Trending Topics

September 20, 2021 by Greentarget

If you’re a baseball fan – almost regardless of which team you root for – New York Mets infielder Javier Báez is among the players you enjoy watching most. That’s largely because, since 2014, Báez has done things that almost no one else does, like this absurd play in Pittsburgh in May.

But Báez recently saw how being the center of attention can backfire – and demonstrated the tricky path public figures and organizations on the whole must walk these days. On one side is an increased emphasis on authenticity. On the other is the very real possibility that in speaking publicly, and from the heart, feet will occasionally end up in mouths.

What happened with Báez and the Mets provides good lessons for leaders of professional services organizations. In addition to illustrating the challenges around authenticity – especially in the age of social media – it showed the danger of overreacting and why building up a reservoir of goodwill has never been more important.

The Foot in the Mouth

On July 30, the struggling Chicago Cubs traded Báez – a team legend who played a key role in its historic 2016 championship – to the playoff-hopeful Mets. For a variety of reasons, the Mets played poorly in August and, for fans, Báez’s positives weren’t outweighing his negatives, prompting boos Báez rarely heard in Chicago. Mets fans hadn’t seen enough of Báez’s flair on defense or as a baserunner – or his bat’s ability to carry a team for weeks – to look past five strikeouts in a game against the Marlins.

After the boos started, Báez and other Mets began celebrating big hits by pointing their thumbs down. When asked after a game to explain the gesture, Báez put his foot in his mouth. It’s worth reading his comments in full, but Báez basically said that he and other Mets, after performing well, wanted to let fans know how it felt to be booed.

What happened next was anything but subdued – and was also fairly predictable. The Mets owner and team president came out against Báez’s comments. The New York tabloids did what New York tabloids do. And Báez apologized a couple days later, sounding somewhat convincing and saying that he wasn’t booing the fans — but that his gesture was almost a subdued “How do you like me, now?” after their previous criticism.

But the damage, at least at that moment, was done. Pundits speculated that Báez had cemented his future as an ex-Met and hurt his chances generally in free agency this offseason. “It’s impossible to think of another prospective free agent making a bigger public relations mistake,” longtime baseball writer Buster Olney said.

How to Try to Avoid Flubs – and Prepare for Them

For professional services organizations, the first lesson from Báez’s verbal misstep is that being authentic doesn’t mean throwing caution to the wind. Báez and most athletes likely go through media training, but they’re also constantly bombarded with questions. Individuals who work for professional services organizations have fewer opportunities to make these mistakes and therefore less of an excuse for making them.

Preparing for interactions with reporters is crucial because of how quickly the wrong thing said in today’s 24/7 media climate can wreck a reputation, or do damage to an institution. But preparation should go beyond one-off prep sessions. If organizations have their houses in order from a communications and public relations standpoint – and have invested in developing a solid reputation that builds up a reservoir of goodwill – that’s the best way to be authentic without taking on too much risk.

This may be a long-term process, but it can provide a sort of communications resiliency – broad shoulders that allow an organization to take a PR hit every now and then. The Mets didn’t have such a reservoir in the lead up to Báez’s comments. Their previous GM was fired after a sexting scandal, the team’s owner publicly calls out underperforming players and there was even the highly implausible explanation for a team dustup about whether an animal in Citi Field was a rat or a raccoon.

When Flubs Happen

Like sports teams, professional services organizations are comprised of individuals who might say the wrong thing to a reporter, post something they shouldn’t on social media or simply do something in life that draws the wrong kind of attention. But it’s important that organizations don’t overreact in the heat of these moments.

Whether the Mets did that here is debatable – some might say quick action was needed – but at least one well-known baseball blogger called out Mets executives for their comments. “I get that the fans are the meal ticket, but the fans don’t fan without the players,” the blogger, Brett Taylor, said. “Praising the fans for booing the team ain’t exactly the best way to get on the players’ good side when you need them most.”

Perhaps the Mets could have figured that into their thinking, along with the realization that the glare of the modern spotlight is bright but especially fleeting. It certainly was when it came to Báez’s comments.

