#13 - Uncontrolled Social Media Postings - update re-Part 3; WFH - Stephenson Harwood latest, WT‼️??
Info re-delayed part 3 of Social Media Postings (which will come out as Issue #14); Stephenson Harwood: Serious Own Goal re-WFH?
Uncontrolled Social Media Postings - Q: Where’s Part 3 of the Discussion? A: Sorry, You’ll have to wait until issue #14.
The last issue of Practical Counsel (issue #12) was the second part of an intended three part series on the risks associated with uncontrolled Social Media Postings - the specific context being the War in Ukraine and the plethora of postings on social media, in particular those on LinkedIn. The issue being discussed in each part of the three part series is the appropriate response of the senior in-house lawyer (GCs / CLOs) to these postings.
To remind readers - in Part 1 (issue #11), Ukrainian GC Iryna Kravtsova wrote a spirited defence of such postings, arguing that the situation in Ukraine is unique in its horror and that employees should be allowed to post in accordance with their conscience and unregulated by their corporate leaders. While 100% supportive of Ukraine - and personally horrified by the brutality of Russian aggression - I questioned whether postings about Ukraine should really be treated as a unique ‘sui generis’ category of postings. A valid and ripe issue for debate and discussion, in my view, is whether GCs / CLOs should be flagging up risks to their boards associated with allowing employees to post whatever they see fit in support of Ukraine. What happens where the situation is more morally ambiguous? Once free speech has been allowed full voice in one context, how can social media policies be enforced in another context?
In part 2 (the most recent issue, issue #12) a GC wrote a reply to Iryna, on condition of anonymity - this was a powerful contribution from a new contributor, who I called the DGC (the Down-Low GC). The DGC argued that there are more effective ways to contribute to the Ukrainian cause than posting on LinkedIn, and that employees would be better advised to engage in social action, rather than social media commentary. Insofar as posting about the Ukraine War on LinkedIn is concerned, the DGC was clear that he doesn’t regard this as something that an employee should be allowed to do - these are effectively political postings and it is a dangerous precedent for the company to allow them. Employees posting on LinkedIn need to be regulated, the DGC would argue, because their words and commentary can come back to bite their employers - to give an example, if the Global Managing Partner of an international law firm starts posting about Ukraine and people read her posts, share her posts and get excited about her posts - this is almost always going to be because her posts go out as [X name, Global Managing Partner, Y Magic Circle Firm], rather than going out as ‘private posts’ from [X name], where 99.9% of readers of social media will not recognise who [X name] is.
I have changed the gender of the relevant Global MP here, but informed readers will understand my reference. [X name] isn’t Elon Musk or Bill Gates - she’s the Global MP of an international law firm, but by no means a household name.
Part 3 will be a rebuttal of the DGC’s argument. And I can see, for my part, that there are some holes in the DGC’s argument that require rebuttal. The DGC’s argument was, in my view, in some ways as much of a polemic as that of the Ukrainian GC. The Ukrainian GC has the excuse that bombs are falling on her fellow countrymen and women, so that she can expect to be cut a bit of slack, and allowed to write a very emotional polemic. The DGC doesn’t have that excuse, in my view, and could have been a bit more measured and statesmanlike in his comments.
I am hoping, in any event, that Part 3 will be a bit less of a polemic and a bit more of a tightly reasoned rebuttal of the DGC’s argument.
And once Part 3 goes out, I will let the debate rest (no right of reply to Part 3, in other words), although readers should still feel free to comment further, and carry on the debate on LinkedIn or on these pages, of course.
This is all a rather long preamble to the disappointing news that you are going to have wait a few days, at least, for Part 3. I’ve obviously touched some raw nerves (I knew that this topic was going to be a controversial one, but in my view exactly the kind of topic that Practical Counsel should be covering); the individual(s) writing the rebuttal have asked for a few more days to marshal their arguments so that they can put forward the best possible rebuttal to the DGC’s comment. And I respect that. What is happening in Ukraine is terrible on a scale that is unimaginable; and I don’t think it is reasonable to require my contributor(s) to put something out until they feel that they are 100% comfortable with what they have written.
So please bear with us. Part 3 will be coming out very soon, sometime in the course of the coming week (week commencing 9th May) - probably next Friday, at the usual time PC comes out each week.
Stephenson Harwood’s Contribution to the WFH debate; Astute Tactical Move or Faux Pas / Own Goal?
In the circumstances I am not putting out a full newsletter today, but I did want to comment briefly on some other news, which I believe is of interest to the senior in-house leader (be it GC, CLO or Head of Legal).
Earlier this week, the well-known top 50 UK Law Firm Stephenson Harwood (ranked c. 30 in the UK, currently, I believe) announced that moving forward its employees could work from home full-time - but that they would take a 20% pay cut if they chose to do so.
Here’s what happens now if you google ‘Stephenson Harwood’.
I’ve just done it.
Three images and headlines pop up under ‘Top Stories’. One from CNBC (an American cable business owned by NBC) - headline ‘Law firm says employees can work from home full-time - but only if they take a 20% pay cut’. Another from something called Fortune - headline ‘Work from home, but if you do we’ll cut your pay by 20%, law firm tells staff’. The third from something called BusinessLive - headline ‘Bristol boss slams law firm Stephenson Harwood over pay cut for home workers’.
Scroll down past the link to SH’s website, the link to the SH Wiki page and a link to SH’s Legal 500 profile, and the next link is to a Daily Mail article (for those outside the UK, the Daily Mail is a UK tabloid, one of the most popular UK newspapers with a print circulation of close to 1 million and a big online footprint). The Daily Mail headline ‘WFH full time in return for a 20 per cent pay cut, top London law firm Stephenson Harwood says - Daily Mail’.
