Of course they are. That is exactly what they are doing here. They hope that by gaining publicity for doing this pro bono they will garner public attention and from that attention new clients who DO pay for their services. I think it is a brilliant marketing idea and I see nothing nefarious in their intent to work pro bono for jurors who are NOT cashing in.
It is a win/win for everyone. The public can get a better picture of what happened in deliberating that terrible verdict, the jurors get help in dealing with the media so they can get their story to the people, and the firm gets free publicity and hopefully some new paying clients.
I have to ask this? How many years has it been that the public unless we do personal research has gotten a better view of anything advertised so to speak?
I said several years ago for example, CEOs chosen today don’t need to know their company or product; just how to sell it.
and the PR company shapes peoples images......which means they will shape what a juror says...which means it’s NOT from the jurors themselves....which makes the PR firm’s statements worthless.