Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
As former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld liked to say, “Stuff happens.” A much heralded law firm merger blows up in public, and partners start leaving. An angry associate lights up the Web with charges of anti-gay bias at his elite firm. A new administrative partner starts his job by confronting sexual harassment charges. A firm’s major client goes bankrupt, and investors accuse the lawyers of fraud. A prized partner gets caught forging clients’ signatures, fabricating fees and cheating at pro bono. Bad stuff happens � even at successful, well-managed law firms. With an attentive press, a 24/7 Web and schadenfreude as a national sport, firms nowadays have no place to hide. “It used to be that you’d just pray that nobody hears or reads about it,” recalls Mark Beese, director of marketing at Denver’s Holland & Hart. “These days … it’s amazing how things can be amplified.” According to the battle-scarred and the battle-weary, firms can no longer afford to be caught in the headlights. When events take an unexpected, unfortunate turn, the speed with which management addresses the issue and how they respond will have a direct effect on the firm’s reputation. “In today’s environment, how management communicates is as much a part of the picture as the corrective measures they’re taking to mitigate damage,” says William Keegan, an executive vice president and director at Edelman, a public relations firm. “I’m a big believer in talking to all stakeholders, and all constituencies, directly.” Directly � and quickly. In January, Sullivan & Cromwell faced a serious public � and internal � embarrassment. A gay midlevel associate had posted on greedyassociates.com his complaint accusing S&C of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation � before serving the firm with a lawsuit. “Within about an hour” of learning about the suit (from an S&C associate), Managing Partner H. Rodgin Cohen says, he e-mailed everyone at the firm. Aided by S&C’s internal communications team, Cohen dispatched a statement informing partners, associates and staff that two internal inquiries had found nothing to support the disgruntled lawyer’s claim. The statement, which was soon posted on S&C’s Web site, also denied the associate’s allegations, and asserted that S&C had a solid record in hiring and promoting gay and lesbian lawyers. In responding to questions from the press, Cohen e-mailed the firm’s statement, and partner David Braff served as second spokesperson. Speaking to The New York Times, Braff noted that S&C has handled “landmark [pro bono] cases” expanding gay rights, and said that he’s been openly gay at S&C since 1984. “That was a terrific move,” says PR consultant Keegan, who frequently works alongside law firms in client litigation. At the firm, Cohen hosted what he calls “town hall meetings” for all lawyers and staff. He explained the procedures that management had followed, assured everyone of S&C’s commitment to people regardless of sexual orientation, and invited their questions. “In these situations,” says Mozhgan Mizban, a partner at the Zeughauser Group consulting firm, “your internal communications have to be very strong, so people don’t feel like they’re standing in quicksand.” There are limits to spin control. According to reports out of S&C, some associates thought that Cohen didn’t go far enough; they shuddered a bit when the firm fired and countersued the aggrieved lawyer. Still, management consultants, big-firm marketing officers, communications professionals and legal recruiters agree that best practices dictate that firms must address the issues. “If you don’t connect the dots, someone else will do it for you,” warns the communications chief at an international firm. Consultants give Cohen high grades for moving fast, speaking clearly, and reaching out to constituencies inside and outside the firm. Often, big firms say too little, too late. Or the partners cloister behind closed doors, suggesting that something worrisome is in the works. Or, in a legitimate effort to gain consensus, they bog down rehashing the issues, then lose the strategic advantage of telling the firm’s side of the story first. Then there are those who deny they have a problem and do nothing. “Avoidance is a real issue for lawyers,” says Ronda Muir, a former Davis Polk & Wardwell lawyer now with the legal management consulting firm Robin Rolfe Resources Inc. “They tend not to confront the problem, and this avoidance creates other problems for firms up and down the ladder � from recruiting to associate satisfaction to partner collegiality.” Marketing and communications personnel can help partners avoid overlawyering their internal-issues management. But “too often the communications experts, either internal or external, are not brought in early enough,” says Richard Levick, of Levick Strategic Communications. (The half-dozen current and former law firm marketing directors interviewed for this article independently echoed Levick’s assertion.) “I’ve seen many instances where the lawyers say, ‘We’re not taking instruction from PR people,’” says Levick. “You no more want your lawyers controlling your communications strategy than you would want PR people handling your legal strategy.” Levick and others experienced in high-stakes damage control suggest that firms consider