Joint Managing Director Michael Evans and Associate Director Liam McCafferty feature in the new Issue of Centrum magazine brough to you by Professional Services Marketing Group.
In the piece, the pair discuss how the landscape around law firms speaking out on societal issues has become significantly more complicated and polarising in the past few years.
To speak or not to speak
Once upon a time the question of whether law firms should speak out on societal issues felt like it had a relatively straightforward answer: yes, for the most part. The landscape now is significantly more complicated… and polarising.
During the golden age of corporate social responsibility – the “Ben & Jerry’s effect” – it seemed self-evident law firms should showcase their social credentials. This wasn’t just a “woke” takeover; it made tactical sense. Demonstrating a social conscience was a powerful way to appeal to younger generations with different values. It also helped everyone else was doing it.
Fast forward a few years, and the question has become increasingly difficult to answer. To speak or not to speak? To pin your colours to the mast or course a steadier path of neutrality?
With the benefit of hindsight, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was the last major event where ‘doing the right thing’ felt obvious. Law firms swiftly condemned the invasion (with The Lawyer even running a live tracker) and quickly withdrew from Moscow.
But by 2024, things had become far more complicated. The conflict in the Middle East spilled over into domestic tensions, leaving law firms grappling with two legitimate – but opposing -perspectives within their workforces.
More broadly, society has grown increasingly polarised, with fierce debates over “woke” culture, trans rights, and other divisive issues. Against this backdrop, taking a stance is no longer as straightforward as it once was. As a result, law firms can increasingly feel caught in a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ scenario, facing criticism from employees, clients, and the public, regardless of their decision.
The generational and cultural divide
Within law firms, workforce expectations on public statements are not monolithic. There are clear generational differences in attitudes toward corporate engagement with social issues.
Younger employees often expect firms to take a stand, seeing silence as complicity. Older generations, as well as those in leadership, may prioritise neutrality, viewing law firms as institutions that serve clients rather than be seen engaging in social activism. Complicating matters further, issues often carry religious, ethnic and cultural weight, making consensus even harder.
This divergence is not just internal. As attitudes in Europe continue to diverge from the increasingly conservative stance in the United States, global law firms must navigate an increasingly fragmented cultural landscape. A statement that resonates in one market may be counterproductive in another, making a one-size-fits-all approach untenable.
A significant trend is the likely to be a [at least partial] retreat from environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives and DEI commitments, particularly in the United States.
The political climate, driven in part by the re-election of Donald Trump, is shifting corporate priorities. Already, Meta has withdrawn its “community notes” feature, and several major firms are quietly stepping back from once-public commitments.
This shift could have wide-reaching implications, including the potential relaxation of diversity requirements in legal procurement processes, which will further complicate decision-making for law firms operating across multiple jurisdictions.
Getting your framework right
Given this increasingly fraught landscape, law firms need a structured framework to determine when and how they should comment on societal issues.
Key questions to consider include whether every issue requires a firmwide response, or should some be handled regionally? Is an external statement always required, or will internal communications suffice? Who within the firm should act as the figurehead for such communications – can you empower autonomous groups to hold positions that don’t conflict with or harm your brand? How can firms ensure messaging aligns with their brand values while minimising reputational risk?
For contentious issues where there are legitimate perspectives on both sides, it is natural – and probably right – firms are starting to take a more cautious approach. This means there should be clear criteria, like a ratings system, to decide when an issue qualifies for a response and what form such a response should take.
The golden rule that should always be adhered to is that, when a firm does make a statement, it must be consistent with its brand identity and core principles – such as a commitment to the rule of law, human rights, or access to justice.
Beyond official communications, firms are likewise faced with growing challenge of individual employees and partners expressing political beliefs on their own, personal channels. Social media has blurred the lines between personal and professional identity – particularly with the rise of LinkedIn – making it harder for firms to set boundaries for the conduct of individuals. It is by no means an easy task, but it’s important to have some kind of framework for identifying the red line between legitimate personal expression and statements that could damage the firm’s reputation.
For law firms, navigating this landscape requires a balance of pragmatism and principle. While neutrality may be the safest stance in many cases, silence can sometimes be misinterpreted as a lack of values.
The key is not to be driven by short-term pressures but to establish a consistent, documented process for deciding when and how to engage. A structured framework – one that considers the firm’s brand, internal diversity of thought, and the expectations of clients and employees – can help firms manage these difficult decisions effectively.
The challenge of corporate speech in law firms is unlikely to get any easier. But by adopting a clear, strategic approach, you can avoid the pitfalls of reactive decision-making and ensure that when you choose to speak, your words carry real weight and credibility.
Click the below link to read the piece on the PSMG site:
