Latest / Communication Breakdown / First Thing We Do, Let’s [intimidate] All the Lawyers

Transcript

First Thing We Do, Let’s [intimidate] All the Lawyers · Communication Breakdown

• 0:00
  Welcome back to Communication Breakdown, a weekly podcast from the Observatory on Corporate
• 0:07
  Reputation.
• 0:08
  Thanks for joining us.
• 0:09
  I'm Steve Dowling in Silicon Valley.
• 0:12
  And I'm Craig Carroll in New York City.
• 0:14
  Each week, Steve and I take a look at strategies, companies are using to shape headlines, and
• 0:18
  sometimes save their skins.
• 0:20
  It's a post-game show for PR Pros.
• 0:23
  This week, the legal community splits over Trump's attacks.
• 0:26
  And the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
• 0:32
  With apologies to the Royal Shakespeare Company, that's Henry VI, part two, a mob of commoners
• 0:38
  railing against the ruling class.
• 0:40
  Or what today some might call the deep state.
• 0:43
  Five and a half centuries after the wars of the roses, lawyers are still in the crosshairs,
• 0:47
  at least when it comes to this Trump White House.
• 0:50
  The president has been swiping his black sharpie marker against white shoe law firms for
• 0:54
  evoking security clearances and threatening their federal contracts through a series of executive
• 0:58
  orders.
• 1:00
  And in a broader memo, Trump directs the Justice Department to seek sanctions against firms
• 1:05
  if I would he calls frivolous and vexatious litigation against the government.
• 1:11
  Vaxatious, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
• 1:13
  Trump's broadside against the bar is widely seen as an effort to undermine the legal
• 1:17
  profession and bully prominent law firms who might challenge his populist agenda.
• 1:22
  And of course, some of the executive orders are straight up retribution against firms who
• 1:26
  have hired critics of the president.
• 1:28
  What's remarkable about this campaign, and I think most relevant to our podcast today,
• 1:33
  is how the targeted law firms have responded.
• 1:36
  Of the eight we know about right now, four of them, Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Willkie Farr
• 1:41
  and Milbank, some with lengthy memos have capitulated rather than face sanctions, pledging
• 1:47
  tens of millions of dollars in pro bono work on behalf of initiatives aligned with Trump.
• 1:52
  And that has not gone over well with the legal community, including some partners at those
• 1:56
  firms.
• 1:57
  The other four, Perkins Coie, Wilmer Hale, Jenner & Block, and Covington & Burling, they've
• 2:04
  chosen to fight in federal court, which is kind of their home turf.
• 2:08
  And perhaps not surprisingly, judges so far have been siding with the lawyers, calling Trump's
• 2:13
  directives disturbing and reprehensible and most importantly, unconstitutional.
• 2:20
  Steve, like so many of the fights that Trump is picking right now, we know this one is probably
• 2:25
  going to end up with a supreme court.
• 2:27
  But what are we learning from the initial responses?
• 2:30
  I think what stands out to me is how similar the communications we've seen from these capitulating
• 2:36
  firms are to the communications we've seen from some of the companies surrendering on diversity
• 2:41
  over the past several months.
• 2:43
  And in fact, diversity has been one of the things the White House has been using to push
• 2:47
  around these law firms.
• 2:49
  Let's look at how this played out.
• 2:50
  I think the most important episode was the Paul Weiss firm and they were the first to
• 2:56
  give in.
• 2:57
  And their concessions to Trump, I think really hit like an earthquake.
• 3:01
  It came out on a Thursday.
• 3:03
  Trump announced he was rescinding his executive order because Paul Weiss had agreed to change
• 3:08
  their hiring practices and do $40 million in pro bono work, who causes in line with Trump's
• 3:16
  priorities.
• 3:17
  And they were immediately criticized by many in the legal community.
• 3:21
  Then it wasn't until Sunday that the CEO of Paul Weiss sent this 1600 word memo trying
• 3:28
  to explain how they had to do this.
• 3:31
  It was an existential threat.
• 3:33
  They know people aren't happy with it.
