The top litigation communications firms, and how the digital layer gets run
The short answer
For a matter where the courtroom and the headlines run in parallel, the firms most consistently retained are Reevemark, Brunswick Group, FGS Global, TLG Communications and Trident GMG, with Kessler PR Group and Infinite Global ranked alongside them on specialised matters. That shortlist tracks Chambers’ Litigation PR & Communications USA rankings, published in June 2026 and the closest thing the discipline has to an independent league table.
Litigation communications is its own discipline, not a subgenre of crisis PR. This guide covers how the ranked firms compare, how the work differs from general crisis management, how to choose, and the half of the fight that now happens in search results and AI answers. For the broader crisis landscape, see our companion guide to the leading crisis communications firms.
The leading firms, compared
| Firm | Strongest on | Profile |
|---|---|---|
| Reevemark | Securities litigation, activism and regulatory matters | New York special-situations firm founded in 2018; Band 1 in Chambers’ latest litigation and crisis rankings |
| Brunswick Group | Disputes with a financial-markets or boardroom dimension | Global partnership; litigation sits inside a deep critical-issues bench |
| FGS Global | High-stakes commercial litigation and investigations | Carries the Sard Verbinnen special-situations heritage; deep US–Europe bench |
| TLG Communications | Precedent-setting, cross-border and regulatory matters | Washington-founded, formerly The Levinson Group; works both sides of the “v” |
| Trident GMG | Congressional and regulatory investigations, white-collar matters | Washington DC boutique founded in 2016 by media veterans and lawyers; formerly Trident DMG |
| Kessler PR Group | Sensitive institutional and high-profile individual matters | Senior-led firm with roots back to 1993; ranked by Chambers three years running |
| Infinite Global | Disputes involving law firms and professional services | Legal-sector DNA; advises a large share of the Am Law 100 alongside its litigation PR practice |
Beneath the ranked specialists, the generalist crisis firms covered in our companion guide, among them Joele Frank, Kekst CNC and FTI Consulting, all field litigation-capable teams, and are often the natural choice when the dispute is one front in a wider corporate situation.
How litigation communications differs from crisis work
Three structural differences separate this work from a normal crisis mandate.
The constraint is legal, not editorial. Sub judice rules, contempt risk in some jurisdictions and jury-pool sensitivity in the US mean every public statement is reviewable by opposing counsel and can end up as an exhibit. General crisis work rewards speed and share of voice; the docket punishes both. The skill is saying exactly enough, at exactly the right moment, without prejudicing the case.
The work sits alongside privilege. Litigation communications firms are usually retained through counsel, so that strategy discussions have the best chance of protection. US courts have gone both ways on whether that protection holds for communications consultants, which is why the good firms run disciplined protocols: who is on which email, what gets written down, what is treated as discoverable. Anyone brought onto the matter, including digital specialists, has to work inside the same discipline.
The court of public opinion runs in parallel, and it never adjourns. A major matter can run for years. While the courtroom moves at the docket’s pace, the public record moves daily: coverage, commentary, filings read selectively, and now AI-generated summaries of all of it. Judges, regulators, employees, counterparties and prospective jurors all live in that parallel record, whatever the instructions say.
How to choose
- Run the conflict check first. Litigation PR is a small, concentrated field. In an industry dispute the leading firms may already be engaged on the other side, and finding out late costs weeks.
- Match the bench to the matter. A securities class action, a congressional investigation, a cross-border enforcement action and an IP dispute are different disciplines. Ask which partners have run your kind of matter, and who staffs it once the pitch team leaves.
- Weigh discretion over case studies. The strongest litigation firms cannot show you most of their work, by design. Take references through counsel rather than expecting a public portfolio.
- Ask about the digital half. What do Google, ChatGPT and Perplexity return on the case name, the parties and the executives involved? Which sources are the engines citing, and who is watching that daily? Most litigation firms are staffed for media strategy and counsel, not for this.
The half of the fight that happens in search and AI answers
The moment a matter is filed, the case name and the party names become search queries. Journalists on deadline, counterparties, employees, customers and prospective jurors do not read the docket; they search, and increasingly they ask an AI assistant. Those assistants synthesise filings and coverage into confident answers, and they get things wrong in ways that matter: a dismissed claim described as live, allegations presented as findings, a settlement with no admission of liability read back as one. We cover the mechanics of that failure, and who fixes it, in our guide to correcting wrong AI answers.
This layer is won with execution rather than statements: position and evidence pages structured so engines can quote them accurately, fast publication of rulings and filings in readable form, paid media timed to hearings and decisions, and per-engine measurement of what each assistant actually says about the matter. It persists, too. The AI-generated account of a case can outlive the case itself, which makes the digital record part of the remedy, not an afterthought.
Where Morris McLane fits
Morris McLane is not a litigation communications firm and does not compete with the firms on this list. We are the digital execution layer that works alongside them and alongside counsel, under NDA and privilege-aware protocols, as part of our crisis and litigation support work: search and AI-answer visibility on the matter, rapid evidence and position sites that can publish within hours of a ruling, paid media around hearings and decisions, and per-engine monitoring of what ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity say about the case and the parties. The litigation firm keeps strategy, counsel keeps control of the record; we make sure the search and AI layer reflects it. If you are a firm or counsel on a live matter, start here.
Frequently asked questions
Who are the top litigation communications firms?
In Chambers' latest Litigation PR & Communications USA rankings, the most consistently recognised firms are Reevemark, Brunswick Group, FGS Global, TLG Communications and Trident GMG, with Kessler PR Group and Infinite Global also ranked. The right choice depends on the matter: securities litigation, congressional investigations, cross-border disputes and law-firm reputation issues reward different benches, and conflicts often decide the shortlist before anything else does.
How is litigation PR different from crisis communications?
Litigation communications runs on the court's timetable, not the news cycle. Sub judice constraints and counsel's litigation strategy limit what can be said and when, work is often routed through lawyers to protect privilege, and the audiences include judges, juries, regulators and opposing parties as well as journalists. General crisis work optimises for speed and share of voice; litigation work optimises for saying exactly enough without prejudicing the case.
Is work with a litigation communications firm covered by legal privilege?
Sometimes, and never automatically. US courts have reached different conclusions on whether communications consultants fall within privilege or work-product protection, so counsel typically retain the firm directly, keep it inside the legal team's workflow, and treat every document as potentially discoverable. Any specialist working on a live matter, including digital and search-focused partners, should operate under the same privilege-aware protocols and assume nothing is protected by default.
What should a general counsel look for when choosing a litigation PR firm?
Four things. Conflicts: in concentrated sectors the leading firms are often already engaged on the other side. Bench depth on your matter type: securities class actions, congressional investigations and IP disputes are different disciplines. Discretion: the strongest references are the matters you never read about. And the digital half: ask who will monitor and manage what search engines and AI assistants return on the case and the parties, because most litigation firms do not staff that in-house.
Do litigation communications firms manage what ChatGPT and Google say about a case?
Rarely in-house. Most litigation PR firms are built around media strategy and senior counsel, not search infrastructure. Yet case names and party names become search queries the moment a matter is filed, and AI assistants now synthesise dockets and coverage into answers that can stay wrong long after a ruling. That layer, from per-engine measurement to fixing the source pages the engines draw on, is usually delivered by a specialist digital partner working under the lead firm's mandate.
