsewhere, so a significant opportunity to get Christopher Galley’s position across is lost.
The statement is referred to time and time again, with O’May seemingly annoyed: ‘I don’t know if you’ve read it carefully’. His interviewer may well have read the statement carefully, but that’s of no use to the viewers who are basing their understanding of Galley’s motives on this interview. Referring to the statement appears to be O’May’s way of avoiding questions.
On the question of inducements offered to Christopher Galley by the Conservatives, O’May tells us: ‘The statement speaks for itself… [disparaging comment on press reports]… what I can say categorically is that no money changed hands… what has been stated in the statement is very clear.’
But what about other inducements? Here O’May ums and errs before refusing to answer and expressing the hope that we’ve all seen the statement. Switches like this, from categorical denial to ambiguity, are fatal in the court of public opinion where silence is too often taken as an admission of guilt; the very opposite of the courts of law in which O’May is trained to operate.
In fact, the statement makes no reference to allegations that Christopher Galley was offered some inducement to leak, so even those who take the time to find it will be left suspicious.
While this may not harm Galley’s legal position, it does nothing to support the political battle which may be just as – or even more – important to him.
Comments (No comments)
There are no comments on this post so far.
Post a comment