The day he apologized, Báez would go on to be key in sparking a huge come-from-behind win, including a big hit and baserunning straight out of his best days in Chicago. In an amusing footnote, a top Mets executive joined the Mets ground crew following the come-from-behind win in searching for an earring Báez lost around home plate while he was celebrating the big win with his teammates to the cheers of thousands.

The Mets’ struggles resumed after the win, and they’re now all but out of postseason contention. But Báez certainly isn’t to blame, with a strong performance that quieted the boos. His apology before the Mets’ come-from-behind win came on September 1, and he has a .380 batting average this month and (for more statistically inclined fans) a 1.118 OPS. It’s hard to see Báez getting blamed for the team’s shortcomings, with even the New York tabloids coming around in recent days.

That same tabloid pointed its finger at someone else as far as blame goes – controversial team owner Steve Cohen. One wonders how a smarter PR strategy might have avoided many of the Mets’ problems this season.

September 8, 2021 by Lisa Seidenberg

Cries of “fake news” have become a favored weapon of bad actors looking to cast doubt on credible reporting. But news that is actually fake is a clear threat to our very democracy — and it’s found a prominent breeding ground on increasingly powerful social media platforms.

Last year, our Fake News 2020 report found that 80 percent of journalists strongly believe misinformation has negatively impacted journalism. Furthermore, 56 percent said social media is the single greatest fake news distribution threat. So when we release our second Fake News report later this fall, we’re going to zero in on social media’s role.

And what, if anything, journalists think should be done about it.

Social Media Both Supports and Undermines Credible Journalism

Journalists rely on social media to do their jobs. Many comb social media for story ideas or leads, use it to obtain and verify sources, and share their stories to boost engagement.

But social media can be a double-edged sword, even if you look past the effects Facebook and other platforms have had on the advertising models of traditional news outlets. Journalists use social media to get reality-based news in front of a broader readership, but propagators of disinformation use it too. From there, audiences can indiscriminately share and disseminate stories (real or fake) quickly and easily. In turn, social media becomes an echo chamber, making it easy for audiences to attack and discredit those same stories.

Social media, obviously, isn’t going away. And because it is one of the main fronts in the fight against fake news, it’s time to sound a battle cry. Whether or not the government ultimately intervenes, we as PR professionals need to do our part to support journalists, amplify truthful news stories, call out fake news when we see it, and commit ourselves to high levels of transparency and ethical behavior.

2021 Fake News Report: A Preview

In our report last year, journalists overwhelmingly felt it was their responsibility to fight fake news. But they were split on whether the government should get involved. They didn’t agree about whether the U.S. should impose anti-fake news laws to combat misleading information. More than a third (39 percent) supported or strongly supported anti-fake news laws, while nearly as many (35 percent) did not support such laws. About a quarter – 26 percent – said they were neutral toward the potential laws.

But that was before a contentious campaign season, disputed election results, and an unprecedented insurrection at the nation’s capitol — spurred in large part by groups using social media to get their message across.

And as we face continued vaccination hesitancy and a resurgence of Delta variant-related positive COVID-19 cases, we can’t help but wonder: Have we finally reached a critical turning point in the fight against fake news?

Evaluating the Communications Decency Act, Section 230

We wanted to know specifically what journalists think about calls to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — which grants internet platforms legal immunity for most content posted by their users. Do journalists feel this act currently grants social media platforms too much leniency? Especially when we factor in alternative, far-right platforms like Parlor, Gab, and MeWe?

The White House has initiated conversations to hold social media platforms more accountable for their content. Is this appropriate? Will this assure journalists more that their credible news stories might have a chance of breaking through the fake news maelstrom? Will such reforms go far enough?

Weighing Additional Governmental Interventions to Combat Fake News

Reforming Section 230 is just one commonly discussed approach aimed at limiting the flow of fake news on social media platforms. Do journalists think the Biden administration should generally prioritize combating fake news – and, if so, how should do they think it be done? Here are some other options:

Regulating and enforcing antitrust laws
Revising libel and slander laws
Revising the “fair use” doctrine

We’ll also ask journalists for their thoughts on a variety of other issues related to fake news including how the term has evolved in the last year.

