Before getting into crisis strategy, Maria Stagliano pauses to check on Chester – her internet-famous toucan, whose bright plumage and oversized personality have earned him a following of his own. Chester is, in many ways, the easiest kind of public figure to manage: colorful, charismatic, instantly likable. He’s beloved by millions of fans – with only the occasional “Karen” having something negative to say.
The same is rarely true in crisis communications.
At Blue Highway Advisory, Stagliano counsels clients through high-stakes moments where narratives move fast, facts emerge unevenly and public understanding can harden long before the full story is known. Some matters unfold quietly; others draw national attention. In every case, the challenge is the same: navigating the volatile space between what appears true in public and what is actually happening out of immediate view.
“There’s always the narrative you see in the media,” Stagliano says, “and then there’s everything happening behind the scenes.”
That gap is where she works best. Stagliano’s job is not to manufacture certainty where none exists or promise neat resolutions in situations that are anything but. It is to bring clarity, context and discipline to moments defined by confusion, pressure and competing agendas. Over time, she has come to understand that most crises resist simple definitions.
“It’s not simply right or wrong,” Stagliano says. “It’s about understanding different perspectives, and making careful, strategic decisions in real time.”
If Chester belongs to a world of vivid color, virality and instant appeal, crisis communications belongs to the gray.
Lawdragon: How did you first come to PR and crisis communications?
Maria Stagliano: I knew I was interested in communications – at first I considered journalism because I love writing, but realized it didn’t satiate my desire for a more hands-on strategic role. At the time that I was trying to decide what to do for a career, there were several big stories about aviation scandals. I started thinking, “This is someone’s job to respond to these issues – I want to do that.” What really clicked for me was realizing that there are people behind the scenes shaping how companies respond in high-stakes moments. That was the work I wanted to do.
I switched into PR, and early on I was introduced to crisis communications. That was the moment it clicked – the combination of strategy, writing and real-time problem solving.
What’s kept me in it is the nature of the work itself. It’s unpredictable, and it lives in the gray. There’s always the public narrative, and then there’s everything happening behind the scenes – the nuance, the context, the constraints around what can and can’t be said. You’re constantly navigating between those layers.
That also means the work is incredibly varied. I’ve worked on everything from regulatory issues to high-profile executive matters and complex disputes. You’re always getting up to speed on new industries and new problems – often very quickly.
LD: You mentioned early on that you wanted to do crisis communications in D.C. – what drew you there?
MS: It actually wasn’t about politics – I was never interested in political communications. It was really about the concentration of high-level crisis work.
My previous communications firm, Levick, was based in D.C., and at the time it was one of the leading boutique firms handling complex, high-profile matters. I knew that was the kind of work I wanted to be doing, so I made a very intentional decision to move there after graduating.
I also completed a certificate in public affairs communications at the University of Georgia, where I was part of the inaugural fellowship cohort. That training was incredibly practical – it focused on things like messaging, talking points and op-eds – which ended up being directly applicable to the work I do now.
LD: What is it about crisis communications that drew you in?
MS: What drew me to crisis communications is the complexity. It’s unpredictable, and the issues are almost never black and white.
There’s always the narrative you see in the media, and then there’s everything happening behind the scenes – the facts, the context, the competing pressures. You’re constantly navigating what can be said publicly versus what you know internally.
Reporters are working with the information they have, and sometimes they get it right, but often they don’t have the full picture. That gap is where the work happens.
Over time, you realize that most situations live in a gray area. It’s not simply right or wrong – it’s about understanding different perspectives, and making careful, strategic decisions in real time.
LD: Once you got to Levick, what were some of the earliest types of matters you were working on?
MS: I feel like I was thrown into the deep end within my first couple weeks. I was pulled into scoping calls and active crisis matters, which meant getting exposure very quickly.
Within the first six months, I was working across a range of issues – executive and C-suite matters, high-profile individuals, data breaches, product recalls and regulatory issues. It was a broad mix, and the pace was fast.
