Steve Wood, Ph.D. is joined by Sean Murphy, Practice Leader of CSI Critical Communications & Brent Turman, Partner with Bell Nunnally to talk about social media in the courtroom. Sean begins by talking about cameras in the courtroom and gives the example of the narrative around Donald Trump’s upcoming trials and his team’s request for allowing cameras in the courtroom. Brent shares how important public opinion can be in some trials and how that may influence the wording in different motions that the trial teams may file, even if that language may not be legally necessary but instead may be influential for the narrative in the traditional media and social media. The group offer their perspectives on the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial and how their legal teams did and did not leverage social media to influence the court of public opinion, as well as, how documentaries about different trials have an impact on the reputation of the litigants involved. Lastly, Steve, Sean, and Brent discuss other social media and public perception considerations that should be factored in when managing litigation.

Full Episode Transcript

 

[00:14] Steve

Welcome to the Litigation Psychology Podcast brought to you by Courtroom Sciences. Dr. Steve Wood. Exciting, uh, topic coming up today. I always enjoy talking about this, and who better to join me and to talk about social media in the courtroom is Sean Murphy. Sean is a practice leader of the CSI Critical Communications Department, and Sean and I have written on social media before. So, Sean, how are you?

[00:39] Sean

How you doing today? Steve, thanks for having me.

[00:43] Steve

I’m good. And then Brent Turman. Brent Turman is from Bell Nunnally. Brent’s been on the podcast a few times too. I always enjoy talking to Brent because he always brings a different twist to, to the topics because Brent, you do a lot of entertainment law and a lot of things in, in the media, and you, you rub elbows with a lot of people in the media. So, you’re always fun to have on as far as getting your opinion. So how are you today?

[01:06] Brent

Doing great. Thanks for having me.

[01:07] Steve

Yeah, absolutely. You know, and like I said, today I want to talk about social media. Social media in the courtroom, social media outside the courtroom, and just really dive deep into all the different factors that are going on with social media and how that plays out. You know, but I want to talk about first and foremost, this kind of grew out of a conversation Sean and I had about cameras in the courtroom. You know, and Sean, I want you to talk a little bit about Trump and Trump’s recent litigation that’s going on and kind of the battle that’s been going on as cameras in the courtroom, and really talk a little bit about advantages, disadvantages, who wants them, who doesn’t, and just dive into that.

[01:43] Sean

Sure. Well, I mean, there’s a, a state case in Georgia where cameras are allowed, so it’s going to happen there once that trial occurs. Um, the debate is occurring in right now in terms of the federal trials that he’s facing and, uh, the one in Washington where he’s saying, uh, where, well, the federal rules are you can’t have cameras in the courtroom. Uh, there have been prominent prosecutors, uh, Neal Katyal, um, Andrew Weissman, calling for cameras in the, in the courtroom, you know, saying that the rule should be changed for this because there needs to be daylight around this trial so that people can see the evidence for themselves, right? And, and see the truth, uh, firsthand.

Um, Trump recently got on board with that, and his team filed a, um, their own papers to, uh, have that, that trial televised. And he’s saying in his rallies that he wants, you know, he wants him televised too. But I think what you have here is two, two different sets of objectives. I think on the one hand you’ve got, uh, good and well-intentioned prosecutors who think that, you know, people will objectively look at this evidence and arrive at, you know, the same conclusion that they expect a fair jury to arrive at. Uh, what they’re not taking into account is I think several things. One is Trump’s ability to manipulate public opinion, and you see how he’s doing this in his New York case. He shows up for trial on the days when he wants to change the headline, right? When he wants the stories to be about his statement or his conduct in the courtroom or anything but the evidence that’s being presented that day.

So even without a camera in the courtroom, you know, he’s very skilled at, um, managing the media around what’s going on with his trial. With cameras in the courtroom, you still have that plus you have the situation where, um, you know, uh, to I would say people with biases can hear the same information and hear it in a way that confirms their bias, right? So, it’s not an objective jury that would be watching, it’s people who, an army of people in particularly in his case, who are already biased to his point of view and his position. And they’re going to look for evidence and going to cherry-pick evidence, um, that, uh, supports that and use that and all of the channels that they have in social media, um, to, to make that seem like that’s the story, that that’s the evidence.

