Cui bono?

There might be something about being involuntarily awake at 5 am on a dark, cold November morning that is destined to bring out the jaded, world-weary cynic in me. It’s certainly possible, because when I unwontedly awoke at this unconscionably early time the other morning and found myself reading what felt like the umpteenth news story in recent days about the manifold woes of Thames Water , a thought suddenly pinged into my head: “I bet the journalists are being drip-fed these stories by a hedgie shorting Thames Water stock”.?

I should hasten to add that I’m not saying this is definitely the case (I have absolutely no way of knowing); nor am I saying that the journalists in question aren’t doing their due diligence and fact-checking with multiple sources. But there just seemed to be something about the timing and cadence and cumulative nature of these stories that made it feel like a jigsaw puzzle was being assembled before my (admittedly slightly bleary) eyes.

However, if my hunch is correct, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that somebody used PR for financial gain: many a hedge-fund manager (no names here, I don’t fancy being SLAPPed with a law suit) has used their journalistic contacts for the timely placement of a headline story to move markets and upset other people’s applecarts while making a killing.

Now, I’m not suggesting that law firm leaders, partners and/or marketers should emulate the behaviour of the more Machiavellian members of the Mayfair set. But as I sat there in my kitchen at zero dark 30 with my first cup of coffee reading the Grauniad, it did strike me that there was something of a lesson here for the legal sector in that law firms could generally stand to be less reticent in using PR proactively when events are still ‘live’, rather than waiting until a situation has played out before giving an opinion.

I understand the impulse to want to look back over one’s shoulder once things are safe and determined; however, as they might say in Ambridge, this approach doesn’t always get the cows milked when it comes to establishing oneself as a thought leader that clients flock to.

Take the recent Budget by way of example. We saw a lot of people in the legal sector deliver their press only after Chancellor Reeves had already shared all the goodies in her red box (and yes, I am being slightly facetious). However, very few lawyers would have garnered any national press coverage for themselves and their firms with this approach, because anyone can read the Treasury documents, and the broadsheet journalists would already have been name-checking and quoting the many many professionals able and willing to help them with tip-offs, insights and predictions in advance of the Budget announcement.

So if your press strategy is only ever reactive – after the case is handed down, once the decision is made, when the law has been passed, when the insolvency of the household-name business has stopped being headline news – you are missing out on a huge opportunity to use the media to influence outcomes and vocally advocate on the issues your clients care about.

It goes without saying that you cannot be talking to the press about specific cases you or your firm are working on, or consultations you are involved in. But if it doesn’t put you in contempt of court, break any confidentiality agreement or put a business partner’s nose severely out of joint, there is everything to be gained by commenting on a live, hot-button issue that is capturing the public’s attention.?

The collapse of Homebase last week is a prime example: if you are an insolvency practitioner and haven’t been instructed on this matter, it would be a great move to step up and comment on the matter and distribution of assets as it continues to play out. You might flush out some third-party stakeholders who are still on the lookout for an insolvency expert to represent them. At the very least, you will be front of mind for many people in a matter that is likely to continue making headlines for weeks and months to come.

In a similar vein, reputation lawyers not actively involved in the Harrods/Al Fayed scandal could be getting quoted in the papers most days of the week right now. This case isn’t going to go away anytime soon – in fact, I predict it will continue to ripple out for years to come, given the many different strands of the story: the tarnished reputation of a globally renowned luxury brand; the questions of who knew what, when; the indirect connection to the Royals – you get the drift.

A prime example of someone doing lots of proactive PR is private wealth partner and LinkedInfluencer James Quarmby , whose clients could never doubt his commitment to their interests after his appearances on various national news outlets including broadcast and being quoted in publications including City AM . Such a level of advocacy by a solicitor is hugely admirable, though sadly still relatively uncommon.?

I think many lawyers would do well to take a leaf out of James’ book. It’s time to be braver and get on the front foot when it comes to proactively using the media and taking a position in the midst of events, rather than always waiting until the dust has settled – your clients will thank you and admire you for it, your stature and reputation as an expert and thought-leader will grow, and your practice will flourish.

In other news

Regulating the regulator

Writing in the Law Society Gazette this week , Jonathan Goldsmith addresses the concerns felt by many in the legal sector in the wake of the SRA’s reaction to the Legal Service Board’s report on the regulator’s handling of the Axiom Ince debacle – a reaction which essentially amounts to a shrug of the shoulders. Picking up on the question put to the Atorney General in Parliament this week by the Liberal Democrats’ shadow attorney general, Ben Maguire, Goldsmith examines what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the regulator is properly regulated.

Raising the Bar on EDI?

According to Legal Cheek this week , the Bar Council is in a positively mutinous mood in the face of a rule change proposed by the Bar Council Board that would impose a positive duty on barristers to “act in a way that advances equality, diversity, and inclusion”. The Bar Council has heavily criticised these proposals, arguing that the proposals are substantially unlawful, unenforceable and impractical, and may well “hinder progress in this important area”.

See it. Say it. Sorted – or not

On Wednesday, the Law Society Gazette reported that the SRA has reminded in-house solicitors that they must report any serious wrong-doing that they uncover within their organisations, or consider tendering their resignation if they are unable to prevent its continuation. Aimed at helping the tens of thousands of in-house solicitors in England and Wales decide how best to respond to potential criminal or unethical activity, the materials published by the SRA this week come in the wake of the much-publicised Post Office scandal, which has cast a spotlight on the role of the in-house profession.

To the victor go the Swift tickets

As reported in the Daily Telegraph last week, a divorcing couple found themselves facing a rather unique conundrum: which of them should get the Taylor Swift tickets they jointly purchased before deciding to separate? Jane Cvijan, senior legal counsel with M & Co. Law, explained to the Telegraph that there were three options available to the couple: they could go together, one could buy the other out – an expensive proposition with tickets costing up to $10,000 on the black market – or sell both and share the proceeds. Apparently, an amicable settlement was reached, although the specifics remain confidential due to lawyer-client privilege.

Patrick: "That's when I decided to be fabulous!"

For this week’s podcast episode, I was joined by Linklaters' Director of Learning, Patrick McCann. He's a brilliant advocate for all that is good in the legal sector and well worth 30-or-so minutes of your time.

Take a watch/listen here:

YouTube

Spotify

I hope you have enjoyed this week’s edition.

Many thanks for reading,

Si Marshall

[email protected]