In recent years, law firms found themselves navigating complex societal events that demanded public response, such as the aftermath of George Floyd’s death and the October 7 attack on Israel. Law firm leaders and communication experts are increasingly realizing that mere statements of empathy may not suffice in today’s politically charged environment. Instead, a shift towards letting their firm’s culture and actions represent their stance is being observed.
Katherine Wilson, the co-founder of Fractional CMO, and Cari Brunelle, founding partner at Baretz & Brunelle, highlight that the growing polarization of events is causing law firms to reevaluate their approaches to public messaging. The need for actions that resonate on a personal level is becoming more apparent. “Clients and employees are seeking substantive support rather than superficial statements,” Brunelle states.
This shift is partly driven by the diverse nature of law firms’ partners and client bases, making it increasingly challenging to issue statements that reflect the myriad views within the organization. Wilson points out the potential backlash from either side can do more harm than good, propelling firms to take a more conservative stance on managing their reputational risks.
Moreover, the dissatisfaction with public statements that unintentionally deepened divides has led some law firm executives to feel that their efforts, though well-meaning, were ultimately counterproductive. Brunelle describes a scenario in which firm leaders took days to draft statements only to find those statements exacerbating divisions rather than creating unity.
The risks associated with staying silent on issues can also be significant. Clients and employees might perceive silence as indifference, potentially jeopardizing relationships and client loyalty. According to Wilson, law firms could consider developing a checklist that aligns with their core values and culture to decide whether to respond to specific events. “This kind of framework can help determine how to engage authentically on global or regional issues, depending on the firm’s reach and make-up,” she suggests.
An inclusion-driven response could be imperative for firms that hold diversity and equity as part of their core values. Wilson stresses that authentic engagement involves responding to issues that affect the firm’s commitment to inclusivity. Conversely, firms uncertain of their own values may find themselves grappling with inconsistent responses or choosing inaction.
Not all law firms are opting for silence; some are turning to action-oriented solutions. Mental health consultant Jarrett Green notes, “Acknowledging difficult events and providing support internally can enhance engagement, loyalty, and the overall firm culture without necessarily taking a public stance.”
Both Wilson and Brunelle echo the sentiment that actions speak louder than words. Law firms are now focusing on direct contributions to community and diversity efforts, internal well-being programs, and personal interactions to address current events and support employees. This shift from public declarations to practical, supportive actions reflects an evolving understanding of what it means to stand with employees and clients sensitively and effectively.
Law firm leaders, facing backlash against diversity and inclusion initiatives, are also reminded of the importance of these efforts. Brunelle expresses that despite challenges, diversity, equity, and inclusion remain integral to organizational health and cannot be easily dismissed or replaced.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. People, facts, circumstances, and story details provided may not be accurate. For corrections, retractions, or removal requests, please email contact@publiclawlibrary.org.