In recent years, we have been engaged by consumer-facing businesses in Malaysia, including established F&B brand, following the emergence of viral videos and online content involving their outlets, products and/or staff. In several of these matters, what began as a single video, often recorded and shared without context, quickly escalated into widespread public reaction, and reputational pressure. Issues that were once confined to private correspondence or ‘discussion’ can now, within hours, become matters of public scrutiny.
From a litigation perspective, our role in PR and reputational crisis management is shaped by what we see later in Courts and dispute resolution. Our experience in advising F&B brands on public communications during such crises allows us to assist Clients at the earliest stage, aligning legal strategy with messaging to address public concern while containing risk and preserving their legal position.
Lessons from Our Experience: Why Early Legal Involvement Matters
In matters involving viral content, public statements, clarifications and/or apologies are often issued under intense pressure. In later proceedings, those same statements may be scrutinised for:-
- Admissions of liability;
- Inconsistencies;
- Assumptions of fact not yet established; or
- Language that widens the scope of potential claims; or
- Statement perceived as evasive and/or defensive, further aggravating public sentiment.
Because we act regularly in disputes after crises have unfolded, our involvement in PR and reputational crisis management is informed by an understanding of how early communications are later examined in court, investigations, and settlement negotiations. Our goal at this important early stage is to ‘de-escalate’ the situation, protect the reputation of the business, while carefully preserving the strongest possible legal position for any dispute resolution. This experience shapes how we advise Clients at the outset, often focusing as much on what should not be said as on what must be said.
In PR or reputational crises, it is also important to recognise that not every situation should be met immediately with a legal threat. While issuing a Letter of Demand may be appropriate in some cases, we do not take the view that it is always the right first step. In practice, sending legal letters too early, particularly while public attention is still building, can sometimes amplify the issue, or be perceived as heavy-handed, worsening the reputational impact rather than containing it. Part of our role is to help Clients assess whether legal escalation will genuinely de-escalate the situation, or whether alternative responses are more effective at that stage.
A Practical Framework We Have Seen Work
Based on matters we have handled, effective crisis management typically involves a structured approach:-
(a) Initial Briefing
The business briefs us on what has occurred, what has circulated publicly, and any immediate concerns, to allow legal and reputational risks to be identified early.
(b) Risk Assessment
We focus first on protecting the business’s reputation, while making sure that all related legal risks are properly taken care of. Where circumstances require, we arrange round-the-clock availability, including weekends and public holidays, to address urgent legal and reputational issues.
(c) Alignment of Legal Strategy and Communication
Where a public response is necessary, we assist in drafting statements, clarifications, or apologies that address public concern without further angering the public and increasing legal risks.
(d) Damage Containment
At this stage, our sole focus is on calming the situation early, showing that the issue is being taken seriously, and preventing further escalation, and may involve prompt internal action, carefully timed communications, or engagement with authorities or relevant parties, always with a view to addressing public concern without worsening reputational impact or compromising the Client’s legal position.
(e) Ongoing Management
As the situation develops, advice is adjusted to ensure consistency between public messaging and legal strategy.
In practice, the effectivenessof this framework lies not in the ‘steps’ themselves, but in judgment, timing, and execution, which cannot be replicated mechanically.
Managing Expectations: Scope, Duration, and Cost
In our experience, one of the most common Client concerns during such crisis is “uncertainty”, and “the pressure to respond immediately” particularly around how long legal involvement is required and what it will cost. For this reason, we address these issues at the outset.
At the initial meeting stage, we typically discuss, (1) the likely scope of work, (2) whether our involvement is expected to be short-term (14 days) or ongoing, and (3) the budget and fee structure, tailored to the Client’s needs and the nature of the situation. This allows our Clients to make informed decisions under pressure, with clarity on what to expect.
Importantly, crisis response requires more than generic guidance. While AI tools, including Chatgpt, “may assist with general understanding”, they are not a substitute for formal legal advice that carries professional responsibility and Malaysian professional indemnity insurance-backed accountability. Our Clients are therefore supported by lawyers who stand fully accountable for the advice given and the decisions made during these critical moments.
Note: This article is provided solely for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