Now Trump himself is saying, “Yeah, let’s, let’s have cameras in the courtroom because I want the light of day and all of that,” but I think what he realizes is that it’s not going to happen. That, you know, it would be unprecedented for cameras to be in a federal courtroom. So, what he is putting in the question is then the fairness of the process. Will justice be done? And so that I think is what, what’s happening there. It’s like it’s gamesmanship around having cameras in the courtroom, and no matter what happens, cameras are not, there’s going to be a litigation communication strategy to, to make sure that the court of public opinion is being influenced in one way.

[05:04] Steve

Yeah, I think that’s interesting. You know, talking about, we had talked before about the Bryan Kohberger case out of the, out of Idaho where he’s currently on trial for, for four murders. And one of the things, the battles that’s being fought right now is prosecution, defense don’t want cameras in the courtroom. Media kind of wants cameras in the courtroom because they want the First Amendment right to be able to show it, to show what’s going on in there. And then the judge is kind of begrudgingly keeping the cameras in the courtroom, but he’s upset with the way stuff is being used in social media. You know, and that goes to your point I think, Sean, about how things can be cut and used and misconstrued or used in a certain way to build around a base.

You know, Brent, and I want to talk to you a little bit about, I mean you’ve, I think you’ve had some experiences before where you’ve had cases that almost got cameras in the courtroom. Have you had experiences? What has been, what’s been your experience with cameras in the courtroom, trying to defend a case with that kind of looming over you?

[06:00] Brent

So, a couple things. Even if you don’t have cameras in the courtroom, a lot of times depending on who you represent, whether it’s a prominent figure, a prominent company, a team, anything like that, there are eyeballs on you, right? When you file something with the district clerk and it goes up there on Pacer, people see it. It is part of the media and so that’s part of the strategy whether you have cameras physically on you or not. You know, people are watching and you may also, like I said we talked earlier, have those two wars, right? The public opinion and then obviously the, the legal issues, right? Sometimes the public opinion is very important for that client—that client’s bottom line, their well-being, their business, right?

And so, a lot of times there are times where you’re gonna include language, include phrases, include arguments in your motion that you think might get picked up by the media, you think tell the story. And it may not be the things that are crucially, legally necessary for that particular motion, but you want to make sure they get in there. And then with the, we, we dodged, uh, cameras in the media one, uh, we’ve talked about before, the 50 Shades of Grey case where we strategically decided to go under the radar and it would have been a spectacle. Um, but it actually happened. The trial happened the same week as the Chris Kyle American Sniper trial as well, so all eyes were over there and we were able to stay under the radar, uh, for our client’s benefit.

[07:20] Steve

Yeah, I think that’s interesting that you bring up about just the fact that, you know, that the petitions or complaints documentation might get out into the public sphere, that you have to actually have to put thought behind, “Hey, if this gets out, if this, what is this going to look like on Twitter, X, or social media just in general,” right?

[07:37] Brent

Yeah, you got to think about what’s going to be in the Sports Business Journal the next day or whatever the, the appropriate trade is. Definitely, that needs to be a consideration, and you’re not fully serving your clients if you aren’t thinking about that.

[07:49] Steve

You know, and I don’t want to delve too much and rehash kind of the, the Amber Heard Johnny Depp thing, but Sean, I do want to kick it over to you and I do want to get your opinion, Brent, on some of this. How the media can play an influence. You know, I want to touch a kind of high level on it because I know we’ve done a podcast before about it, but just kind of how not only necessarily the media leading up to it, but what’s going on during the trial and what’s going on as far as how things are being positioned and, you know, one side versus the other and how they’re positioning that.