some of the same strategies that their corporate clients embrace. Some chief executives keep insiders up to speed through daily blogs and internal Webcasts, the latter permitting video e-mail attachments from the CEO. In anticipation of civil suits challenging corporate business practices, companies have also ramped up so-called dark sites � inactive Web pages loaded with information, including names and numbers of people designated to handle calls � that are ready to go online with one click. Given the resources and the trust of the partners for whom they work, law firm marketing and communications officers interviewed for this article said they could deploy similar tactics on behalf of law firms. As one big-firm marketing chief puts it: “Firms need these days to be more proactive, transparent and collaborative.” And consistent. In this climate, hypocrisy can be a mortal sin. If partners make decisions that don’t mesh with their firm’s stated values, or if rainmakers enjoy “a different standard of treatment” from others at the firm, “you’ll get a lot of resentments and mistrust,” says Mark Thompson, a former GC and consultant who has since become the chief marketing officer at Bryan Cave. Two years ago, the Tampa office of Holland & Knight learned this lesson the hard way. Since the mid-’90s, Holland & Knight has marketed itself as a firm that promotes women and women’s issues. That public position was called into question in March 2005, when H&K named as its chief operating partner a man who had been accused of sexual harassment by women lawyers at the firm. Reportedly, the firm had reprimanded the partner for commenting on women’s sex lives, and asking women to squeeze his biceps. Management’s promotion of this partner apparently sent the wrong message. Someone leaked the story to the St. Petersburg Times, which subsequently excoriated Holland & Knight for being “gender deaf.” In short order, the operating chief stepped down from his management post (he is still with the firm), but the public rebuke still stung. Through a spokesperson, H&K provided this statement: “Our firm handles all communications issues on a case-by-case basis, using our best judgment based on the facts as we know them. We dealt with this situation when it happened, and now we’ve moved on. It isn’t an issue for us.” Communicating with clients during a crisis has its own set of issues. They don’t need to have every embarrassing episode explained, experts say, unless they’re directly affected, or the future of the firm seems jeopardized. In late 2005, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr discovered that several of its clients had been affected by the misdeeds of a one-time rising-star partner, William DiSalvatore. “It started off with a question from a client,” recalls Wilmer co-Managing Partner William Perlstein. “That actually led us to a broader review of [the partner's] files, and to the conclusion that this was a much bigger problem.” Wilmer management, including its GC and two assistant GCs, learned that the partner had forged client signatures, fabricated fees, misrepresented the status of litigation and assigned associates to work pro bono for personal causes. As these facts became known to the firm, the GC reviewed the findings with affected clients, face-to-face, Perlstein says, “in a private way, making sure that we were as complete as possible.” He says that Wilmer did not lose any work as a result of the embarrassing episode. Several experts pointed to Houston’s Vinson & Elkins as an example of how dogged communication helped preserve lawyer loyalty and client trust. V&E was widely known as the main outside corporate counsel to Enron Corp. When the once high-flying energy company crashed in 2001, V&E was among the first to be blamed. In and out of court, the firm was accused of enabling fraud, masterminding crooked accounting tricks and hiding from shareholders all sorts of skulduggery. Enron’s bankruptcy coincided with the end of Harry Reasoner’s 10-year term as managing partner, and his succession by Joseph Dilg, who had overseen the firm’s Enron relationship. Faced with mounting public criticism and worries within the firm, the management committee charged Reasoner, a trial lawyer, with coordinating an aggressive defense. “We weren’t interested in winning the battle of the litigation, but losing the war over what our reputation was in the country,” explains Reasoner. “It was my view that we should talk candidly with anyone who had questions or concerns.” Early on, Reasoner spoke with everyone at V&E � from the most senior partners to the most junior staff. He regularly sent firmwide voicemails. And he sent letters to all V&E clients and business associates, “outlining what we believed to be our role in [Enron's collapse], telling them what we believed would be shown, and offering to talk with any of them at any time,” Reasoner says. With advice from V&E’s outside counsel at Williams & Connolly, and in consultation with in-house senior communications counsel Mark Curriden (an author and former newspaper reporter), Reasoner sought in all his communications to refute arguments maligning the firm.
Communicating with clients during a crisis has its own set of issues. They don’t need to have every embarrassing episode explained, experts say, unless they’re directly affected, or the future of the firm seems jeopardized.

