Open communication during litigation: just good business: when there's a crisis, your best bet is to be honest and straightforward, immediately following the incident and during any investigation thereafter.

When crisis strikes and litigation worries take hold in the executive suites, some organizations still try to batten down the hatches. These organizations are easy to spot in print, online and on the air by their standard refrain: "No comment."

"Unfortunately, this still is modus operandi for a few companies," says Steve Hantler, chairman of the American Justice Partnership in Washington, D.C. "These companies continue to play according to archaic rules, while the trial bar and any number of special interest groups define the solutions."

According to Hantler, some of the best courtroom strategies fail to connect with consumers and stakeholders who want information in the hours immediately following a crisis or lawsuit. The days, months and years of silence that can stretch between the initial situation and the legal dispensation can cause shareholder value to tank.

The simple fact is that a legal strategy that doesn't communicate with stakeholders only invites greater scrutiny after a crisis. Here are three cases that illustrate why it makes good business sense to communicate with stakeholders and the media in the early hours following a crisis and during ongoing litigation.

When silence is not an option

In March 2005, the U.S. fast-food chain Wendy's became the target of a claim by a woman who placed a severed finger in her chili, then claimed she found it there. The company's crisis response and legal response complemented one another.

Within hours of the customer's claim, Wendy's faced a lawsuit. The suit, however, did not impede the company's initial response to the crisis. Wendy's led with a statement that asserted three points from the start: that it had launched an internal investigation; that early indications suggested the finger did not come from internal sources; and that the company was committed to finding the truth.

Eight weeks passed, and in mid-May police arrested those at the center of the fraudulent claim. Despite its prompt response, the company recorded millions of dollars in lost revenue; Wendy's reported a 2.5 percent decline in same-store sales for the quarter, which was directly attributed to the finger claim. A lackluster response might have severely tarnished the brand.

Reassuring customers to stem litigation and legislation

Also in 2005, Denver's KUSA-TV's news team ran a five-part investigative report on potentially deceptive sales practices at four local automotive dealerships. In one segment, customers complained that one dealership, Stevinson Automotive Group, used bait-and-switch tactics on some vulnerable customers. According to the allegations, the customers believed they were buying a car. Instead, they were signing lease papers and faced US$2,000 to US$3,000 in end-of-lease charges. Hidden camera footage showed some employees warning customers of the tactic.

"I'm glad you showed this to me," said Kent Stevinson, the owner of the Colorado-based dealerships, during an interview with investigative reporter Deborah Sherman. "I would be lying if I said this never happens inside my dealership's walls. We have a good reputation. We have great employees. If some employees need to go away because they fail to understand my commitment to my customers, then I will make that happen."

Stevinson, who eliminated the end-of-lease charges for a number of customers after that segment, said that the response was overwhelmingly positive from employees, his franchisers, other automobile dealers and customers.

"That report would have left people believing that all of my employees are bad, and they're not," he said. "I did not set out to diffuse the situation for my dealerships, but that's exactly what happened. The five-part series continued, and my company was never mentioned again."

However, Sonic Automotive, which owned two of the car dealerships mentioned in the series, demanded that the station allow it the opportunity to review the unedited footage, attacked the credibility of seven whistle-blowers, and threatened legal action against the station for the suspected possession of stolen documents. It never addressed the allegations of deceptive sales practices.

A year after the KUSA series aired, Sonic Automotive is fighting numerous class-action lawsuits and is responding to two active attorneys general investigations. A state lawmaker recently proposed that the state add five investigators to the Colorado Motor Vehicle Dealer Board to investigate consumer complaints.

Create trust and a reason for business continuity

Within days of the Air France Concorde crash in Paris on 25 July 2000, the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the aircraft's tire manufacturer, found itself at the center of the investigation. Soon after, Continental Airlines also found itself in the spotlight because of a 7-inch metal strip that fell onto the runway, allegedly from a Continental DC-10 that took off minutes earlier and may have punctured the Concorde's tire. Both Goodyear and Continental defended themselves vigorously.

Video footage just prior to the Concorde accident, which killed 113 people, showed a raging fire around the aircraft's landing gear immediately after it took off from Paris' Charles de Gaulle Airport. Immediately, speculation about the cause of the only crash in the supersonic airline's 24-year history began.

France's Accident and Inquiry Office started its investigation right away. Three days after the crash, the French Transport Ministry confirmed in a Reuters report that the "burst tire could have caused the first-ever Concorde crash."

Goodyear responded within 24 hours: "There was nothing wrong with the integrity or the quality of the tire," said Chris Aked, who was director of Goodyear's corporate communication department during the accident investigation in 2000 and 2001.

The Accident and Inquiry Office investigation pointed to a number of runway factors that could have contributed to the Concorde crash, including the metal shard that caused the tire failure and led to the fiery debris that pierced the wing fuel tank and engine.

In March 2005, a French magistrate judge initiated an investigation into the suspected role of Continental Airlines in the Concorde crash. Continental continues to assert itself in the face of potential criminal manslaughter charges.

"We are confident that the evidence will ultimately show that Continental was not responsible for this tragic accident," said a Continental spokesman.

As Continental Airlines asserts its position, documents indicate that Air France and British Airways recorded numerous instances throughout its history of debris penetrating its wing tanks during the Concorde's runway acceleration to supersonic speeds. While those incidents didn't lead to a crash, they did cause delays.

While the remaining issues about the French criminal probe raise serious questions about the extent of criminal liability in an accident, Continental stays its course in print, on air, online--and across the Atlantic.

Each example illustrates that open and honest communication with key stakeholders reinforces the brand promise--even through lengthy litigation. And if the lawsuit stems from failures in internal process or management, then communicating transparently might even limit damages.

about the author R. Carter Langston, ABC, is president of TarComm Solutions in Rock Hill, South Carolina.