[08:22] Sean

Yeah, so I think what we saw on that trial is that, um, you know, Johnny Depp’s team came fully prepared to use all of the levers that were available to them to manage public opinion around that trial. So, um, you know, we’ve seen retrospective reports, for example, the one done by, um, Bot Sentinel that, um, women who tweet, tweeted in support of Amber were attacked relentlessly. Twitter trolls would swarm the, the tweets of women who tweeted positively about Amber Heard and often used vulgar and threatening language. So, there you saw, um, because that trial was televised, because they had clips to use, uh, you saw, um, certain testimony being highlighted and other testimony being pushed aside, uh, so that people wouldn’t see it, right?

And so, you know, with a very savvy social media strategy, you know, Depp’s team was able to, um, really influence the court of public opinion. When you look at, uh, how influential social media is, I mean Pew released a report yesterday that said that a third of adults between 18 and 29, um, get their news from TikTok. So that’s, you know, that’s a platform that uses, you know, that relies on video, right? Um, other platforms like X and Facebook are down in terms of, um, who gets to the news from there, but still a substantial number, number of people.

So, you know, the issue there was in the Depp trials that he was on the offense, she was always on the defense. And it’s like they were prepared on a day-to-day, hand-to-hand combat basis, uh, to put out the videos that supported, you know, his position, his point of view and deposition her, you know, kind of paint him more positively and pick out all the negative things that, you know, occurred her end on the trial and highlighting them to deflect from the negative testimony about him. Because if actually you look at the testimony about both of it, none of it’s flattering, right? Yet nonetheless, he came out of it, you know, with his career somewhat, you know, resuscitated and revived. And, you know, she had to, she had to take a lower profile for a period of time. So, um, a lot, you know, that in that case as Brent is indicating, you’re talking about two public figures who, whose livelihood relies on the reputation, right? And their brand.

[11:10] Steve

Yeah, Brent, and like I said, that, that was an interesting—I know there’s been tons of podcasts on it, there’s even a documentary on, on that. And even in that documentary, they touch a lot on the social media portion. You know, now everybody’s become really savvy as far as true, true crime podcasts, true crime documentaries. You know, so you have a lot of well-informed, well-intentioned people. But I think it goes back to what Sean had said too is even these well-informed, well-intentioned people that watched the whole trial were very, very pro-Johnny and very, very anti-Amber. But I think it goes back to what, what Sean talks about is there was this kind of narrative of you, if, if you said anything positive towards Amber, you were going to get shot down or you were going to get harassed. So, I think a lot of people said, “I don’t want any part of that,” so they just kind of stay out of it.

I guess I just kind of from an attorney’s perspective, thinking about being in a situation like that, I mean is, those, those are the things that you have to consider or those are the things that you’re thinking about? You know, as you’re progressing through trial, I mean, I know you’re focusing on the trial, you’re focusing on other things, but what is that you’re also having to put back? You know, how do you handle that social media as you’re trying to focus on the case, but you also got to focus on the other stuff?

[12:15] Brent

Yeah, you don’t want it to be a distraction, and a lot of things were definitely sensationalized here. I know, I don’t know about your feeds, I saw a lot of poop emojis, I saw a lot of people talking about mega pints, I saw a lot of people imitating her, talking about her dog getting stung by a bee over and over and over.

But with that, it’s important to think about—I mean, the, the, the judge, you know, they had their instructions and they aren’t always followed. You know, for example, one witness, one fact witness couldn’t testify because she had been watching clips and summaries online leading up to it. You know, the rule, fact witness can’t be observing other testimony, for you think of reasons why that rule’s there, right? Yeah. Um, on top of that too, it’s important to remember—I don’t want to make it selfish about the attorneys, but you are always on camera, right? I, I learned from young age the jury is always looking at you. When the other side is scoring points on cross-examination, you aren’t vigorously taking notes and scrambling like, “How am I gonna respond to this?” You’re being cool, calm, collected. You might even act like nothing’s going on and you’re maybe a little bored, right? Still respectful, but bored.

