This morning, while going through my long list of RSS feeds, I saw the following headline from The Globe and Mail in Canada:

It’s okay to be gay on Bay
Far from being stigmatized, sexual orientation is becoming a non-issue at more firms. Indeed, VIRGINIA GALT writes, at some, it can even look good on a résumé.

The article goes on to talk about the changing perceptions and acceptance of people by employers, and how some companies even go so far as to have gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered (GLBT) committees and advocacy groups. So, I think to myself, how did this story come up in my search for “Law Firm Marketing” in Google News? The answer:

Vancouver lawyer Joseph Briante, 31, recently made headlines when he quit his firm, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, after going public with complaints that he had been subjected to “a barrage of uninvited comments” about his sexual orientation and colourful wardrobe.

The law firm, which bills itself on its website as a place where “everyone maintains their individuality,” has hired an independent expert to investigate Mr. Briante’s allegations that he had been harassed because he is gay.

Now, obviously this is bad PR for the law firm. But to me, it brings up an even larger issue: Should law firms take sides on an issue like this?

There are many issues that are extremely divisive. Say you’re a liberal and you are automatically dismissed by the right. Claim you’re a conservative, and the left wants nothing to do with you. If you support gay marriage, religious groups are against you. State that you’re against it, supporters think you’re bad.

Most companies try to stay as neutral as possible. Their approach is: “Since we want everyone in the world to be a client, let’s not alienate anyone.” And to accomplish that, they simply say nothing. And that makes sense.

Other companies, like Ernst & Young, take a different approach. From the article:

Twenty years ago, no one talked about gay and lesbian issues at work, except in whispers, and few employees dared to “come out,” he says. Now, E&Y regards its “policy of inclusiveness” as an advantage in recruiting and retaining employees, Mr. Goudy says.

…”There is competition for talent,” says Mr. Goudy, and the firm does not want to risk alienating good candidates or losing good employees.

There is a bottom-line reason as well: Employees are measured on results, he says, and E&Y believes that a more inclusive and accepting environment creates an atmosphere that allows people to do their best work individually and in groups.

So here’s the question: Is it better to not take a position on any issue and hope that no one will hate you….or is it better to take a stance and know that people on your side will love you and some people on the other side will hate you?

Hmm. Something to think about.

Popularity: 2% [?]

I haven’t posted in a few days, so I thought I’d share this little observation from the weekend.

On Saturday, I went to New York City for a friend-of-a-friend’s birthday party. Though I probably shouldn’t have, I was surprised at the amount of people there that were actors. And inevitably, they would talk about the projects they were working on. At least three separate times I heard the following:

I’m just doing this independent project to get my name out there…..and hopefully land a good agent.

Which made me think: It must be great to be an agent in NYC. The actors there are willing to do anything to be your client.Can you imagine if it were the same for “regular” attorneys? Could you imagine someone from a startup saying “I can’t wait to finish this product….hopefully it will allow me to land a great attorney!”It would be a strange world if potential clients were lined up at the door all day, begging for representation. If that were the case today, what would you do differently when choosing which of your clients to represent? Are there clients you currently serve that wouldn’t make the cut?

Popularity: 1% [?]

There’s an interesting conversation going on between Carolyn Elefant (of My Shingle) and Dan Hull (of What About Clients?) that questions “The Paradox of Client Service.“

Ms. Elefant wonders whether:

“…many new lawyers are predisposed to becoming slaves to clients because that’s the role we play in law school (performing on command to the Socratic method) and at firms. “

Coming from the solo’s point of view, she stresses that:

“….you serve clients, but they are not your master. If you don’t serve well, you may lose your clients, but if you subordinate your judgment and business practices to your clients’ demands, (e.g, working for discounted rates or taking unethical positions), you may also find yourself the subject of a bar complaint or out of business.”

I think her point shows some important differences in how solos and firms market themselves. Multi-attorney firms will often talk about a commitment to client service. And that makes sense. But that approach wouldn’t necessarily work for a solo.

And more importantly, her post illustrates a difference in how solos (or small firms) and larger firms do business. Mr. Hull posted a comment that sums it up:

“This is a really hard but great subject. You’ve really hit on something. Client service is as difficult a part of law practice as anything–and the line between really serving clients and being overly-managed by them is even harder. And the smaller your firm, the harder it is, because every client colors your practice when you are small. Personally, I am very eager to please any client and, at the same time, need to be a good lawyer. My starting point for the whole issue is choosing clients very carefully. We must like them…….he point for my firm is to carefully choose clients, and represent only clients we “like”. That means people finding clients “like us”, and who share certain values with us, i.e., be very aggressive, but plan first, and communicate with the client constantly (just as we at my firm tend to over-communicate with each other about everything). If the client is “like you”, or has the same values, it won’t even try to control you out of respect and understanding of the way you work.”

Popularity: 2% [?]