The Impact of Executive Orders on Law Firm Reputation and Client Trust

Jennifer Carr: Welcome to this week’s episode of On Record PR, where we dive into the latest news and strategies that are impacting law firm leaders around the world and right now around our country. I’m Jennifer Simpson Carr, and I’m here with –

Gina Rubel: Gina Rubel. Hi everyone. What a week it’s been.

Jennifer Carr: We’re recording this episode on Friday to release on Monday, March 31. Gina and I came to you this past Monday from Legalweek, and now we have gone through the week of sessions, conversations, and meetings. And so, we have another perspective to bring. Quickly before we jump into that, a lot has transpired in those five business days. To bring everyone up to speed and set the foundation for this conversation, since we last came to you, an executive order has been issued against Jenner & Block, and then against WilmerHale. Both law firms have filed suits against the administration. We’ll drop a link in the show notes to the Reuters article that maps that out. And, Skadden. It’s now been reported that Skadden is in talks with the administration to avert an executive order. We will drop the New York Times article link in the show notes so that you can read more about that.

Gina Rubel: And Jennifer, Skadden is where Rachel Cohen was. She’s the associate who put out that letter and sent an email to the entire firm and quit her job because they weren’t doing anything to fight against these executive orders, right?

Jennifer Carr: Yes. And so if you take a look at our past show notes, we’ve linked to the letter that Rachel started on behalf of big law associates. We had a lot of conversations this week, Gina, with managing partners, and a lot of general counsel. You led a session with four GCs, some of whom were comfortable talking from their positions as speakers, and some were comfortable chatting as an aside, before and after the sessions. So our topic today is about how GCs are feeling, and it’s stemmed from what’s come out of the Paul Weiss settlement. So Gina, do you want to talk us through that?

Gina Rubel: Well, I think it’s important to understand that the GCs we’ve been talking to are definitely those GCs who respect the rule of law, who, in some respects, do not support what the current administration is doing. I will say, however, that they’re not split by Republican or Democrat, red or blue. This is about people doing their jobs and expecting the law firms that they work with to do their jobs. And that’s important to note, because we are now at a point in all of this that it doesn’t matter if you’re Republican or Democrat or Independent or other. It doesn’t matter if you’re a born American with an American birth certificate or if you have a visa to be here. None of it matters.

What matters is the fundamental principles that we’re dealing with, and that’s what we’re hearing, and that’s what I know you and I heard from the many GCs we spoke to at legal week, and some that I’ve spoken with privately and that you’ve spoken with privately over the course of the last two weeks. So I just wanted to set that stage a little bit, because this is not a political issue anymore. So, what are we hearing? Jenn, I know you were in one session where it was confidential, but a law firm said something. And I know you can’t mention the law firm, but you had said that you heard someone say something that I’d love you to share.

Jennifer Carr: Sure. So one of the managing partners of an AM Law 100 firm said that the executive orders changed nothing for them, and very articulately went through the opposite of diversity, the opposite of equity, and the opposite of inclusion. They purposefully used the full words and didn’t condense it to DE&I or DEI, and said that it is a founding principle of their firm, it is their core values, and that they, as a firm and their clients, benefit from having diverse perspectives, being equitable, and being inclusive. So, she also said, “I’d like to have a conversation with anyone who challenges any one of those words, and whether or not that makes us a better firm, better serving our clients.” So, I was really happy it did come up in a number of sessions, and the feeling was there throughout the week, but was happy to hear, on the last day, someone in that position take such a firm stance on their reaction to what’s happening to all of us.

Gina Rubel: I’m curious, because I left, as you know, and some of our friends who listen know I left early to go and watch our son defend his thesis. So that was amazing, but that’s for another time. What was the reaction in the room? How did people seem, or were people just deadpan? Because that’s what I’m seeing.

Jennifer Carr: It’s interesting. From what I could see, heads were shaking. I am one of those individuals who sit in the first, second, or third row. So, the room was filled behind me, but I heard some audible responses, agreeing. But the people that I could see around me, their heads were shaking in agreement with the sentiment.

Gina Rubel: What I heard from GCs, who actually work with Paul Weiss, was a number of things. One was like, “They never talked to us; who are they talking to? What clients are they talking about?” And as you know, in our prior podcast, I did defend Paul Weiss’s decision based on Brad Karp’s response, his public response, that again, if this isn’t about me, I’m just sharing what others are saying. So, I want to make sure, because I absolutely feel like I’m going to lose my mind. I mean, I do crisis communications as part of my career, and on a daily basis, I have you, and a network of some other people that I’m talking to all day, every day, and into the evening, seven days a week, and certainly Fridays after six o’clock when the executive orders come down, because it’s a crazy time. But the GCs are not happy with what happened in that case, in you know, with Paul Weiss, and I’ll be curious to see what they say about Skadden, if, in fact, they do come to an agreement with the administration, because you have to be talking to your clients.

