Media Influence and Litigators' Strategic Communication: A Mixed Methods Exploration in the Legal Field

This research delves into the strategic behaviors of litigators, specifically examining their perceptions of media influence and its impact on legal strategies, particularly in cases with high media attention. The study introduces the Presumed Media Influence (PMI) model to conceptualize how litigators incorporate media considerations into their professional strategies. Our main hypotheses explore the relationship between litigators' perceptions of media influence and their strategic choices, including ethical considerations and resource allocation. Employing a Mixed Methods approach, the qualitative phase involves in-depth interviews with eight Israeli litigators, leading to the development of the PMI model. The quantitative phase includes a survey of 222 litigators, revealing insights into media perception, litigation strategies, and regional variations. The findings highlight the nuanced connections between media perception and litigators' behavior in managing media coverage, shedding light on differences between peripheral and central litigators. The study contributes to the theoretical understanding of litigators' interactions with the media, emphasizing the strategic nature of these interactions. The quantitative results establish statistical relationships between media perception and various dependent variables, while qualitative insights provide depth to the motivations and decision-making processes of litigators. The integration of both approaches enhances our understanding of the dynamics between litigators, the media, and the legal process. Notably, the study challenges prevailing assumptions, revealing that the perception of media influence does not invariably lead to an increased pursuit of media attention. Instead, the research underscores the complexity of the relationship between media perception and communication strategies, influenced by contextual factors and strategic considerations that vary across different situations. The criminal field emerges as a key area where media influence holds particular significance, attributing this importance to the novelty of media practices within the field and the dense network between criminalist litigators and the media. In conclusion, this research significantly contributes to the literature on mediatization by providing a fresh perspective on the perception of media influence in the legal field. By unveiling the multifaceted nature of the interplay between media perception and communication efforts, the study enhances our understanding of how litigators strategically navigate the media landscape in high-profile cases.