• 3:35
  But you know, of course some of these changes were already in the works.
• 3:38
  Others have said that as well.
• 3:39
  They're still committed to diversity, they say.
• 3:42
  So they didn't get ahead of it.
• 3:44
  They gave the White House the PR win, which I'm sure was the main part of the calculus there.
• 3:50
  They let Trump make the announcement for them.
• 3:52
  You know, that's a peep of mine.
• 3:54
  And the other three firms who have since given in also, they largely followed this pattern.
• 3:59
  Milbanks CEO said they only made commitments.
• 4:02
  They were happy to make.
• 4:04
  But the criticism has been really strong.
• 4:06
  Firms have already lost a few partners.
• 4:08
  I've got to believe that's going to continue.
• 4:10
  And as we've seen, it's no guarantee that they won't be targeted again by this protection
• 4:16
  racket approach.
• 4:17
  You can just ask Disney and Harvard and others are learning that lesson the hard way.
• 4:22
  Yeah, what striking here is just that firms like Paul Weiss and Mill bank cut deals.
• 4:26
  It's how they communicated or more accurately didn't communicate.
• 4:31
  They let the White House announce the deal.
• 4:34
  They responded slowly.
• 4:35
  And when they did speak, it was a long defensive message.
• 4:38
  It was designed to manage internal backlash and not manage external perceptions.
• 4:44
  And I would say that response pattern mirrors exactly what we've seen from companies back
• 4:48
  peddling on DEI delay, denial, damage control and always a promise that these changes were
• 4:54
  already in motion as if that is going to neutralize the reputational impact.
• 5:00
  But it doesn't because when you're when you're surrendering narrative control like this,
• 5:04
  especially to a White House that's using policies of pressure campaign, you know, just
• 5:08
  lose the story.
• 5:09
  You set the president and I don't know that's that's what Paul Weiss exactly did.
• 5:13
  They made it easier for you know, for other law firms to follow suit quite cautiously and
• 5:18
  harder to stand up without looking confrontational.
• 5:21
  Yeah.
• 5:22
  And it's hard to read the Paul Weiss memo from the Sunday.
• 5:27
  Three days after the announcement had been made.
• 5:29
  It's harder to read as anything other than, you know, reactive.
• 5:33
  They clearly did not have this planned out and you have to wonder like what did you
• 5:36
  think was going to happen that you think that it was just you were just going to be able
• 5:41
  to do this and let the White House announce it.
• 5:43
  These huge questions that come out of what Trump has been calling settlements and not
• 5:47
  settlements, but he's been referring to them that way.
• 5:50
  Like that just that alone makes it feel like you know, these are like these are lawyers,
• 5:56
  right?
• 5:57
  Yeah.
• 5:58
  These are lawyers and you're using you're losing lawyers language in incorrectly.
• 6:01
  I wonder what the calculation was there that they could just sort of let it go and people
• 6:04
  wouldn't ask, well, what is this pro bono work you're going to be doing this 40 million dollars
• 6:09
  worth of pro bono?
• 6:10
  Right.
• 6:11
  Which by the way, now pales in comparison because three other firms have pledged a hundred
• 6:15
  million dollars.
• 6:16
  So, but back to your point, I read the Paul Weiss memo really has like defeatist.
• 6:22
  Yeah.
• 6:23
  It was, yeah.
• 6:24
  And certainly the government's out to get us.
• 6:26
  Other lawyers aren't coming to our aid.
• 6:28
  They kind of set it up like they are an island.
• 6:30
  And the best spin that they had is I read it was.
• 6:34
  They lived to compromise another day and that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, I think.
• 6:39
  And they talked about values, but they didn't really stand up for them.
• 6:44
  The pattern here is now familiar, a hundred million dollars in pro bono pledges, a public
• 6:48
  rejection of DEI and a performative alignment statement.
• 6:53
  And this time posted by Trump himself.
• 6:55
  Now, why does this matter for us?
• 6:57
  Well, as communicators, well, partly because Trump isn't just targeting legal arguments.
• 7:03
  He's targeting affiliations, clients, even hiring practices.