How PR Can Help Journalists Fight Fake News

While we may not be on the front lines, PR professionals can and need to support their colleagues in battling the dissemination of fake news. As part of our 2020 report, we vowed to take the following steps. And we encourage your organization to do the same.

Support the work of reporters and editors. We value the work that journalists do every day, and we appreciate the privilege of collaborating with them. We pledge to continue to support journalists and amplify reality-based news sources.
Stress ethics and transparency. We strongly discourage lying to journalists or putting forth non-credible sources, and we pledge to always fact-check our work. Because we embrace transparent relationships with journalists (and the public), we will always be responsive to journalists’ questions and endeavor to help them solve problems when we can.
Put the audience first. Many PR practitioners hone their craft by developing the perfect pitch to get a reporter’s attention. That is, of course, important. But we believe in only offering insights that a journalist’s audience cares about.
Advocate against fake news. We believe it is our responsibility to help others understand the difference between real and fake news, thereby hindering the spread of fake news. Since we believe this starts with educating the next generation of active news consumers, we pledge to take a leadership role for future PR practitioners today, tomorrow, and always.

We’ve followed through on this pledge by devoting podcast episodes to the topic, participating in webinars, lending our voice to roundtables with future PR leaders such as PRSA Voices 4 Everyone, and raising awareness through articles like this one. And we’ll continue to advocate as a voice for truth and transparency in journalism especially while fake news remains a threat.

We’re excited to share our findings in our 2021 Fake News report this fall. Connect with Greentarget to receive the report right to your inbox.

July 28, 2021 by Howell J. Malham Jr.

Twenty-first century leaders that refuse to recognize the social needs and interests of key actors will fail to capture market share. CMOs can help CEOs understand and act on emerging opportunities honestly, openly, and strategically.

Old norms die hard.

Nowhere is that more true than in corporate America, where executives are struggling to understand and accept, let alone keep up with, the expectations and demands of a new reality: what’s good for society is good for business.

As Fortune reported recently, more than a few CEOs are now “more willing to speak out on controversial social and political issues;” some leaders at the helm of progressive brands like PayPal, Intel, and Lyft have in recent years not only taken stands on selective social issues but changed company policy to connect company values with to shifting opinions and beliefs.

Still, many leaders cannot or simply will not waver from old business norms—specifically, the expectations that government, not companies, should address and tackle social issues. Not necessarily because they’re blind to complex issues like diversity, equity and inclusion, and voting rights but because they haven’t been able to reconcile both the philosophy and logic of capitalist economics, as Milton Friedman explained it in the last century. And do so with genuine, not performative, expressions of social responsibility.

For an elevated CMO, the C-suite’s “new utility player” as we reported in the first of our series of articles on the new norms of executive leadership, this moment presents a unique opportunity to serve and support his/her/their CEO and other members of executive leadership by designing new ways of connecting the social to business in this still-uncharted reality.

And before said reality leaves present-gen leaders behind.

Words followed by deeds

Once upon a time, a CEOs’ greatest tool was the language of obfuscation. Secrecy and privacy of a company’s top leader created an aura of control and power; decisions were made almost exclusively and unilaterally on the golf course or at the dinner table

Before the digital age, a CEO had limited inputs – and a certain degree of control over – predictable outcomes. Now, information and inputs to consider in decision-making at the C-suite level are seemingly infinite. As such, sticking one’s digital head in the digital sand on everything from climate change to voting rights, whether through avoidance, obfuscation or silence, bespeaks of indifference or ignorance (or both) at a company’s highest levels.

On the other hand, if a company assumes a hastily conceived position that smacks of the performative, then it’s “let fly the rotten tomatoes!”

But the days of lip service and “let’s not and say we did” are over; the pandemic and technology made sure of it.

Part of the challenge – a big part – is understanding how, when, why, and where to have the conversation. Rare is there alignment between what is communicated one-on-one and in confidence over an almond milk latte at the nearest coffee bar, and what is expressed publicly in the conference room in the presence of executive and senior leadership, and peers.

