A firm's reputation, carefully developed over a long period, can be destroyed incredibly quickly. A well thought-out communications strategy rather than last-minute firefighting is key

From respected men of affairs to government target in less than a century is a major shift for a profession. Those old enough to have qualified as lawyers in the naive belief that we would right wrongs, help the troubled, earn a respectable living and enjoy a prestigious position in society now know we were deluded.


Daily we fend off the latest legislative assault and worry about consumer complaints, billing targets, strategy, our ability to keep our young Turks, the merits of limited liability status, whether our pension provision will allow us ever to retire, and our generally unbalanced lives.


But we should also worry about the reputations of our firms. One slip, one oversight, one badly handled complaint, one aggrieved staff member can destroy overnight reputations that took decades to establish.


It is common to hear about firms with worrying levels of e-mail incontinence, where disaffected senior staff allege they have been unfairly treated, or where greed or financial irregularity is unearthed.


The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner has made plain her dissatisfaction with the way the profession handles complaints, and a new regulatory regime is to be imposed on us, thanks to the Legal Service Bill.


In the past few years, serious transgressions have also attracted attention, though not all have found their way into the public domain.


It is easy to preach about the importance of ensuring that risk assessment covers reputational contingencies as well as the more obvious risks, and to extol the wisdom of planning for all eventualities. What is much harder to do is to accept that any of these things could happen to your firm and make the time to prepare, when life keeps you busy, without a crisis looming.


Lawyers' risk-averse nature means firms are full of ostriches that prefer to go to ground when uncomfortable issues surface.


Firms ring for advice while a camera crew waits in the reception area. Others only tell their in-house marketing or communications professionals that an issue has arisen that could attract attention when the first call comes into the firm proving the cat is already out of the bag.


Months can be expended preparing a defence to litigation before anyone outside the immediate team is advised that it could put the firm in the spotlight. The staff, alert to the slightest rumour, learn a garbled version of events from the grapevine, and at best get an appalling all-staff e-mail with an abbreviated version of the truth.


Unacceptable hours are invested in last-minute firefighting instead of implementing a carefully planned communications strategy.


The approach of reputation management specialists and lawyers is often diametrically opposed. Good communication involves speaking up fast, filling the information vacuum, taking ownership of the issue and, if necessary, apologising.


This is essential if the situation is to be contained and the organisation under scrutiny is to recover. Most lawyers - media-averse, detail-oriented and cautious ever to admit liability - find this approach counter-cultural.


Dangerously, many lawyers also believe that if they are able advocates and successful practitioners their skills will transfer seamlessly to media interviews and areas of law in which they have no real expertise.


Most are wrong - we all know the axiom about the lawyer representing himself having a fool for a client. And even in the largest firms where marketing and communications professionals abound, their expertise may be limited to business development and marketing communications and not to handling crises.


When the ordure meets the ventilation system the majority of firms worry first about how the matter will play in the media, whether it is legal, local or national. Their first priority should, of course, not be the press release but their vital capital - their staff and their clients.


Strategies and systems should be in place to communicate with them before they read about it at breakfast. It is always a tricky call to decide whether to alert these audiences to an issue that might not get reported, but evidence shows that a well-managed and well-communicated problem can build greater confidence in a firm than where no problem has ever arisen.


Skilful media handling is also essential if the issue is newsworthy. Again, candour and accessibility can be more ameliorative than a defensive or evasive approach, particularly if cordial relationships with the journalists have been established.





Dos:



Consider every scenario of what could go wrong and give rise to client or staff concerns and adverse media interest;


Have a plan for each situation;


Allocate spokespeople. Train them in media interview skills;


Rehearse the scenario, to ensure all understand their roles;


Prepare holding statements, key messages and questions and answers;


If considering using professional consultants, contact them early;


Keep all appropriate personnel within the firm informed, including switchboard operators, receptionists, security staff, and secretaries;


Never under-estimate how fast and dangerously rumours can spread;


Speak up and speak up fast - be open and accessible; and


Exhibit your humanity - say you are sorry (if you, your firm or one of its members is at fault) and empathise with any suffering caused.





Don'ts



Delay in the hope that the problem will go away;


Lie; speculate; be defensive; blame others.


Say 'no comment' and go to ground;


Assume that the most senior person in the firm is the most able spokesperson; and


Hide behind bureaucracy.




Sue Stapely is a solicitor and consultant at Sue Stapely Consulting and Quiller Consultants