• 7:07
  And that's a reputational risk vector.
• 7:09
  It's not just a legal one.
• 7:11
  So you know, if you're a CCO or general counsel, you know, the question is, do you know how your
• 7:16
  law firm is positioning itself right now?
• 7:18
  And are you prepared to communicate if your firm becomes part of the story?
• 7:22
  And do you have alignment between legal and communications on how you respond?
• 7:27
  Because when legal independence becomes a political flashpoint, your silence is no longer
• 7:31
  neutral.
• 7:32
  Your affiliation then becomes the narrative.
• 7:35
  The opposite of that, I thought was gender and block.
• 7:37
  Yeah.
• 7:38
  And I think they have been the strongest communicators in this episode.
• 7:41
  They filed their lawsuit the day after Trump's executive order and they had a website going
• 7:47
  live at the same time.
• 7:49
  It's called, "Gener stands firm."
• 7:51
  I think it encouraged people to check it out at jeneraffirm.com.
• 7:55
  It's got their statement, their filings, links to supportive editorials, a couple of one
• 8:01
  pages, which I really like.
• 8:02
  These are resources that are really handy for reporters.
• 8:06
  You look at the website, they draw attention, you know, the editorial board from the Wall Street
• 8:11
  Journal, the Chicago Bar Association.
• 8:15
  You know, so even with the Wall Street Journal editorial board weighing in, that's not a
• 8:18
  group known for pearl clutching, right?
• 8:21
  They said, "Using power to punish firms for representing clients breaks the cornerstone
• 8:26
  principle of American justice going back to John Adams and the founders."
• 8:31
  That's not legal commentary.
• 8:33
  That's constitutional history.
• 8:35
  And when they're saying this has gone too far, it tells you this isn't about the left or
• 8:39
  right, it's about the rule of law versus the rule of power.
• 8:43
  This is the kind of legal communication that meets the moment.
• 8:46
  They're not just litigating in court, they're narrating in public.
• 8:49
  They're doing it in a way that's accessible.
• 8:52
  You know, you don't need to have a JD to follow the logic.
• 8:55
  That matters because right now, the government is going to have a JD.
• 8:56
  Now, the clarity of your position is your positioning.
• 9:00
  It's not written in legal ease.
• 9:02
  And that's a really, you know, critical part of communicating this because, and maybe this
• 9:07
  was a calculation that Paul Weiss is making.
• 9:09
  I don't know, but if you think that something like this is going to remain sort of contained
• 9:15
  within your community, at this scale, I think you're really making a miscalculation.
• 9:21
  So hats off to a general block for being prepared to go public and doing a good job at it.
• 9:28
  Yeah, Jinner moved fast.
• 9:29
  Not just legally, you know, they showed what it looks like when your comms team and legal
• 9:33
  team are rowing in the same direction, you know, that the lawsuit and the narrative launched
• 9:37
  together, that's rare and it's powerful.
• 9:39
  You know, honestly, you know, if you're a chief comms officer or general counsel watching
• 9:43
  this play out, I think Jinner just gave you a master class in how to frame a principled
• 9:48
  stand, fast, clean, and media ready.
• 9:52
  They had some time to prepare, which I think is good.
• 9:54
  Clearly they were gearing up for this during whatever negotiations they had with the White
• 9:59
  House.
• 10:00
  And yeah, I think this is a really critical part of doing PR for legal, making it understandable
• 10:05
  to every day, humans, which reporters generally are.
• 10:09
  And yeah, the comms department needs a really healthy relationship with the legal department
• 10:14
  to do it.
• 10:15
  Yeah.
• 10:16
  Most of our listeners have experienced this dynamic between legal and PR.
• 10:20
  PR needs to be consistent with the legal argument and of course everything when you're in a
• 10:25
  legal action, everything gets, you know, reviewed with a fine tooth comb, but you tend to pull
• 10:31
  the quotable quotes from the filings, the relevant bits that you want to get in front of the
• 10:36
  reporters, the pertin parts and then help frame it.
• 10:40
  And one thing that I like to advise is that legal can help in partnership by making
• 10:45
  its filings, at least parts of them as readable as possible, right?