And then also it was very important, uh, one thing—so I was on a panel last year with Chanley Painter from Court TV, who is amazing by the way, and she said she talked to the jurors afterwards and their impression of the attorneys was really interesting. On Amber Heard’s side, it was cold, it felt like nobody liked each other. And on Johnny Depp’s side, you could feel the chemistry. They were happy to be in each other’s presence. Like, you don’t want to be too jokey, you need to take it, don’t take it lightly, but you could tell they enjoyed being around each other and they liked their client. All of those things play into it, and all those things too were highlighted on social media as well. I know some of those celebr—some of those attorneys became celebrities after that case.

[14:04] Steve

That’s what always fascinates me. I mean, depending on the case. You know, I told you before we got on, I actually have Court TV on in the background watching another case with Chanley Painter on actually. But I mean, I think it’s interesting on some of these cases that sometimes the attorneys are the focal point or they get, you know, they get focus and visibility and then other ones they don’t. But I think, you know, that is another interesting thing that I see is sometimes the attorneys just get as much face time as what the clients do. You know, so I think it goes back to your point is always understanding that you’re going to be on camera and that you could become part of it as well, part of the conversation. And to your point, some of these, you know, like Jose Baez and those from other cases are now become commentators on different law programs based upon their trials and the, the media attention that it got. So, you know, I think always thinking about that.

You know, but I want to—go ahead, Sean.

[14:58] Sean

I was going to say that, you know, in her case, we talked about I think before what, what went wrong, but just a one point about what she might have done. You know, I read subsequent to the case that a lot, the evidence that was allowed in her UK case was not allowed in this, in the US case. And to the extent that it was, you know, allowable by law, let’s say, you know, um, a strategy for her would be to put out that evidence in social media and other settings, um, to get that side of the story out. If she couldn’t introduce it in the courtroom, as long as there was no, you know, issue legally, she could have introduced it into the court of public opinion and influenced back, right? Had something to push back with.

[15:42] Steve

And I think that’s, that’s a good segue into what I want to talk about—we’ll start with Brent on this one—but we’re talking about documentaries. So, there was an Amber Heard, there was a Johnny Depp Amber Heard documentary that was, that was out that talked a lot about social media. Then at the tail end of that, you know, there was discussion about some additional information that the jurors didn’t see which would have changed the perceptions. You know, but I want to, you know, there’s, there’s several documentaries out there now. You know, we had just talked that there, “Take Care of Maya,” that the Maya Kowalski case had just now finished, uh, with a $261 million verdict. 211 in compensatories and 50 million in punitives. And there was a documentary on that. You know, I want to talk a little bit about how these documentaries sometimes can spin narratives as well too, that maybe you’re not getting the full piece of the puzzle that you didn’t get in the trial, but what it’s doing though is kind of enraging or educating people, but in a more biased view. So, Brent, I want to talk a little bit about that documentary and kind of what your thoughts are.

[16:44] Brent

Yeah, definitely. And so, I, I saw that documentary recently and with it—my first career was in film and television. I know the power of a camera. I know the power of being the editor. There’s probably more power there, right? And so, you give me, for example, uh, direct examination, cross-examination, I can make a 30-second clip making that person look like an angel or a devil, right? It all depends on what I want it to look like. So here we’re talking about documentaries. A lot of times they’re biased. Yeah, they are. Maybe that’s on the viewer for assuming they’re not going to be. You assume it’s just, you know, news because it’s a documentary, not a narrative feature, right? But with that, a filmmaker has his or her vision and they are putting it out there, right? And so, I, I think, um, for obviously there was a purpose for creating that documentary and there was a narrative and there was a message filmmakers wanted to get out there and I think they did. It’s, it’s a gut-wrenching film. Again, I saw it last week when you brought it to my attention. I’d heard of it before, hadn’t seen it yet. It is a gut-wrenching film. And it’d be hard to leave watching that and have your opinion be right down the middle.

[17:58] Steve

Yeah. And Sean, we talk about how potential jurors and whether or not they’ve seen things ahead of time or whether or not they’ve seen tweets and posts and they, you know, they’re instructed to not look at any of those things. But I mean, from a realistic perspective, from a communications perspective, what’s kind of your thoughts on whether or not you can stay away from those or be, be open-minded after seeing any of that stuff?