The same goes for external comms – maybe the most effective press release isn’t a press release at all. It’s a proclamation AND a manifestation through deeds.

Or, said another way, its words with acts.

Whatever a company does, whatever public position it takes or doesn’t take on a social issue, it must be willing to face and accept the fact that it’s going to make some group or groups of actors unhappy. That’s actually OK, if a CEO means exactly what he/she/they declare publicly; backs it up with swift, decisive action; and is willing to explain to clients and employees the reasons for the company’s behavior.

Most rationale actors in a corporate setting can live with said unhappiness; but no one likes to be left in the dark.

Or worse, deceived.

At such moments, the CMO can step in and help the CEO connect a social position to a company’s strategy and long-term goals; and in a way that makes sense for existing and future employees. He/she/they can use data and insights through a marketing lens to inform and influence discretionary behavior of employees; motivate them through new sets of expectations, and imaginative performance goals, thereby being a friend to the CHRO, too.

Why? Any CHRO worth his/her/their salt knows that talent is an asset on the balance sheet; and companies do well when said asset trades at a higher value.

Working together, the CMO and CHRO can, for example, design incentives for brand ambassadorship for all organization talent; confronting social issues and framing them in ways that make employees believe that they’re about something bigger than the product or service; bigger than even the company itself. (Think of a famous business school case study of a hot dog company that proclaimed its mission was to head-off a protein shortage in the future.)

Even if it’s simply an invitation to be a part of a larger conversation about the issue—in fact, corporations that convoke assemblies to discuss issues openly and honestly with actors of all ilks may find themselves in the best possible position of all if there is one in such highly charged times: the convener.

Such initiatives can have a direct, positive impact on employee efficiency and effectiveness, which are absolutely critical to a company’s growth, and, as important, to raising the value of the talent asset. These assets are welcomed, not shunned, from the table in a corporate-sanctioned forum and encouraged to discuss the most important, meaningful, and complex social challenges of our time.

Coming up next in our executive leadership series: The Virtue of Accountability

July 21, 2021 by Aaron Schoenherr

New complexities in the age of “cancel culture” are no longer just a challenge for celebrities. Increasingly, professional services firms face a new reality as online communities and individual actors use the power of social media to whip up public outcry because of the people or organizations firms represent.

These actors can be tenacious, even vicious. If they access your client list and accompanying email addresses, they will use that information to exert incredible pressure, sometimes going as far as demanding you fire your client or face their wrath.

In this evolving court of public opinion, you may feel the pressure to drop individuals and corporations who are controversial. And if you’re like us, you’re struggling with questions regarding the bastions of our liberal society — namely, free speech and the right to fair representation under the law — in the face of attacks that modern communications have made more intense. It takes deep pockets and a whole lot of courage to stand firm — to say nothing of the soul-searching that’s often necessary to make sure doing so is the right thing for your organization.

Here’s how to mitigate your risk of exposure and respond appropriately if and when you come under attack.

Refine (or Define) Your Firm’s Organizational Values

On the social media battlefield, your organizational values are your first line of defense. But what does your firm truly stand for?

Don’t roll your eyes just yet. Think about how common it is for firms facing criticism to release a statement claiming “this is not in line with our values.” Does that ring true if, in fact, it’s clear that their modus operandi is to prioritize top-line revenue above all else?

Before you can assess your risk and develop an authentic crisis communication strategy, the first step is to reevaluate and redefine your firm’s values. Who do you aspire to be? Is it time to evolve your position in order to be relevant in today’s world? Or do your values compel you to hold fast to a particular ideal, even in the face of criticism? Do your business practices demonstrate concern for prominent social issues such as racial justice, climate change, economic disparity, gender equality, and voting rights? And are you communicating effectively about the issues that matter to your firm and to society at large with confidence?

Once you’ve answered these questions, you can effectively assess your risk in light of your defined values.

Analyze Your Risk in 3 Key Areas

There are three unique areas of vulnerability for professional services firms — your talent, your clients, and your history. You’ll need to identify possible risks of exposure within each area.