I don’t know who the Head of Marketing / Comms for Stephenson Harwood is; but - I think it is fair to say - not a good week at the office.
The astonishing thing is that (as pointed out by an outfit called Tradewind News further down the webpage, when googling SH) Stephenson Harwood is a very established brand, a leading name in shipping law (and commercial law more generally) with more than 1,100 people at offices in London, Paris, Greece, Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere.
Who on earth in such a sophistical operation thought that this new policy could be a good idea? Or put more bluntly, what on earth was crossing the mind of whoever dreamt up the policy, and how on earth did it get signed off by anyone with a modicum of common sense?
I’ve cited some of the more polite postings about the SH announcement. One slightly ruder one on LinkedIn, which I found highly amusing and which was written by my neighbour and social acquaintance the Jolly Contrarian (aka Olly Buxton) had the image (see top of this week’s newsletter) of Harry Potter under the stairs at 4 Privet Drive (Little Whinging) with the cutting - but wonderful - headline ‘Bring your own premises’ and the pithy comment:
Hey guys: you can work from home permanently, saving the firm significant capital outlay on IT and real estate, as long as you take a 20pc pay cut.
Walk me through that one?
Walk me through that one indeed …
I also posted on LinkedIn, attracting about 4,000 page impressions, and I’ve come across a bunch of other similar postings that have also whizzed round the globe and, shall we say, not exactly burnished the Stephenson Harwood brand.
—
What an earth has this got to do with senior in-house lawyers you might ask? Why are you writing this stuff? What does it have to do with leadership, management, and relational issues, the focus of this newsletter?
Well, I could say - if you can’t figure that out you don’t deserve to be in a senior corporate role.
But I’ll be slightly more constructive than that.
And there’s a bit of a link to the stuff on Ukraine too, and it’s not just an artificial one.
Social media is dangerous. You play with it at your peril. It can burn you.
Reputational risk is also a really big deal these days, precisely because of the power of the internet and the power of social media.
Stephenson Harwood is a really good firm. It’s also a very well-managed firm. I know a number of the senior people there and they are good people.
But in this instance they have made a dreadful faux pas, scored a terrible own goal.
SH’s reputation will doubtless bounce back, but for a while it has been dented, and against the backdrop of a fierce war on talent, this isn’t - I fear - the kind of publicity its senior leadership will have wanted to attract.
Lesson for senior in-house lawyers.
Before you make a significant decision, think it through. Road test it with colleagues and probably road test it with some non-colleagues too.
It’s very easy to slip up, and the consequences of doing so, amped up and magnified and re-magnified on social media can be truly scary.
I wouldn’t want you to be going through what senior leaders at SH are going through this week.
I really wouldn’t.
And now …….
Contribute to the debate and write in with your comments and observations. Also write to Jonathan with any other people issues you face as an in-house lawyer.
Jonathan can be reached by email at practicalcounsel@substack.com
A note for you picky lawyers; and a plea for tolerance
I am a British lawyer by background and went to both school and University in the UK. So my English is British English. I have taken a conscious decision to write this newsletter in British English, but to try to avoid phrases that aren’t common outside the UK. Sometimes, though, I’ll use a phrase that isn’t commonly used outside the UK, without realising that it is a Britishism. I also endeavour to use the vernacular spellings of my contributors (e.g. to use US spellings for a US contributor), but won’t always get this right.
My plea is for you to tolerate the British spellings and grammar and the occasional Britishism. And to focus on the substance of the newsletter rather than the occasional (to you) annoying turn of phrase, bit of grammar or unorthodox spelling, or the occasional inconsistency in spelling as between, for example, UK and US ‘standard’ spellings.
Thank you and best wishes,
Jonathan Middleburgh
Hi Jonathan. We enjoyed riffing on this last week on Linkedin so, as promised on your own site, here are my four devil's advocate reasons why, in my experience as a managing partner, it’s hats off to SH for this:
1. Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s uncontroversial that private practice commercial law requires a lot of personal interaction, and therefore full-time WFH was an aberration not an entitled new norm - hence it is common sense to provide that as an option (not by way of a stick or a tax) for the comparative few for whom it will work, albeit with the recognition that it is a new and different role attracting a different reward structure.
2. Because it’s the right time to do it. Firms can’t tip toe around COVID eggshells forever and now that we’re back in the real world firms need to have mature, open conversations with their lawyers so that everyone can make informed choices and get on with their careers. I suspect this is also an early bellwether that the war for lawyer talent has passed its spectacularly abnormal peak – history would strongly suggest that all of the economic and (probably strategically more importantly for English law) geopolitical bases are loaded for a big adjustment before too long, and firms need to have their people houses in order before then.
3. Because it is proof positive that SH has a strong employer brand and a confident, grown up relationship with its people. Many firms will now follow SH with some variations on the same theme around full-time WFH, but going first was gutsy and demonstrates SH’s confidence that this will play out fine with its existing people and the people it wants to attract.
4. Because it has given them vast amounts of free publicity. It has generated a lot of copy but outside the echo chamber of the comments sections and the outlier Times 2 lifestyle piece written by their ‘Acting Fashion Editor’, most of the reporting is factual and opinion-free. Yes, there is bound to be some PR downside in some camps, but the overall upside will greatly outweigh the down and the ‘advertising value equivalency’ alone of this PR must be extraordinary.
Congratulations on a bold and clever move!