• 10:49
  They're not going to change the whole filing into some press-friendly, conversational document,
• 10:54
  but I always suggest like try to partner with legal if you can, like on say the first page,
• 11:01
  the introductory part.
• 11:03
  That's where, first of all, it's easy to find.
• 11:05
  And it's okay to be a little more general and that you can broadly set up the arguments,
• 11:11
  you know, ideally in the same language that you would use in a public, like a press statement
• 11:17
  and then make it pithy and understandable at least and then the lawyers can go on to do
• 11:22
  all their loitering with the lawyer language after that.
• 11:26
  Yeah.
• 11:27
  And I think that General and Block did a really good job in, now they're lawyers and obviously
• 11:32
  their comms team is, you know, doing comms for legal every day, but you go to that web page
• 11:37
  and it feels very accessible, again, as we said, the firms that are fighting this, they're
• 11:42
  making it about a bigger issue, they're making it about the way the system ought to work
• 11:48
  and that they are coming to defense, to the defense of constitutional principles, to defense
• 11:53
  of the rule of law.
• 11:54
  So I think it's a much more effective approach.
• 11:57
  One of the things that is most surprising to me is that we haven't seen as many other
• 12:00
  firms sign on.
• 12:02
  Winter lose.
• 12:03
  And I mean, these are the top law firms in the country fighting for their lives.
• 12:06
  I assume they're going to give it their best, but winter lose, you're standing on principle
• 12:11
  and reputationally, that's where I would much rather be.
• 12:16
  And I think whatever the reasons business or otherwise, I think it's a real mess that the
• 12:22
  legal profession, the legal community doesn't seem more unified in its response.
• 12:27
  That it's where at this 50/50 split is really surprising to me.
• 12:31
  I don't know where, if that trend is going to continue, but the firms who have given
• 12:35
  in more recently, but we said that we upped that pro bono pledge.
• 12:40
  So it seems from the outside, like the two sides could be moving apart or at least the
• 12:45
  ones who are capitulating don't seem to have drawn any strength from the resolve that their
• 12:51
  peers are showing.
• 12:52
  And I'm sure there is a lot of industry politics and history and other goings on that we
• 12:56
  are not familiar with.
• 12:58
  And it's pretty clear a lot of there's a lot of negotiation going on behind the scenes
• 13:03
  between these firms and we have to assume that there are others sort of in the pipeline.
• 13:09
  What's troubling about these law firms giving in a Trump isn't just that they folded under
• 13:13
  pressure.
• 13:14
  It's that they seated very ground the legal profession is supposed to defend.
• 13:17
  And that's independence, access and equal protection under the law.
• 13:22
  So if law firms are supposed to be the firewall, they're the ones who take the heat so that
• 13:27
  the clients, even on popular ones, still get representation.
• 13:31
  But when you start cutting deals to void executive retaliation, when you rewrite hiring practices
• 13:37
  and pledge pro bono work to political causes to stay in the administration's good graces,
• 13:42
  you're not defending the law, you're conforming to power.
• 13:45
  And let's be honest, this was at a level playing field.
• 13:48
  These weren't routine policy disagreements.
• 13:50
  These were firms being targeted for past affiliations or DEI programs for who they hired
• 13:56
  and who they represented.
• 13:58
  That's not oversight.
• 13:59
  That's retribution.
• 14:00
  So yeah, it's troubling.
• 14:01
  People training teaches you how to win arguments with their tight reasoning, but reputation isn't
• 14:05
  one that way.
• 14:06
  Yeah, it's shaped by how you show up in the uncertainty.
• 14:10
  And in today's environment, people aren't judging you based on your footnotes.
• 14:13
  They're judging you based on your values or voice and your visibility.
• 14:16
  Yeah, and I think that this is why the strategy that these, the firms who are resisting,
• 14:23
  their strategy of zooming out to the impact on the rule of law, getting people to focus
• 14:30
  on the broader issues and not necessarily making it about themselves in the first instance,
• 14:36
  which is I think, think what Paul Weiss was doing in this long memo that was sort of
• 14:43
  doubled back on itself logically a couple times, where they're really like, we can't operate
• 14:48
  if we don't give in.