Now, I’m going to guess that they are talking to some clients and not others, but the ones they’re not talking to are going to feel very much left out of the conversation. And you know, I heard from at least two GCS, who said, almost verbatim, “Expectations of both qualifications and diversity, both together, of our outside counsel, are not going to change.” So, while you may not be reporting the numbers, we will be looking to see who you present at the table. Somebody went so far as to say, if you have a third-year associate who’s done government work, and we do government work, and that third-year associate, no matter their status in terms of protected classes and things like that, if they’re not on there, we’re going to have a problem. And if they’re not doing the work, but we’re seeing your highest billable partners doing the work, we’re going to have a problem. That individual went so far as to say, “And yes, I look at the billable hours,” so it was really interesting to see none of them said that, “Oh, yeah, we’re happy to see that Paul Weiss settled.” Not one. And that’s scary, because a lot of times, and this is something to think about from the former litigator in me, these are also some of the same people who are saying, settle, settle, settle, settle. I don’t want to litigate, so we’re really in a tough time. But as you know, as a crisis communicator and as an agency, when we’re working with clients, we’re always going to look at what’s in the best interest of the client, right?

That being said, as an idealist, and this is my personal self coming through. I think that’s important, because what I’m also seeing is law firms are telling their professionals, both their lawyer professionals, as well as their industry professionals, not to speak on social media. And you know, you can’t say that. And people were like, I have a First Amendment right to speak up against what I believe is wrong in this country. And GCs expect to see people allowed to speak up. That was another thing. They said, we expect to see people speaking up, and we’re going to be looking for people to speak up, because this is an unprecedented time, and if we don’t band together as an industry. I mean, I went to law school because I cared about the rule of law, I cared about the Constitution, I cared about the three branches of government. I loved being an American, and I still love being an American. I don’t want it to come across as if I don’t. I am an American. I love this country. I love what we stand for. I love the fact that my grandparents were immigrants. But what’s happening is not okay, and that’s what the GCs are saying. It’s not okay.

Jennifer Carr: Firms are in a difficult position, because I can imagine people listening to our conversation may say, “Of course, they’re talking to some clients, but how realistic is it to go down the line of clients”, right? So, I know that they’re struggling, probably, with how to communicate, who to ask. It was interesting. I shared with you and the team that I was walking from Penn Station to the hotel where Legalweek is held. And for anyone who’s worked at a firm in New York, they know that there’s a row on Sixth Avenue where there’s a law firm in every building down many, many blocks. And I’m passing 1285 Avenue of the Americas, and there is a woman standing with a homemade sign, and it said, “Paul Weiss, if you won’t stand up for the rule of law, who will?” And so, I think it’s interesting, because Paul Weiss has been a firm in our community that people look to, and that sign just reminded me that we are not alone in thinking about the impact that their decision had on the larger community.

Gina Rubel: Look, I’m not going to be a Monday morning quarterback. I wouldn’t want to spend a day in Brad Karp’s shoes right now, and I want to make that clear. However, that doesn’t mitigate the fact that there’s been reputation damage already, and it’s very likely that other firms are going to go and poach their talent who disagree with their decision. There are going to be clients who leave the firm because they disagree with the decision. I mean, that’s just the way it plays out, and the same may happen with Perkins Coie, who is standing up for themselves, or Jenner & Block, which is standing up for itself. So we don’t know. I mean again, every firm, if it is truly diverse, by the way, has Republicans and Democrats, and every firm has people who believe in this current administration and that they’re doing the right thing. Honestly, I don’t know how a lawyer can think that. That’s me as an idealist lawyer, okay, I don’t know how we can believe that saying a federal judge should be impeached because the decision was against my own personal interests is just or fair, or any of the ideologies that we believe as lawyers. But you know, acting without the counsel of clients is nothing new.

A lot of these firms don’t even do client feedback. I mean, that’s been a conversation we’ve been having in legal marketing for years. Yes, I wouldn’t say the big firms. But mid-sized firms, some of them don’t even have CRMs (Customer Relationship Management). They don’t even know who all their clients are. If you don’t, by the way, and you’re listening, you really need one now, because the industry is under attack. I’ve said that before. I’ll say it again. You know, it’s compromising principles. It’s compromising the founders’ values. You know, gosh, how many vision, mission, and culture statements have we written over the 25 years that we’ve been running our agency for our clients, and to see some of them do exactly the opposite of what they’ve said.

These are some of the same firms that put out statements about George Floyd but never put out a statement about the Dobbs decision, and now are rolling back all their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. I say this because it’s important. You do have to look at your programs, your protocols, and be in compliance with the current administration demands. We just have to for now. Whether or not you actually follow them, that’s on you, law firms. But undermining the values and the rule of law is not what the American jurisprudence is about. As a third-generation lawyer, I can tell you my grandfather and my father are rolling in their graves.

Jennifer Carr: Yeah, it’s been a lot to follow. It’s been hard to wrap my head around these decisions. I agree with you. I wouldn’t want to spend a day in the decision maker’s shoes. But there is this public perspective and reputation management piece of this, which is part of the reason we’re having the conversation.