[18:14] Sean

Well, as we know, they’re not supposed to, right? But um, we are inundated with information everywhere we go. And, um, you know, people, um, have their favorite sources of information. And also, it’s not just what they may see directly, it’s the people who they interact with and what they’re seeing and what they’re saying to them and the influence that others in their circle may have on them. So, it is critically important, uh, to manage perceptions in the court of public opinion to at least play for a tie, you know? If you want that kind of neutral environment that’s ideal for a trial. Um, so it’s, it’s critically important and that, that’s why you have to have a litigation communication strategy as part of your trial strategy, especially in a high-profile case. You don’t want to leave that to chance.

[19:12] Steve

No. And I think it’s important, you know, and I don’t want to push blame towards the defense on, you know, from John Hopkins on that case though. I mean, I guess the question is, Sean, going off, you know, put you on the spot here a little bit, I mean, what are your thoughts as far as whether you, if you know that documentary is out there and you know people have seen it, you know people have gotten opinions now and they’re very strong because if, like to to what Brent said, you can’t watch that and not be pissed off at the hospital. But if you watch the trial, there’s a lot more nuance to it. There’s a lot more information to it that’s not necessarily portrayed in the documentary. So how do you handle that? I mean, is that something that you say, “We know there’s a documentary out there that doesn’t shine a good light on us, should we try to add additional, uh, information, or should we just say let’s not worry about it and move forward and hope that’s not influential?” Because jurors aren’t supposed to see it anyway, and anybody who would have saw the documentaries is never making it on the panel?

[20:07] Sean

Right, and so I think that, uh, in that case, I mean, in terms of the trial itself, you know, like you said, you know who makes it onto the panel. But I think you might have, in case you need it, a strategy around de-positioning the documentary, you know, making it, positioning it as being biased. Why it’s biased and what information is missing from there. Calling it into question, uh, if it becomes, you know, a point of contention, if it becomes something that is critical to your case. Yeah, you need a strategy around that and it’s possible to do that. So, it’s all about positioning yourself and de-positioning the other, right? And so that’s the opportunity. And if you, uh, have a legitimate case and you can poke holes in the documentary or show where it’s biased, then you should be prepared to do that.

[20:54] Steve

And I think that’s, that’s a good thing. And I don’t know if either one of you have watched, watched the Making a Murderer, the Maker a Murderer of a documentary that was popular probably, I don’t know, five years ago or so, you know, that about Steven Avery and how everyone is Justice for Steven Avery. And, and the thing going back to your point, Brent, about how things can be cut to really look biased one way or the other. I mean, I’ll admit after watching that, I thought he was completely set up, he was completely innocent and all this.

But then you have, going back to what Sean is talking about, you have what’s called Convicting a Murderer, which is out on Daily Wire, um, that Candace Owens produced or edited or whatever she ended up doing. Um, she had her involvement in there. Um, but she presents more of the other side or more of a fuller picture of evidence that was left out of the documentary, evidence that wasn’t necessarily presented in the documentary. And I got to tell you, after watching that, my opinion of whether or not he’s guilty has changed. Um, I think, but it’s going back to a point where you have this really skewed narrative, and then when you get more piece to the puzzle, now you have a more fuller picture. Now you can make a decision. And if you still look at it and say, say he, he’s innocent, then fine, but at least you’ve looked at both sides versus just having it be biased one way or the other.

[22:06] Sean

Yeah, I think part of the issue is that the word documentary implies fairness, right? It implies that there’s been, you know, a team of investigators who have done their due diligence and have unearthed information that’s, you know, very viable and that people should hear and that it’s fair and that it takes in account both sides, right? But, uh, that’s why you, you know, you start by saying that’s not a documentary, right? It’s a, it is a, it’s an opinion piece, uh, and then explain why.

[22:38] Steve

And yeah, and I think it goes back, you know, talking about, you know, winning, winning the court of public opinion. You know, Brent, we had talked about, you know, Mike Lindell’s deposition about when, you know, when you win the court of public opinion versus whether or not you win the case. I want you to talk a little bit about how as an attorney you have to kind of balance those types of things too. Because in your mind, you’re thinking, “Oh my gosh, please stop,” but in his mind, he’s probably thinking, “No, this is what I have to do to protect my brand.”