Talent

If your partners are involved in the political arena, are outspoken in ways that don’t align with your firm’s overarching values, or choose to represent problematic clients, those decisions can tarnish your firm’s reputation and test the bounds of your partnership agreements. To mitigate this risk, assess whether your talent pool is aligned around common values. In our experience, the best way to do this is to talk about those values as frequently as possible, solicit feedback from across the organization on the strength and accuracy of those values and ask your teams to share the ways in which they’ve relied on those values to make tough decisions. (And if your team can’t cite examples, it’s probably an indication that your values need to be revisited).

Clients

Take a close look at your client rosters to identify any controversial individuals or companies in your fold. Do you have a firm handle on who your organization represents? Is there a clear process to make decisions on new engagements that have the potential to draw scrutiny? Do your newly-refined values guide you toward continuing to represent them? If so, proceed — but be sure to include specific clients like these in scenario planning so you’re ready to respond to outside criticism. If your values don’t align with continuing to represent that client, it’s time to make some hard decisions.

History

Your past representations may also come to light when your firm faces scrutiny from a social advocacy group. These relationships leave fingerprints on your firm’s public image and likely will not simply fade with time. If your past decisions don’t align with your current values or today’s social context, they could come back to haunt you. It’s worth the time and effort to do the hard work of assessing past representations that may not reflect positively on your firm without proper explanation. Be prepared to face scrutiny for these engagements and be willing to explain why the organization’s decision to represent certain clients from the past was the right (or wrong) one.

Once you have a handle on the vulnerabilities that exist within your organization, it’s time to do a deep dive into possible scenarios that could arise using a simple scenario planning framework.

Conduct Worst-Case Scenario Planning

How will you respond if the vulnerabilities you’ve identified in your talent, client, and history become a public issue that reflects negatively on the organization? The last thing you want to do is panic and react in a way that makes a bad situation even worse.

Instead, take the time to conduct thorough scenario planning in advance to help you craft appropriate responses to a variety of hypothetical crises. Bring your C-suite, key partners, and members of your communication team together to develop a playbook for each scenario. The best strategy to mitigate reputational threats around talent, clients and history is to invest the time to prepare in advance.

Together, we suggest working through the following steps:

Plot the likely scenarios based on vulnerabilities identified in your talent pool, client list, and history. What decisions would you need to make in this situation? What actions would you need to take?
Identify and prioritize the impacted audiences. Who will be most affected if an imagined crisis becomes reality? Clients? Partners? Employees? Among the audiences you identify, who is the highest priority? What perceptions need to be anticipated and addressed?
Develop the messages each audience needs to hear. Now is the time to craft standby messaging that can be used in various scenarios and targeted to key audiences. Your messages will be stronger, clearer, and more strategic if you draft them now, rather than when you’re in the midst of the storm where emotions tend to cloud decision making and limit the possibilities.
Identify and prepare the right spokesperson(s). Choose the right media spokesperson (usually someone other than your CEO) to represent you — someone who is calm under pressure and has the credibility to represent the organization well. Allow them to practice delivering difficult messaging before a crisis actually hits. And only leverage your CEO when the issue(s) truly rise to the level of the C-suite. Remember that leveraging your CEO as the organization’s spokesperson is a message in and of itself.
Deliver key messages via the appropriate channels (internal and external). If possible, identify internal and external audiences who can help evaluate your messaging and give you honest feedback on how it lands. Social media in particular is a preferred communications medium among these online communities but is often not the most advantageous delivery mechanism for your organization. You may need to recast the communications approach to traditional media, for example, to help level the playing field.
Measure the impact so you can reassess and adapt as needed. Even in a hypothetical situation, practice adapting your messaging based on the feedback you receive from target audiences. Establishing effective feedback loops is critical to help you make the decision to shift course when necessary.

Don’t Waste a Good Crisis

Activist groups know how to use the super-charged political environment we all live in to their advantage. But you can use the threat of a hypothetical crisis to your firm’s advantage as well. After all, sometimes it takes an emergency (even a hypothetical one) to inspire organizations like yours to do the hard work that will end up enhancing your reputation in the long run.