• 14:50
  That narrows it, not broadens it.
• 14:52
  And I think it's less relatable to people and it makes it harder to get people to pick
• 14:58
  up your case.
• 15:00
  You know, risk isn't always something to minimize.
• 15:03
  Sometimes you have to manage, right?
• 15:05
  Lawyers are trying to reduce exposure, but in chaotic environments like this, visibility
• 15:10
  is often the strategic move that they're making.
• 15:12
  The public doesn't trust silence anymore.
• 15:14
  You know, it's red is weakness, guilt or detachment.
• 15:17
  So the shift here's got to be from control to credibility, from not saying anything, to
• 15:22
  saying something worth believing.
• 15:24
  I think that's the communications mindset is how you turn legal risk into risk.
• 15:29
  Reputational authority.
• 15:31
  Yeah, it's beyond me that anybody thinks in this dynamic that we're in the middle of right
• 15:36
  now with the Trump White House that anybody thinks saying nothing is an effective way to
• 15:40
  get through a reputational crisis like this.
• 15:43
  I can't think of an example where it has worked.
• 15:46
  I don't understand why people keep trying that playbook except paralysis, that it is scary
• 15:52
  and we don't like what we've just had to do, but you've done it and now you've got to
• 15:56
  own it and saying nothing is not a viable option.
• 16:00
  Communication moves fast, the law moves cautiously and I think that's where a little bit of the
• 16:04
  friction is.
• 16:05
  But friction doesn't mean conflict.
• 16:08
  It means you need fluency.
• 16:10
  And when you know what might trigger litigation, regulatory scrutiny or discovery exposure,
• 16:17
  you can help legal stay out of trouble without losing the message.
• 16:21
  So it's a little bit about timing, a little bit about trust knowing when to speak and either
• 16:25
  way you got to be able to get the buy-in first.
• 16:29
  Yeah, and I mean, I think that's a really good point that things are moving fast these
• 16:34
  days, but the law, the court process is still a lot slower.
• 16:39
  And what the firms who are resisting these executive orders and these other threats, they're
• 16:44
  using that to their advantage.
• 16:46
  Again, I don't understand why this wasn't part of the calculus for the firms who capitulated
• 16:52
  because they're basically buying time.
• 16:55
  I don't think it's super surprising, but or that there was any luck involved.
• 16:59
  These are skilled lawyers.
• 17:01
  I think in each case, when they went to federal judges, the federal judges, their immediate
• 17:07
  response was inclined to support their position that these are unconstitutional orders.
• 17:13
  And so now you enter this period, well, well, it's in the courts and we're encouraged
• 17:19
  by the initial comments by the court.
• 17:22
  And it didn't necessarily have to move as quickly as it did for some of these firms.
• 17:31
  I think the first target of the executive orders was coming to an emberling.
• 17:35
  That was at the end of February.
• 17:36
  They just sued this week.
• 17:38
  So that was hanging out there and it's really also about the ability to live in the uncertainty.
• 17:45
  What skills they brought to bear there, I'm not sure, but they certainly were able then
• 17:50
  to get their ducks in a row.
• 17:52
  And now it's in the courts and that gets them some more time.
• 17:57
  I will say there's something about that, that for us as communicators that we have to in
• 18:01
  this moment of chaos, we have to be able to pause long enough and not move too fast.
• 18:07
  I mean, the fact that their lawsuit took so long, sometimes you can have a knee jerk response
• 18:13
  and needed to find out and be aware and touch with how, you know, in this case, other
• 18:19
  law firms, but how other companies are dealing with these issues so that you know the degree
• 18:25
  that you're in sync, you certainly don't want to be out there.
• 18:28
  But if you are out there by yourself and you're speaking from a position of authority and
• 18:33
  you're doubling down, that's totally okay.
• 18:36
  But I think right now there's just so much uncertainty, the more aware, the more calibrated
• 18:40
  that you can be in your response and your ability to keep your feet grounded, right?