[23:06] Brent

In his mind, he wants you to know that those pillows are not lumpy, right? So, with the, yeah. Um, as an attorney, I, I don’t like for my, uh, clients to act in that manner when they’re being deposed. If you haven’t seen the footage, I would encourage you to go look at it on YouTube or yeah, whatever social media you want to see. It’s entertaining for sure. But he was defending his company, right? He was defending the brand and the company. And I think for the people who are already on his side, it’s like a rallying cry, right? It’s like, “Yes, stand up for him,” you know, “stand up for yourself.” And so again, it’s, it’s different because I come from a different place. I’m gonna view his conduct there and his deposition testimony differently than who I think his intended audience was. I think they’re going to like it.

[23:54] Steve

Yeah, and I think that’s another thing too is where you think about intended audience, and you could go back to Trump and it can go back to, to a lot of other people about it’s not necessarily about winning the legal case, it’s about protecting the brand. Um, but I think it also can be dangerous though. I don’t think we, you know, it’s a slippery slope, Brent, though, wouldn’t you agree into getting to normal everyday fact witnesses or, you know, 30b6 that aren’t going to go out on social media, that aren’t well known like Mike Lindell, to feel like they have to go in and try to defend and do the exact same thing too. Because it’s a different area.

[24:27] Brent

100 percent. And even when it is time to, you know, defend yourself in the, uh, the public battle, right? Legal needs to be primary, right? That needs to be number one. Uh, and so that’s the way I always operate. And and to the extent that we are able to without hurting our legal position, yeah, let’s get the story out there.

[24:44] Steve

Yeah, Sean, what are your thoughts on that as far as, you know, trying to win the battle but you lose the, the legal battle but you win the, the public battle?

[24:54] Sean

Right. So, I think Brent is right. I mean, first that any litigation communication strategy is supposed to support the trial strategy, right? It’s supposed to amplify the trial strategy and the messaging for the trial. Um, my fear is that, you know, people taking a look at the conduct and behavior of, of some of these people, uh, uh, thinking that should become the norm, right? And so, but, but I don’t think what they’re recognizing is kind of the special circumstance of these people and the situations that they’re in.

Um, you know, it’s been said about Trump that his, his strate—he has one strategy basically that the evidence, you know, when you listen to the prosecutors, right, the ex-prosecutors, the evidence seems to be so overwhelming that his chance at trial is difficult. So, his best opportunity is to become president again and make the federal cases at least go away, right? So, you know, he hasn’t said that, but, you know, would seem to be that that’s the strategy that’s at play right now, right? Because he is playing almost entirely to the court of public opinion and sometimes it’s reported, uh, against the advice of his lawyers, right? Uh, so but look at the stakes there, uh, for the nation, for him, and look at, uh, you know, look at his goal. So, um, you know, but so that’s part of the reason why that’s an exceptional case and that others, uh, shouldn’t feel that they’re going to get the same treatment.

I mean, you read, and hear day after day that, you know, his postings are being challenged as, you know, threatening to witnesses and others, and it’s always this caveat: “Anyone else would be like in jail,” or “Anyone else would be suffering some sort of consequence from the judge,” right? So um, I think that the larger issue is what is the impact on ordinary litigation and people and thinking that this somehow might save them in their situation, and it’s just not. It’s just not. There’s not many like situations to that.

[27:10] Steve

Yeah, agree. Brent, I’ll give you the last word on this too because I think you know you have a, a unique insight on that is what would be your kind of advice for attorneys who are having to go through these cases that potentially may have exposure, may have cameras, may have a lot of eyeballs on them? I mean, what, how do you, what would you tell them in order to how to approach it?

[27:33] Brent

It takes a lot more diligence and a lot more time because again, we talked about it’s two battles, right? Normally you have one set of things to think about. You got to make sure those are taken care of and then also go further. When we’re thinking about the media, also, it’s going to depend a lot on the temperament of your client, whether he or she can be on good behavior or not and take instruction. They don’t always do what we, what we suggest they do. And so, it’s just being more prepared, even more prepared than some of the toughest cases you’ve had that did not involve that aspect.