We want to tackle some recommendations and considerations given the feedback we’re getting from, or that we’re hearing, from General Counsel and in-house legal teams. So, for in-house legal teams, their trust in a law firm’s ability to zealously advocate for them is paramount in the relationship. It’s a reason that they choose law firms or lawyers in the first place. How does a firm’s decision like Paul Weiss’s resolution impact clients’ confidence in the firm’s ability to advocate for them?

Gina Rubel: Nobody’s going to like this answer. But you know, it is twofold. So, to be fair, the clients that are less risk-averse or more risk-averse, in other words, like less risk, they may be comfortable. They may say, you know, they made this decision. It was a decision based on evaluating the risk. They would do this for us. That’s great. There are other clients who are not going to say that, and I’m not going to guess if it’s a majority or not. I’m just going to say that it doesn’t matter. 10% of a firm’s business could be extremely harmful. Get to 25, 30%, and the numbers, the AM Law numbers, are changing pretty swiftly.

We’ve seen other big firms go down very quickly after bad decisions have been made. And I’m not calling Paul Weiss’s decision a bad one. It’s going to have to play out. What I’m saying is, if they have a large number of clients who are no longer going to trust that they could represent them zealously or represent their best interests, or will, you know, stand up against what’s happening. Because, you know, it’s happening to law firms, and it’s happening to industries too, right? We’re seeing it’s happening to higher education institutions. I can only imagine if they had higher education, how those GCs must be feeling. I’ll be making some phone calls after this, I’m sure. So it definitely affects it, and it really comes down to evaluating your mix of clients, their risk tolerance, your risk tolerance, but knowing that you’re going to take a heavy loss.

Jennifer Carr: So, this is a real reputation issue, regardless of their decision to move forward, it impacts their reputation short-term, long-term, etc. So, after a reputation issue like this, how should firms approach rebuilding relationships with clients who have felt alienated by their decisions? Are there specific communication strategies that you would expect firms to adopt moving forward in light of making decisions like this?

Gina Rubel: That’s a really tough one, because everything is being played out in the court of public opinion. So every internal message is external, whether you like it or not, somebody’s going to leak it. Every firm has professionals and attorneys who are, frankly, really, really angry. I’ve heard people say, “I don’t want to be here anymore. I don’t believe in my firm anymore.” I hear this day in and day out, multiple times a day. “I hate it here. I can’t believe these people.” The language, it’s gone from professional to personal. I’m somebody who believes in not taking anything personally. You know me and my four agreements, right? I love that book, but it does become personal when you have all these people who have had their rights violated. Same sex couples who could lose their right to be married, people who have fought to have a place in a law firm to begin with. I mean, my dad graduated in 1971 with two women and two people of color in his class. Think about that.

So, the law firms, it’s been stacked against us from day one. I was the only female litigator in my firm when I started out 30 years ago. Oh, gosh, I’m dating myself. So yeah, if I were in one of those firms as a woman lawyer who is highly qualified and extremely talented, I would be out the door. I know I would. I’ve worked too hard. I mean, I started out making more than $20,000 less than a colleague sitting right next to me, because they were a man, or they knew how to negotiate better than I did at a young age. Either way, shame on me. Shame on them. I don’t know the answer. Jennifer, I don’t know the answer, and the reason I don’t know the answer is that it is going to take a long time for some of these firms to rebuild, and some of them may crumble, even if they settle. You can’t take this back. That’s the problem. We live in a world where we’re not going to microfiche to research what happened at the firm in 1905, right? It’s all out there. It’s all accessible. It’s on social media. No matter what platforms you’re on, it’s out there. So it’s findable. In a year from now, I’ll be curious to see what the data says. I’m not a futurist, so I won’t project that, but I’d be curious to see it.

But it’s not just the reputation of law firms. It’s also the reputation of legal associations and organizations that are not stepping up to support the ABA statement, that are not stepping up to say, “This is not okay to me.” That’s just as bad as the bystander in the room who is seeing an individual be harassed at a bar or sexually assaulted and just saying, “Oh, well, you know that person asked for it.” It’s not okay, and I can tell you that, you know, I’ve mentioned the ABA statement. I’ve also mentioned the Philadelphia Bar Association statement, and as a member of the Philadelphia Bar Association, every single day, I am more and more proud to be a member of that organization, because they are putting out programming for members. People are standing up. They’re talking about it, and they’re not going to lie down easily. Philadelphia has always been known to be a tough city. You know, our lawyers have reputations. Well, guess what? Kudos to every one of them who’s willing to fight back.

Jennifer Carr: So, we’ve covered a lot in a short period of time. It’s probably gone a little longer than our usual episodes. I know that we’ve both been monitoring the coverage, and we’re both passionate about the direction things are going, being on the side of this that fights for the rule of law. I want to thank our listeners for tuning in today. Thank you for tuning in every week. Your feedback to us by text and email, and in response to our communications around these topics, has been really helpful and appreciated. If you have feedback, please feel free to email us at podcast@onrecordpr.com. If you enjoy our show, we’d appreciate a review on iTunes. It does help us in terms of a boost to our show, and we will see you next week. Thanks.

Gina Rubel: Thanks, Jennifer. Take care, everyone.