Why This Am Law Firm Kept Partners in the Dark on a Branding Overhaul
To ease a major rebranding effort, fast-growing Goldberg Segalla opted to keep most of the partnership out of the loop.
June 20, 2019 at 10:21 AM
4 minute read
Engineering a law firm rebranding, which means a lot more than changing fonts and color schemes, is never easy. Try also keeping the details hidden from most of the partnership.
That's how managing partner Richard Cohen chose to approach the task at Buffalo-based Goldberg Segalla, a fast-growing firm that broke into the Am Law 200 two years ago.
“We have tried, like a lot of firms have, to do it by a 'committee of all,'” Cohen said, referring to getting broad input from the partnership. “We had some level of frustration trying to get our full ownership community totally reconciled with respect to the vision.”
In the end, the vision culminated in a new color pallet, new logo, new website, and a custom-made management structure for the rebranding effort.
Cohen said the 400-lawyer firm went through due diligence with outside branding consultants, eventually settling on an arrangement that would incorporate a small committee of three partners in leadership roles, the outside consultants and an internal branding group that would make the decisions.
“We believed they had a skill set and spirit and understanding of branding that quite frankly our ownership group, as lawyers, didn't necessarily have,” Cohen said, referring to the firm's internal branding team.
Cohen equated the decision to defer to the branding and marketing teams to an advertising agency looking for legal advice. They would be better served asking a lawyer for guidance than, say, “Kevin” from graphic design. Cohen said the same logic could be applied for a law firm looking for branding advice.
Cohen said the firm was also prepared for the idea that not everyone was going to be on board with the process.
“It's human nature, particularly with lawyers, to have an array of differing opinions with respect to almost anything,” Cohen said. “We recognized that when we did unveil the concept to our ownership community that it was extremely unlikely that all of us would have the exact same vision. We were prepared for a wide array of reactions.”
Cohen said they were pleased, but not surprised, that the rebrand thus far has gotten a positive response.
As with most rebrands, the optics of the firm's defining colors and logo were changed. Gone are the traditional navy blue and white color scheme and oft-used serif font. In Goldberg's case, their replacements are a distinct black and red pallet and a much more visually complex intersecting of the “G” and “S” that compose the firm's logo.
Cohen said the color and logo redesign were meant to represent “who the firm is now,” and not who they were 18 years ago when they had seven attorneys and were first starting out.
Although Goldberg did follow the color change route well worn by other firms, it did not choose to shorten its firm name, which has been another trend firms have fallen into. The firm is also positioning the rebrand not as a retooling of core competencies and focus or to highlight the opening of a new office, but rather an emphasis on the values that the firm has attempted to uphold since its founding in 2001.
“We believe the new look conveys the dynamic strength, capacity, energy, and focus of Goldberg Segalla today—and well into the future,” Cohen said in a statement. “But more importantly, it captures why we have always called ourselves 'different'—and why that isn't going to change.”
Founded in 2001 in Buffalo with seven lawyers, Goldberg Segalla now has 22 offices in the U.S. and abroad. The firm ranks 175th on the Am Law 200 with revenue of $128.8 million last year.
|Read More
With 27 Lateral Hires in a Month, Goldberg Segalla Makes Case It's 'Different'
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250