[28:06] Steve

Yeah, I think that’s interesting. Like you said, you have some of them who won’t, won’t take your advice and stuff. I guess you have an uphill battle to try to explain to them about how detrimental it could be to their case though for them to be like that, right? And maybe it’s just that goes back to certain individuals where you say, “I don’t care, it’s about protecting my brand whether or not I lose millions that’s fine because my, my perception, my public persona is more important.”

[28:31] Brent

All depends on how big the, the name and the ego is. Not just the celebrities, some other people who are not in the limelight the same way.

[28:39] Steve

Well, I think that’s another point too that we don’t, we don’t—it doesn’t necessarily have to be about celebrities. It can be about other CEOs of, of large corporations, right? That may not, may not necessarily be in the headlines, but their, their cases are in the headlines. And you know, their, their, their personality, temperaments and stuff too are going to be a little bit strong, almost like the, the p—the celebrities in that. And having to deal with those too. But having a game plan, to your point, understanding and how it can influence stakeholders, right?

Sean, I mean, I think that’s one other thing, you know, just to close the loop on that, is stakeholders is one other important thing I don’t think enough people talk about, right? Especially if you’re CEOs and or your heads of organizations, that how the, the litigation pans out could influence your, your business bottom line.

[29:26] Sean

Without a doubt. And you know, a lot of CEOs are unaccustomed to being told no, right? Or to be put in situations where they’re challenged. Um, and so yeah, I think you can get a reaction that undermines your case at times unless you listen to counsel and are really well prepared, right? Um, because what is at stake? Well, if you’re a public company, it’s all those institutions that own your company, and many of them are more forward-thinking these days about social issues and other things. And so, you know, they’re going to be demanding of you that your, that your company’s conduct be, you know, exemplary, right? Um, and then there’s your employees themselves. Uh, again, in a world where people are getting information from lots of sources, what are they hearing about your company on social media, right? And how does it impact their performance? And what are they saying about your company? You know, are they—are they repeating what you hope they would say about the company, or they buying into a different narrative that is—that is damaging to your company? You see a lot of labor unrest these days. You know, a bunch of Starbucks workers walked out on Red Cup Day today, right? Um, because they’re dissatisfied with what’s going on with that—with—with them and their company. So, uh, yes, you have to always take into account the impact of your conduct on your stakeholders and how they’re going to hold you accountable.

[30:54] Steve

Brent, do you have to—do you have to monitor social media for your clients and stuff? As far as—not monitoring to make sure they’re not doing anything, but I mean, is it—is it kind of an—one thought of yours to try to keep an eye on what’s being said in social media about your clients?

[31:06] Brent

We make sure we know what’s going on. We don’t necessarily tell people or companies how to manage their social media, but we—we don’t—we—we don’t want to get blindsided by something that’s out there.

[31:13] Steve

And that’s more what I meant. Yeah, not necessarily saying from a legal perspective, “Don’t say this.” It’s more or less, though, that you’re informed about what the public narrative is being said about your clients, though. Have to in this day and age, right?

[31:25] Brent

Mmhm.

[31:27] Steve

All right. Well, I can talk for you guys for a little bit longer, but I think I’m going to cut you loose. Uh, I appreciate the conversation. I always enjoy having both you on, uh, because I think you bring definitely different perspectives that I think can be useful for—for the listeners. So once again, Brent Turman, Bell Nunnally, appreciate it. Sean Murphy from Courtroom Sciences, for our Critical Communications Department, appreciate both of you guys. Make sure you go to our website, courtroomsciences.com. All our blogs, posts, everything’s up there. Feel free to reach out to any of us. Uh, if you need to get a hold of any of them, feel free to reach out to me and I can get a hold of them. Um, this has been another edition of the Litigation Psychology Podcast brought to you by Courtroom Sciences.

Be confident in achieving superior litigation outcomes. CSI has the expertise, track record, and capabilities to help you win.

Talk to an Expert