Scott Steinberg · Consultant, Analyst and Business Strategist
Publicity disputes ask whether a firm did what publicists do: pitched competently, briefed accurately, handled a crisis the way the discipline expects, and reported results that reflected what actually ran. Then there are concerns about defamation, crisis communications and reputation management that arise. A consultant to 3000+ brands and a regular presence on networks like ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC, Scott Steinberg knows this trade from both the pitching and the receiving side.
Expert reports, declarations, deposition and trial testimony on media relations practice, crisis communications response, reputation management, defamation, publicist and agency standard of care, spokesperson conduct, earned media and more.
Earned media cannot be bought or guaranteed, which makes almost every dispute here a question about process rather than outcome. The areas below address what competent process looks like.
Publicity engagements are often judged on effort and method rather than placement, because no firm controls an editor's decision. Disputes examine targeting, pitch quality, relationship depth, cadence and follow-through.
Testimony describes what a competent firm would have done for a client of that profile in that sector, and whether the activity record supports the fee charged.
Crisis matters examine speed of acknowledgement, holding statement quality, channel selection, stakeholder sequencing and whether the response reduced or extended the story's life.
Testimony addresses what crisis practice expected at each stage and whether the choices made were within the range a competent adviser would have recommended.
Client and firm disputes involve scope definition, staffing seniority against what was sold, conflict management between competing clients, and whether guarantees were made that the discipline cannot support.
Testimony establishes the baseline for engagements of that size and compares the conduct at issue against it.
Releases, media kits and background briefings carry factual claims that travel into published coverage, and disputes arise when the underlying facts do not support what was distributed.
Testimony addresses review and approval practice for announcements, who customarily verifies what, and how the process here compared.
Matters involve preparation and briefing practice, message discipline, whether an executive was equipped for the format, and who authorised statements made under pressure.
Testimony describes spokesperson preparation convention and whether the approach taken met it.
Announcement disputes involve embargo terms, exclusive arrangements with outlets, breaks and their consequences, and what obligations each side customarily assumes.
Testimony describes convention in that media segment and how the arrangement at issue departed from it.
Where the value of coverage is in dispute, methods range from advertising equivalency, which practitioners have largely abandoned, to reach and engagement models tied to observable business outcomes.
Testimony addresses which approach is defensible for the coverage at issue and what the figures actually support.
Reporting disputes concern whether coverage claimed was actually secured by the firm, how syndicated pickups were counted, and whether metrics presented to the client fairly represented the work done.
Testimony addresses measurement convention and identifies where a report inflated or misattributed results.
Pitch records, coverage logs and crisis timelines are the evidence these matters live on, and they are frequently held in individual inboxes rather than firm systems. Engagements are accepted from either side.
Written opinions on publicity practice, crisis communications, reputation management, defamation, online reviews and the value of coverage obtained.
Testimony on areas like how earned media actually works, which juries and judges frequently misjudge as controllable.
Responsive analysis of media valuation models, reach estimates and claims about what publicity could have achieved.
Non-testifying review of pitch and coverage records, crisis timelines and agency reporting, plus discovery scoping.
Scott Steinberg is an analyst, consultant and business trends expert with over 25 years of experience providing management and strategic consulting services to more than 3,000 businesses and brands ranging from startups to government agencies and Fortune 500 firms.
He has testified in sample areas including intellectual property — copyrights, trademarks and patents — patent infringement, marketing, branding, video games, mobile applications, consumer product development, and the growth and monetization of online distribution platforms.
He is the author of over 30 books and has published more than five thousand articles addressing areas including but not limited to marketing, technology, leadership, innovation, advertising, digital transformation, data privacy and social networks. He appears regularly on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC, and has led seminars and training programs for organizations including Wells Fargo, the PGA Tour, Century 21, Ford, Dell and Procter & Gamble.
His consulting work has been broadly recognized. He has served as a thought leader for the American Bar Association and Corporate Counsel magazine, and has received honors from the International Association for Scholastic Excellence, Fortune, and the 21st Century Icon Awards, among others.
A public relations expert witness addresses whether publicity and communications work met the standards of the discipline: how media relations were conducted, how a crisis was handled, whether an agency staffed and reported honestly, and what coverage obtained was actually worth. Engagements are accepted from claimant and defence sides alike.
Placement itself is not controllable, and any firm guaranteeing it is promising something the discipline cannot deliver. Disputes therefore centre on process: whether targeting, pitching, cadence and relationship work matched what a competent firm would have done for a client of that profile, and whether the activity justified the fee.
Generally advertising value equivalency, which multiplies column inches by ad rates, has been largely abandoned by practitioners and rarely survives cross-examination. More defensible approaches tie audience reach and engagement to observable business movement over the coverage window, though the causal link has to be argued rather than assumed.
Pitch correspondence, target lists, coverage logs, crisis timelines, approval chains for statements, agency activity reports and client communications. Much of it lives in individual inboxes rather than firm systems, which affects both preservation and discovery scoping.
Yes, and crisis work is a substantial share of it. Those matters examine acknowledgement speed, holding statement quality, channel and stakeholder sequencing, and whether the response shortened or extended the story, measured against what crisis practice expected at the time.
Initial conversations about scope, timing and conflicts are without charge. Helpful detail includes the engagement or incident at issue, the outlets involved and any expert disclosure deadline already set.
A conflicts check is run before any substantive discussion. An initial note listing the party names and a one-line description of the dispute is enough to start; please hold privileged or confidential material until the check clears.