By strengthening your values, aligning your business decisions around your overarching principles, and crafting compelling messages for a variety of scenarios, you can win the hearts and minds of the audiences that really matter to you — your employees, your clients, and the various other stakeholders who contribute to your success.

Invest the time now to prepare for scrutiny from these online communities before you land in their crosshairs. You’ll be better prepared, you’ll likely uncover reputational vulnerabilities that you didn’t know existed previously, and your organization will emerge stronger and more aligned with its values as a result.

June 28, 2021 by John Corey

Distinguished GC panel weighs in on preferred communications between firms and clients, fulfillment of DE&I commitments, and the continuation of virtual engagement post-pandemic.

After the once-in-a-century inflection point of a global pandemic, the legal industry — and all of corporate America — faces another major transition as COVID-19 fades and the “new normal” sets in.

With offices reopening across the country, what lessons will the legal industry retain from the pandemic and what trends from the last 15 months will remain? Just as significantly, what will be the lasting legacy of a national racial reckoning that largely coincided with the worst global health crisis in generations?

These questions were the focus of a distinguished panel of current and former general counsel held on June 8, 2021. Sponsored by The Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the Legal Marketing Association, the remote gathering was moderated by John Corey, President & Founding Partner of Greentarget, and Mary K. Young, partner at Zeughauser Group. The participants were:

Rachel Adams, former Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, Lenovo
Alex Dimitrief, Partner, Zeughauser Group and former General Counsel, General Electric
Peter Muñiz, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, The Home Depot

Often focused on offering guidance for law firms, the conversation was broken into two main categories: How the interactions and communications between firms and clients will look coming out of the pandemic and how the legal industry should continue its renewed focus on diversity, equity and inclusion. The main takeaways from the conversation include:

Video and remote conferencing is here to stay, and law firms should make the most of it.
Law firm communications (alerts, webinar invites, etc.) still aren’t targeted enough as clients seek next-level analysis.
Firms need to be careful return-to-office plans don’t put disproportionate pressure on working women.
Firms need to make good on their public DE&I promises.
Marketers can play important roles as change agents within their firms.

The following includes highlights of the conversation with edits for clarity and length.

We are Living the “New Normal”

Q: How much of the pivot to remote and virtual communications since the start of the pandemic will remain – and how can law firms continue to improve and leverage this development?

Rachel: I see more and more communications using technology and video conferencing. Why should I get on an airplane, waste an evening traveling, stay at a hotel, have a three- or four-hour meeting and then turn back around? I think we’ve learned in the past year-plus how productive we’ve been working remotely.

Alex: Law firms ought to realize that they’re more likely to get client participation if they can just log onto an hour-long webinar. Anything that helps people save time is a plus — and I think law firms that have embraced the new normal and make interactive technologies work are going to win the day.

Peter: Throughout the pandemic, our company has been a video-on company and rarely on a video call does someone make it so you can’t see their face. But that’s not the case with some of our outside counsel and it definitely stands out. That’s an example of why it’s important to be sensitive to the client culture and adapting to it is something law firms need to consider.

Q: Beyond video conferencing, how can law firms do a better job communicating?

Alex: I’m really disappointed when I get a client alert that says, “News Flash – the Coronavirus Raises Issues of Force Majeure and Material Adverse Events.” Well, no kidding. Everyone knows that. You’ve got to remember that you’ve got a sophisticated audience looking for next-level analysis.

Rachel: We get flooded with emails, webinars, research, etc., but if law firms can target and educate themselves on what our big issues may be, then what they’re sending us can cut through the noise. It’s also about understanding what our drama is and what our daily demons are with limited budgets and limited head count.

Q: How do you see the use of in-person meetings changing, and is there opportunity for law firms in the change?

Alex: There are going to be some things that are so important, so material that people are going to want in-person interaction, but that will be the exception. When a client wants to sit in the room to gauge credibility and confidence and advice, that’s a good thing — and firms ought to embrace it. But I wouldn’t insist upon it.

Rachel: If we are going to sit down with our outside counsel and discuss a substantive matter, we’re going to also ask you to provide training to our in-house lawyers while you’re there. That’s an opportunity for you to get to know us better because, if we’re going to have an in-person meeting, we want to get additional value out of the relationship.