• 18:46
  While you're pulled in so many different directions is is important.
• 18:50
  Yeah.
• 18:51
  And we've seen, we've seen some firms use their time wisely.
• 18:56
  I think Cuffington and Burling, General and Block, probably in that category because where
• 19:02
  the communications needs to move quickly is once you've made a decision and taken an action,
• 19:06
  right?
• 19:07
  We didn't see that with, with Paul Weiss.
• 19:10
  They let Trump make the announcement and then everybody sort of scratch their heads about
• 19:15
  why and what it really meant and it wasn't until the weekend that their CEO came out.
• 19:20
  But the others are making their decision and obviously in parallel, they're getting their
• 19:24
  communications ready.
• 19:25
  So when they file, they're there with a statement and the public positioning so that everybody
• 19:30
  knows where they stands and it amplifies their actions and puts them in context.
• 19:35
  Yeah.
• 19:36
  I'm actually curious for our audience how much their background affects the way they're
• 19:41
  thinking about matters right now because look, we've got several CCOs who actually have
• 19:47
  law degrees.
• 19:48
  They not only have a communications background, but they also have a law degree as well.
• 19:53
  Yeah.
• 19:54
  I think that's one issue.
• 19:55
  One is their own exposure, their own training in terms of the law and two, how is their
• 20:01
  company set up in terms of the relationship between communications and their legal department
• 20:06
  here?
• 20:07
  Yeah, I mean, there's a fair number of companies where communications reports into legal just
• 20:13
  structurally organizational.
• 20:15
  Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's also that too, right?
• 20:17
  Yeah.
• 20:18
  So you would like to think that there's two way education going on there that you have
• 20:23
  comms, people who are more versed in legal and you have importantly lawyers who are more
• 20:29
  versed in how the comms works.
• 20:31
  And I think if you get that balance right, you can be really, really effective.
• 20:35
  That is said earlier, it really depends on partnership here where comms can have some input, legal
• 20:43
  can set the boundaries, maybe stretch them just a little bit where they understand that
• 20:48
  it's going to be effective outside the court, outside the legal filing.
• 20:51
  So long as it doesn't harm what they're trying to do within the four walls of that legal
• 20:57
  filing.
• 20:58
  One of the biggest questions here for me is, and one we don't have full visibility to
• 21:02
  us whether communicators at these firms are actually part of the decision making process
• 21:07
  or if they're just getting handed the consequences.
• 21:09
  You know, from the outside, it looks like the latter, right?
• 21:12
  You know, these statements don't always read like their proactive positioning.
• 21:15
  They read like internal memos that reluctantly got sent to the public.
• 21:19
  They're vague, reactive, and late in some cases.
• 21:22
  And they're letting the story be told by the very person who put them in the cross-airs.
• 21:27
  If communicators were in the room early, if legal and comms were functioning as a joint unit,
• 21:33
  you would expect sharper framing, faster response, and a clear articulation of values and principles.
• 21:38
  Instead, we're getting the language you write when you're trying to keep the peace and not
• 21:43
  lead the conversation.
• 21:45
  So yeah, I think many of these cases, we've got situations where communicators are on the
• 21:50
  sidelines.
• 21:51
  And that's a missed opportunity.
• 21:53
  It's a strategic failure if that makes sense.
• 21:55
  However you want to term it, I'll boil it down to four words.
• 21:59
  Get ahead of it.
• 22:01
  Get ahead of it.
• 22:02
  It's a golden rule and it's something that everybody's got to keep in mind.
• 22:07
  I think everybody listening to this podcast knows that it's just that sometimes when you
• 22:12
  get into these situations, again, paralysis, fear, we're in uncharted territory in some
• 22:18
  ways, but in some ways, we are not.
• 22:21
  These things are going to play out to the same audience that we had six months ago.
• 22:26
  And so a lot of what we've known, a lot of the rules that we've sort of grown up on,
• 22:32
  still apply, even though we have some of the characters operating outside of the norms.
• 22:38
  It's just have to remember what works and what principles are going to help us stay ahead
• 22:45
  of things so that we can still be controlling our own narrative, even if we're in a situation
• 22:51
  that we don't like.
