The assignment
The statements all sounded alike because they were alike: the same cadence, the same strategically passive verbs, the same paragraph where accountability almost appeared. A media critic friend kept a folder of them for years. The assignment was to find out whether the resemblance was a school of thought — or a single author.
It was, in large part, a single author: a former litigator who had spent the 2010s building the most retained crisis practice in Washington, and who agreed — over four months of interviews — to explain exactly how she writes remorse for people who feel none of it.
Approach & sourcing
Eighteen client engagements were reconstructed from public records: statements, timelines, deposition excerpts, and billing disputes that entered the public file. The founder spoke on the record about method but not about clients; former clients who would talk did so mostly to complain about the bill.
- Four months of interviews with the founder, on the record on method.
- 18 engagements reconstructed from statements, filings, and timelines.
- Linguistic analysis of 64 statements run with a university lab, published as an appendix.
What the file contained
The profile carried the lab’s fingerprint analysis — the verbal tics, sentence lengths, and apology structures that recurred across supposedly unrelated statements — with interactive examples readers could test against statements of their own. It was the rare profile that gave readers a tool, not just a portrait.
Results & impact
The fingerprint appendix was picked up by media-watch organizations that now run incoming corporate statements through the checklist before covering them. The founder called the piece “uncomfortably accurate” and raised her rates. Two of the eighteen clients issued revised statements within a month — both, notably, in a different voice.
