The events of the past few weeks in relation to Iran are raising significant communications questions for international law firms, particularly those with offices, people or clients in the Middle East.
Earlier this month, I was in New York and Washington DC, and I took the opportunity to speak with law firm leaders and other senior professionals about how they were feeling in respect of events. Many appear resigned to the fact that each day may bring a new development from the Trump administration. Whatever your politics, no business likes uncertainty. There is particular concern understandably among firms with a presence in the Middle East, and not just those with physical offices.
That sense of instability has been compounded by the US administration’s sudden reversal earlier this month of its decision to stop appealing courtroom losses relating to executive orders aimed at four Big Law firms. Taken together, these developments have reinforced a broader sense of volatility.
From a communications perspective, this is the first major geopolitical event affecting law firms under the Trump administration. It is also the first in which the administration’s unpredictability is itself becoming a factor in firms’ communications planning. That matters all the more given the pace at which international firms have expanded in the Middle East over the past two years.
In the immediate aftermath of the initial military action, media attention focused on the impact of Iran’s counterstrikes in Dubai and elsewhere. The legal press quickly began asking whether firms with offices in the Middle East had told staff to work from home, and then whether they had asked people to leave the region altogether.
One lesson from the Gaza conflict remains relevant here. In the early stages of a fast-moving crisis, it is entirely reasonable to focus on supporting your people in any affected region, rather than commenting externally while that remains the priority.
That position can hold for a time, and it is difficult to challenge it in the early hours of an incident. But there does come a point when firms need to say more about what they are doing. Timing matters. The news agenda moves quickly, and firms will want to avoid any perception of hesitation or drift.
The communications dynamics are, however, different from those seen during the Gaza conflict. For many firms, the internal and external sensitivities may be less finely balanced, but that does not remove the need for careful judgment.
We expect questions now to be asked about whether international law firms’ focus on Middle East growth has been the right strategic call. Firms that are active in the region without a physical office may face similar scrutiny. The answers will vary from firm to firm, and they will emerge over time, but it already feels new for risk and strategy teams to have to factor US political unpredictability into decision-making in such a direct way.
In a period of prolonged geopolitical uncertainty, firms increasingly need a structured framework for deciding when to communicate, what to say and to whom. We have been helping clients think through decision trees and response matrices that support leadership and communications teams in making timely, proportionate judgments for internal, external and client audiences. These sit alongside incident response protocols for office leaders, giving firms a consistent framework for the first hours of an incident, including when central teams may be offline because of time zones. If this is something your team is currently thinking through, we would be happy to share more about the frameworks we are using with clients to support faster, more confident communications.
Ben Girdlestone, Joint Managing Director