• 22:52
  The truth is in organizations, Pierre doesn't have the authority to shape legal decisions.
• 22:57
  When a firm is facing an executive order, a sanctions threat or pressure from the White House,
• 23:02
  those decisions are happening at the top between managing partners, general counsel, sometimes
• 23:07
  the board and communications is often brought in after the fact, often tasked with crafting
• 23:12
  a message around a decision that's already been made.
• 23:15
  That's the structural reality.
• 23:17
  But it's also a strategic vulnerability because when legal decisions have public consequences
• 23:23
  and they increasingly do, leaving comms out of the conversation early means you're reacting
• 23:28
  and not shaping it.
• 23:29
  And that delay is going to cost you in terms of public trust, employee confidence, investor
• 23:34
  perception, and even a court.
• 23:37
  So this isn't about comms trying to steer legal reasoning.
• 23:41
  It's about recognizing that legal strategy has become a reputational flashpoint.
• 23:45
  And if you don't have alignment across the functions early enough, you end up with filings
• 23:51
  that are airtight and court, but they're not readable in the media.
• 23:56
  And statements that will sound detached or defensive or even hollow.
• 23:59
  So no communicators so often have the power to insert themselves, but smart organizations
• 24:05
  are starting to shift that somewhat because comms is not nice to have.
• 24:09
  It's a necessity and in a moment where public opinion can influence legal risk and legal
• 24:16
  posture can shape your brand's identity, the alignment between legal and comms is an luxury.
• 24:22
  It's risk management.
• 24:24
  So here's some of the things this episode tells me.
• 24:27
  One legal credibility is now a reputational asset, but it's also reputation or liability.
• 24:36
  Native orders are increasingly becoming tools of narrative warfare and law firms once
• 24:42
  behind the scenes advisors are now big dragged out front and center.
• 24:45
  So you know, if you're in comms, I think part of the job now is mapping what your exposure
• 24:50
  is knowing which firms you're tied to and how they're responding.
• 24:54
  You got to align your legal and communications playbooks now before the pressure hits.
• 25:00
  And I think you have to decide in advance, where do we stand on this?
• 25:03
  What's the guesible?
• 25:04
  Not because the question isn't if this climate affects your organization, it's win and in
• 25:10
  that moment, you know, reputation or resilience is going to start with clarity.
• 25:15
  Yeah.
• 25:16
  And again, these decisions, these statements are playing out in front of a much broader
• 25:20
  audience.
• 25:21
  You're dealing with legal stuff.
• 25:23
  It's usually you're talking to a judge and now you are talking to the whole world and
• 25:27
  that's something that comms can have a really important point of view to share on.
• 25:32
  So giving them a seat at the table for these things.
• 25:34
  Yeah, they're not going to decide or veto your legal strategy, but they're going to have
• 25:38
  very important feedback on how it might play out.
• 25:42
  And we are going to see, I think more of this, it will be really interesting to see if
• 25:47
  this divide in the legal community somehow narrows or if we end up with two very distinct
• 25:54
  camps.
• 25:55
  And I think the next several weeks will be very telling and we of course will stay on
• 26:00
  top of it.
• 26:01
  That's our show for this week.
• 26:02
  We want to thank Sean P. Niel and the people forward network for making our podcast possible.
• 26:08
  If you have comments or suggestions for the podcast, we'd love to hear from you.
• 26:12
  Our email address is podcast@ocrnetwork.com.
• 26:17
  Communication breakdown is a production of the Observatory on corporate reputation.
• 26:21
  I'm Steve Dowling.
• 26:22
  And I'm Craig Carroll.
• 26:23
  Thanks for listening.
• 26:24
  We'll be back next week.
• 26:25
  #RoyalShakespeareCompany​ #PaulWeiss​ #SkaddenArps​ #WilkieFarr​ #Milbank​ #PerkinsCoie​ #WilmerHale​ #Jenner&Block​ #Covington&Burling​ #Trump #Tariff #LegalNews #Disney #Harvard #DEI