Peter: There is something to be said for human contact, but it’s going to be a very targeted approach going forward. From a marketing standpoint, law firms should see the advantages of these new forums and how to truly engage with clients effectively and efficiently. In so doing, their networks are literally going to expand because they’re getting exposed to more members of our teams.

Q: How should law firms think about their own in-house talent given the new normal?

Peter: They need to consider how they evolve their own work cultures so they can maximize their human capital. How are they going to really leverage this new work environment and how can they evolve it to retain and attract the talent that’s necessary for them to excel and to meet our needs should be big considerations.

Alex: Law firm leaders must establish credible and compelling criteria for requiring lawyers to come to the office. The last time I checked, they exceled over the last year and a half working remotely. So, this theme that you need people in the office to demonstrate client commitment rings a little hollow. That said, I understand the considerations around firm culture, for training and other opportunities.

Firms Making Progress on DE&I? “Too Early to Tell.”

Q: Have law firms improved on their commitments to deliver on DE&I over the past year?

Rachel: As an African American woman, I think everybody stepped up communications. I don’t want to say they had to, but they had to — as being silent was not the right thing to do. But at some point, we’re going to start asking for numbers. You can give us all the commitments that you want, but who’s coming out on pitches? Who’s working on our files? Who’s doing the work? We want to understand not just your verbal commitments but your actions.

Peter: Firms have enhanced their level of self-awareness and they understand that there has been a seismic shift. But are they moving the needle? I think it’s too early to tell. They’re engaging with clients in a more collaborative fashion, they want to benchmark and share best practices – and that’s all good. But over time, we will see whether there’s measurable improvement.

Alex: This issue is largely about talent pipelines and whether firms hire from a broader spectrum of law schools than before, whether they can put less focus on grades and more focus on overall qualifications and how they treat diverse lawyers and promote their careers in an appropriate way. Honestly, I don’t know a topic that we’ve talked about more in recent decades and achieved less.

Q: What responsibility do clients have to help improve law firm diversity?

Peter: If you come to me to pitch for business, or if you’re an existing firm and the team that you construct does not reflect my values, you’re not going to be doing much business with me going forward. But I communicate that clearly so it’s not a trap. It’s important for in-house counsel to clearly set expectations.

Rachel: We’re very upfront on what are expectations are for diverse teams and law firms that are coming in to pitch us and law firms that are doing work for us; if you can’t meet certain requirements, you won’t do business with us.

Alex: This often comes down to how to handle a client who says, “Hey, I need to see DE&I,” and then balks at a diverse team on a big case, preferring the white males who have worked for them in the past. I hear leaders of law firms talk about how they’re frustrated by these hypocritical clients, and what I’d say to law firms is, “It’s time to call them on it.”

Q: Are there related issues when it comes to DE&I and the return to the office?

Rachel: Firms are going to have to be flexible. The burdens on female lawyers, both in-house and at outside firms, when it comes to raising children over the past year-plus should be on leaders’ minds when enacting rules about being in the office.

Alex: The worst thing that could happen is for a firm to say that everyone is free to work remotely and still view time in the office as proxy for commitment to clients, commitment to the firm, etc. In that scenario, lawyers who believed they had the flexibility to work at home could be told “You didn’t really demonstrate the commitment” when they’re up for partner. And that could disproportionately affect females.

Peter: If law firms want to be employers of choice, they must adapt and not make excuses or avoid embracing flexibility. All the myths about whether you could trust employees to work remotely? We’re past that. We have successfully run multi-billion-dollar businesses remotely.

Q: Can law firm marketers play a role in new thinking about the office and DE&I?

Rachel: Lawyers are set in their ways and comfortable bringing the same people to pitch meetings. But they need to understand whom they’re meeting with and what those parties increasingly look for. Marketing teams can help provide this valuable insight and tailor teams for pitches.

Peter: Marketers can help shape the voice of the law firm because they know their audiences. Understanding me and my values and my commitment to whatever issue we’re talking about is absolutely critical if you’re pitching me or engaging me on a substantive issue.