Jan Wolfe brings added analysis to legal news

We’ve long had a commitment to covering legal news, and so we have a good roster of people who cover legal news and have a lot of experience doing it. Many of them have law school degrees and became journalists.

I think we have always placed a premium on trying to write about legal news in a way that’s accessible and helpful for not just lawyers, but to the public and investors. The breadth of Reuters allows us to do that really well.

How do political coverage and business reporting help legal news?

When we look at something like a docket or we come across a new complaint, because we’re such a big organization with a lot of depth, we are able to draw on our reporters to ask them, “Does this seem like a big deal to you?” 

When we are trying to figure out just how important a dispute is to a company or executive, it just helps to run that by somebody with a lot of experience who can tell you, “Well, you know, I don’t think it’s a strong case because I know the company well, and I don’t think we should take all these allegations at face value, and here’s some analysis we can offer.”

And that’s not something that every news organization has.

How do you incorporate insight and analysis into your writing?

One thing we do really well is analysis, and I think that with a legal audience, that’s probably the most important thing. I think, personally, for investor clients, analysis might not be as important as getting it out quickly and accurately. With a legal audience, it’s not the same. They still need the news quickly, but they want a little more depth because they need to advise clients, and a superficial understanding is not going to cut it.

So, I think with legal news, analysis is really important. Sometimes we’re able to do two stories where we have the spot news story about “here was the court decision,” and then we follow it up with the second story about “here’s what it means.”

Or, if there’s a newly filed lawsuit that’s getting a lot of attention, we might have the 300-word spot story on just what the case says, and then we’ll do a follow up about “here’s some weaknesses in it,” or “here’s why it might get dismissed.”

What else should readers know?

I think the trust principles are a differentiator for us. We have, in general—not just in the legal world, but in the public—a good reputation at a time when the news media is not as trusted as it could be. I think that’s because we are a bit more cautious in terms of sourcing.

The trust principles having to do with fairness are followed, and I think those principles have earned us some goodwill.

When you’re getting a Reuters product, you can have confidence in the accuracy and fairness of it, and that makes me proud to work here.