Over time, that work expanded into more legal-adjacent matters, including intellectual property disputes, investigations and white-collar issues. That intersection between legal strategy and communications has become a significant part of my practice.
That early exposure was invaluable. It gave me a foundation not just in crisis work, but in understanding how different types of issues unfold and how to approach them strategically.
Over time, you realize that most situations live in a gray area. It’s not simply right or wrong – it’s about understanding different perspectives, and making careful, strategic decisions in real time.
LD: What drew you to Blue Highway?
MS: I worked with Levick until Richard Levick died. After he passed, I stayed through the transition to the firm becoming Leidar, but it became clear that I was ready for something different. I spent some time doing contract work with a range of firms, which gave me a broader perspective on how different teams operate – how they approach clients, and how they approach the work.
When I met [Blue Highway founder] Ian McCaleb, what stood out immediately was his commitment to a more direct and human approach. There’s an emphasis at Blue Highway on being thoughtful, but also honest – not defaulting to overly polished or overly cautious language, but actually giving clients clear, practical advice.
That was important to me. In this work, you’re not just there to agree – you need to be able to tell a client when something isn’t working, and to have real conversations about how to move forward.
He’s also built a culture that feels genuinely human. There’s a level of trust and flexibility that allows people to show up as themselves – even in small ways. I have a toucan, Chester, who occasionally appears on calls, and that’s not treated as a disruption – it’s just part of the environment.
In a market that can sometimes lean overly polished or transactional, that kind of authenticity stands out. That balance – being rigorous in the work, but grounded and genuine in how you operate – is what drew me to Blue Highway.
LD: How do you work with lawyers to navigate the intersection of legal strategy and communications?
MS: Most of our work runs through law firms, which is intentional. It helps preserve privilege and ensures everything is handled with the appropriate level of confidentiality and discretion.
We almost always start with the lawyers, and the relationship is highly collaborative. There’s a common perception that legal and PR are at odds – that lawyers want to say nothing and PR wants to say everything – but in practice, both are focused on protecting the client.
Having worked closely with legal teams from the outset, I’ve developed a strong sense of where that line is – how to advance a narrative without creating legal risk. It’s about finding the right balance: saying enough to move the story forward, but never in a way that undermines the legal strategy.
That alignment is critical regardless of the client. While most of our work is with organizations, we also advise individuals and their counsel – and the underlying principles remain the same: discretion, coordination and thoughtful messaging.
LD: Where do lawyers sometimes fall short when it comes to communications?
MS: The most common issue is that communications is brought in too late.
I’ve seen situations where the legal strategy is well developed, but communications is treated as an afterthought – something to address once the issue is already underway. That has a real impact on how effectively you can respond.
There’s often a desire to keep the circle small and focus on legal risk, but communications brings a different lens – how something will be perceived, where the blind spots are, and how a narrative may evolve. The earlier that perspective is integrated, the more effective the overall response.
There can also be hesitation around engaging publicly at all. Some lawyers prefer to keep everything strictly within the legal process, but the risk is that the public narrative continues to develop regardless. Even if the legal outcome is successful, a negative perception may already be taking hold if you haven’t told your side of the story.
It’s not about trying the case in the media. It’s about recognizing that the legal process and the public narrative often move in parallel – and both matter.
There’s also a misconception that the only options are to say everything or nothing. In reality, there’s almost always a way to engage constructively – whether that’s having counsel speak, issuing a targeted statement, or clarifying specific points.
Ultimately, it comes down to coordination and balance – integrating communications early and aligning closely with legal strategy so that both are working toward the same outcome.
LD: How do you think about your role in shaping the narrative around a client’s situation?
MS: At its core, the role is to ensure the client’s story is understood – accurately, and on their terms.
If you don’t provide that context early, others will fill in the gaps. The more thoughtfully you put it into the public domain, the less room there is for speculation, misinterpretation, or for an adversary to define the narrative.