Addressing claims that V&E had been Enron’s de facto general counsel, for example, Reasoner pointed to a 250-lawyer in-house department, and a strict policy that outside firms could deal with Enron only through its own lawyers. While acknowledging that Enron had at one point accounted for close to 7 percent of V&E’s annual revenue, he argued that Wall Street deal firms had received fees equal to or exceeding those Enron had paid to V&E. And he made it clear to everyone that the firm was cooperating with the bankruptcy trustee, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. Whenever a contact partner sensed that a client still had Enron-related concerns, that partner would meet with the client in person, with Reasoner on hand to answer any questions. Even in meeting with recruiters, V&E went out of its way to state its Enron case, recalls Brian Davis, a managing director in the New York office of legal recruiter Major, Lindsey & Africa: “They took the right approach.” In the end, V&E paid $19.5 million to settle malpractice claims related to the bankruptcy. But a special committee of the Enron board and the Enron bankruptcy examiner concluded that V&E was not responsible for any accounting fraud or disclosure problems. And in January � six years after Reasoner took on a job with zero billable hours � plaintiff lawyers dismissed V&E from a shareholders’ class action, wiping out the last set of claims against the firm. Through it all, Reasoner says, the firm suffered nothing more than the usual amount of partner turnover: “We always gave our partners the straight story,” says Reasoner. “I’m proud of them for seeing the firm through this.” How the chairs at Orrick, Herrrington & Sutcliffe and Dewey Ballantine tell their firms’ stories will also shape how things sort themselves out since their much-publicized merger plans fizzled in January. For Orrick’s Ralph Baxter Jr., who has grown his firm largely through acquisitions, the unraveling of the Dewey deal marked the third time a New York merger was aborted. For Dewey’s Morton Pierce, who has admitted that some of his partners learned of the proposed deal through press reports, the experience was fresh and the consequences more dire. During the final two months that the deal was in the works, a tenth of Dewey’s equity partners left for other firms. “It doesn’t reflect well on either of them,” comments a senior partner at a top-tier New York firm. “It hurts Orrick in that they’ve basically built their business on buying practices, but they can’t get a [big merger] done. � It damaged Dewey because they lost valuable partners, and they raised questions in the entire legal community about their view of the future.” “It can be embarrassing when something doesn’t turn out as you expect,” adds Zeughauser partner Mizban. “But if firms have a positive standing, good profits and a good reputation � and Dewey and Orrick are in that category � then they will bounce back.” At Orrick, where Baxter’s cries of “onward and upward” are a frequent refrain, it’s been a quick rebound. “Of course we were disappointed,” Baxter says. “But we have no regrets.” (Two executives at Orrick are members of the editorial advisory board at Law Firm Inc., a sibling publication of The Recorder.) Twice during the merger discussions, Baxter had spoken about the deal with all of his constituencies. Appearing live in one office and via a simulcast feed in all the firm’s other locations (except Asia, which received it on a delay), Baxter addressed first his partners, then all the other lawyers, and then the staff. In every session, Baxter says, he opened the floor for questions and discussions. He also gave partners periodic updates via e-mail. “In the end, [those discussions] made it a lot easier, because the issues had already been out there in front of everyone,” says Baxter, who delivered another firmwide video address within 24 hours of Dewey ending talks. “Everyone felt that they’d had a say.” For his part, as soon as Dewey’s team decided to quit the talks, Pierce sent an e-mail notifying all partners of the news. Later that day, he gathered all the partners in New York for a talk; other offices were patched in to a videoconference. According to a management source who was at the meeting, Pierce told his partners that he’d received inquiries from several other firms about merging, but that Dewey’s executive committee had decided the firm’s brand would be best protected and most valuable if it remained independent. During that meeting, all attorneys and staff received an e-mail with the same message. Within a month, Pierce also instituted changes in Dewey’s management structure: He expanded the firm’s management board, created a new oversight committee for Europe, and started up a finance committee. He put Dewey out front in raising associate salaries in the United Kingdom. And, in a nod to the demands of today’s market, he’s aiming to make Dewey’s internal communications more transparent. “Good communication has to be frequent and pervasive, and it’s a skill that you can always improve upon,” Pierce says. “I’m working hard to ensure that I’m in the group of people always striving to improve, and not taking anything for granted.” There is, as the consultants like to say politely, upside potential. This article originally ran in Law Firm Inc., an affiliate of The Recorder. D. M. Osborne is a Los Angeles-based freelance writer.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.