Category: Law

Practising deceit

I was very struck by one particular answer John Moulton gave in the 20 Questions column in last Friday’s FT. He was asked, “Have you ever lied at work?” and his answer was “No. I detest deceit”.

This is the answer we probably all hope we would give, and indeed all think we could give. If you were to ask any lawyer which virtues he or she would consider fundamental to lawyering, my money would be on ‘probity’ and ‘integrity’ as two that would rank very high. Trust is, or should be, the foundation upon which we build our careers as lawyers.

And yet, and yet: deceit is never far away. Our ability to negotiate, whether in litigation or in transactional work, is one of those core skills that we lawyers also need. This in turn may involve, as Lord Armstrong remarked in the 1986 Spycatcher trial, our being “economical with the truth”.  The maxim  is from Edmund Burke: “Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.”

At the end of our careers (although I am not suggesting for a moment that this is where John Moulton is) it would be good to be able to give that answer. It may, however, be difficult.

A moral profession

One (among a number) of the things you are not taught at Law School is the importance of morality in the practice of law.

Instead this is something that most lawyers learn later: whether during the training contract, or in legal practice. And some lawyers learn it better than others.  I have posted before, in Professional Unease, about what Bill Knight called the moral dilemma that most of us face at some stage or other in our professional careers, ‘when your client wants to do something which is legal, but which in your view is highly questionable’, and in the doing of it will be looking to you for help and advice.

Earlier in the week in the ft.com/managementblog, Stefan Stern posted about passing the parent test, referring to the remark by Stephen Hester, chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, to the Treasury Select Committee: “If you asked my mother and father about my pay they would say it is too high.” Stern went on (and this is what caught my eye),

We should always be ready to explain to close family members what it is we do at work, and why. The FT columnist John Kay prefers this sort of practical morality to any sort of imposed code of behaviour. If you would be embarrassed telling friends or family about aspects your job, the chances are you should not be doing it, he has said.

This is the practical morality that Bill Knight was writing about.

The danger is failing to look beyond our formal Code of  Conduct; assuming that if our actions do not infringe the Code, they must be acceptable.  This ignores the possibility that certain behaviour may not be professional misconduct but may be professionally unethical. Having said that, the purpose behind Rule 1, as set out in the general guidance, was to ‘define the values which should shape your professional character and be displayed in your professional behaviour’: perhaps the intent behind Rule 1, and I was a member of the Committee that drafted it, has not translated into action as we had hoped. Finally, a formal Code is no guarantee either that lawyers will recognise moral dilemmas, or, having done so, will act ethically.

Starting again

Welcome back, though that may not be quite the right phrase, to Lawslot.

Some 12 months ago, struggling to find time to post to both Enough Said and Lawslot, to say nothing of my original blog, Dartmoor Letters, I decided to close Lawslot. I moved its posts to Enough Said: George Wilkinson’s Blog, and determined to concentrate on that blog.

So much for good intentions. There have been two difficulties. First, Enough Said has lost focus. It is something and nothing. It has certainly been a handy escape valve for some of my grumpier thoughts, mainly political, but these sit ill with what I had always intended to be considered posts on law firm strategy and management. If your blog is a window into your world, then reading mine I am clearly the Grinch.

Secondly, I discovered Twitter, and the joy of the Twitterverse: 140 characters, immediate, and the opportunity (still to be taken forward properly) of engagement with others who share my interests and concerns.

So as Twitter took  over, my posts on Enough Said all but stopped. Work is an excuse (of sorts), but not much of one. I was also concerned with the ‘image’ thing. Having decided that I would stop blogging anonymously, I was, and remain, concerned to keep the blog as professional as possible. Ranting about some of my least favourite politicians is good for the blood pressure but, as on of my partners commented, what if clients read my blog?

Then some two months ago I read an excellent post, A Blog is a Better Social Media Hub than Twitter by Joel Postman in Social Media Today. I also revisited two posts I had bookmarked, Doug Cornelius on Why I Blog in Compliance Building, and John Naughton’s What no comments in Memex 1.1, the first blog I ever read and followed. At the time I was preparing my presentation on Client take on for a Risk Management Conference at which I had been asked to speak, and one of the key issues I was thinking about was that asked by Bill Knight in a PLC article some years ago: what do you ‘when your client wants to do something which is legal, but [which] in your view [is] highly questionable’. I posted about this in Professional unease last year.

And I decided, a slightly early New Year’s resolution, that I would revive Lawslot, as Lawslot Redux – but concentrate on legal ethics and the world in which I practice. There is, in many ways, overkill on law firms and social media, and there are a number of brilliant blogs on law firm strategy and management that I read, but with which I could not compete: Bruce MacEwen’s Adam Smith, Esq., Rob Millard’s The Adventure of Strategy, and Jordan Furlong’s Law 21. Certainly there are also blogs on legal ethics, but this is something that I have spent much of my professional career thinking about, and, when asked, speaking about – and it is time to start writing about them. I will continue both Enough Said and Dartmoor Letters (I have some stunning early Winter photos of Dartmoor) but the professional blog will be this one (again).

Where this blog will go I am still not sure: but stick with it and see.

Employer brand?

Once a week in the FT’s Business Life column, Stefan Stern tells it like it is.  If you have no time for anything else, read him. Today’s column is as good as ever, Why you should pay attention to your employer brand. It is, or should be, common sense: and as important for law firms as for any one else: especially in the present economic climate.

You need to present a coherent and plausible sense of yourself as an organisation. That means having a robust employer brand: knowing who you are, and being able to tell a good story about yourselves.

This happy scenario will not come about by chance. It requires leadership and a sustained communications effort. You may need to bring to the surface your organisation’s values and attitudes that have remained tacit or undiscussed until now.

How did you deal with your lay-offs? And how will you deal with your next round of recruiting?