That extends to how you engage with reporters. You don’t want your first interaction to be after something is published, asking for a correction – that’s not how you build lasting relationships.
A big part of the work is identifying the right reporters and establishing those relationships early, often in real time. In many cases, you’re not relying on existing connections – you’re building trust quickly, so that when you do engage, there’s already a foundation.
Ultimately, it comes down to coordination and balance – integrating communications early and aligning closely with legal strategy so that both are working toward the same outcome.
LD: When are you typically brought into a matter?
MS: It varies – we’re brought in at all different stages.
Ideally, it’s before anything happens. Having an established relationship makes a significant difference – you already understand the client’s voice, the potential risks, and the broader context, so when something arises, you can move quickly and strategically.
Without that, you’re building that foundation in real time – learning the client, the issue and the dynamics under pressure.
I’ve also seen situations where we’re brought in mid-crisis, or even asked to step in after another firm hasn’t worked out. That can mean responding while simultaneously getting up to speed – or even pitching for the work in the middle of an active situation – which isn’t ideal for anyone involved.
It reinforces how valuable it is to have the right team in place early.
LD: What’s one of the harder parts of the job that people might not expect?
MS: Dealing with hostile or misleading coverage. Most reporters are thoughtful and focused on getting things right. But occasionally, you encounter someone more committed to a narrative than to the full set of facts. That can create real challenges – especially when coverage lacks context or is simply inaccurate.
What’s less obvious from the outside is how personal that becomes for clients. Having your name or your company portrayed that way isn’t just a communications issue – it can be deeply upsetting. You feel that pressure alongside them.
Part of the role is managing that – working to correct the record where possible, while also helping clients navigate the emotional impact in real time.
LD: How has social media changed the way crises unfold?
MS: It’s accelerated everything. Information – and misinformation – can spread almost instantly, and each platform behaves differently in terms of audience, tone and how narratives take shape.
Part of the job is understanding that landscape but also knowing how to separate signal from noise. Not everything that gains traction online actually matters.
A big part of what we do is help clients maintain that perspective. A single post can feel overwhelming in the moment, but it doesn’t always reflect a broader issue.
LD: What happens when communications aren’t handled in a coordinated way?
MS: That’s when things can escalate quickly.
We’ve seen situations where a client puts out a statement – on social media, by email or otherwise – before aligning with legal or communications. Once something is out there, it can be picked up, shared and reframed immediately.
At that point, you’re not starting from a clean slate – you’re trying to correct or contain something that’s already taken on a life of its own.
It underscores how important it is to have alignment across legal and communications from the outset.
LD: How do you manage a client’s ongoing communications during a prolonged crisis?
MS: In longer-running situations, we work closely with internal teams – especially marketing – to review and approve content before anything goes out.
They’re not always part of the day-to-day discussions around the issue, so they may not have full visibility into the nuances or the broader strategy. Even well-intentioned posts can create complications if they’re not aligned.
More broadly, we try to keep sensitive conversations off public channels. If someone raises an issue, the goal is to move that offline as quickly as possible – direct message, email or another private channel – rather than engaging in a visible back-and-forth.
LD: Blue Highway emphasizes personality. How does that shape the way you approach this work alongside legal strategy?
MS: A lot of communications can become templated – safe, repetitive and interchangeable. Our focus is the opposite: understanding the client’s voice and positioning them in a way that actually reflects who they are.
That comes from proximity – conversations, instinct, and a real sense of how someone thinks and communicates. It’s not something you can reduce to a formula.
That’s also where AI falls short. It can mimic tone, but it can’t replace judgment – knowing what a client would or wouldn’t say, and how something will land in context.
Alongside legal strategy, that distinction matters. Lawyers are rightly focused on risk – what creates exposure and what needs to be avoided. Our role is to bring in the human dimension – how the client is perceived, and how their story is told.
When those perspectives are aligned, the result is far more effective than either one on its own.
