The media presence of an advocate: client trust and a life «under the microscope»

An advocate’s public profile can help build trust with clients. At the same time, it creates additional reputational risks, requires regular content management, and reduces privacy.

The pros and cons of media exposure were discussed during a thematic webinar organized by the UNBA NextGen in the Volyn region.

The event’s speaker was Vladislav Kormushin, deputy chairman of the Committee. The discussion was moderated by Natalia Savchuk, the Committee’s representative in the Volyn region.

According to V. Kormushin, one of the practical benefits of media presence is building trust even before the first meeting with a client. Previously, an advocate had to spend time during the initial consultation to convince the client of their expertise. Today, if a client has already seen the advocate’s legal analyses, communication style, and approach to work, they come to the meeting with a preconceived idea.

The speaker also highlighted the importance of publicity in cases that require public attention. In his view, media presence can serve as an additional tool for public oversight when a broader audience is following the case’s progress. He emphasized, however, that this is not about pressuring the justice system, but rather about the public’s demand for legal accountability.

Among other advantages, V. Kormushin mentioned «audience filtering». This is because an advocate’s communication style, image, and social media presence can attract precisely the clients with whom the advocate will feel comfortable working. In this sense, media presence acts as a magnet for people with similar values and approaches to interaction.

At the same time, the speaker specifically addressed the risks. He cited the loss of privacy as one of the main ones. After all, when an advocate goes public, their life comes under a «microscope»: every word, emotion in a story, or even a vacation can be taken out of context and used against them by opponents or haters. That is precisely why the reputational risk for a media-savvy advocate is significantly higher.

Another risk is burnout. Blogging, generating ideas, editing, analytics, content planning, and actually performing SMM functions require time and consistency. The speaker described this as a full-fledged second job for which no vacation time is granted.

At the same time, consistency does not mean an unlimited number of posts. V. Kormushin noted that excessive presence in the feed can also backfire: if a follower constantly sees content from one person, they may simply unfollow.

Separately, the speaker noted that a media advocate has to go the extra mile to prove their professionalism. And their public image shouldn’t overshadow their expertise. That’s why they need to constantly demonstrate that behind the visuals and brand recognition lies intellectual work and knowledge of the law.

Among the inevitable consequences of public visibility, V. Kormushin also mentioned toxicity and hate. He noted that public visibility attracts not only clients but also people who may leave negative comments. At the same time, reactions to content still need to be monitored to understand how the audience perceives it.

In conclusion, V. Kormushin noted that media presence requires endurance, consistency, and honesty with oneself and the audience. In his view, it can provide an advocate with trust, recognition, and additional opportunities to defend clients and engage with the audience, but at the same time requires constant effort and readiness to face the associated risks.