The Legal Industry's Existential Doubts Go Beyond the Coronavirus
Across the legal industry, firms and lawyers alike are tangling with questions about their broader purpose. Where will the search for answers lead them?
May 13, 2020 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
Even before the coronavirus began to spread, some law firms were experiencing an existential crisis of a different sort.
"What is our purpose?" firm leaders are asking. Across the U.K., business development teams are spending hours brainstorming how to define a firm's reason for being. Over their coffee, younger lawyers are pondering whether their firms offer something deeper.
What they are essentially asking is whether, aside from providing legal advice and making money from it, corporate and commercial law firms can and should offer anything to wider society. It is a way for them to join the debate about the socially destructive side of capitalism and feels particularly relevant given the global effects of the pandemic.
Leaders of U.K. firms frequently raise the topic, which is laudable. But coming up with an answer and putting it into practice is less straightforward.
Various firms are hoping to define themselves as diversity champions. Some are particularly proud of the pro bono work they do. One management team at a large international firm is thinking of donating a portion of its profits to charity. One U.K. firm has had discussions about whether supporting worthy causes should be optional or not.
Late last year, five law firms—Eversheds Sutherland, Goodwin Procter, Nixon Peabody, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, and Stoel Rives—along with dozens of general counsel, launched a $5 million fund to help improve diversity in the legal industry.
In February, lawyers at Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance and Slaughter and May were among a group of 63 firms and organizations that worked together to launch new model contracts and laws aiming to help businesses fight climate change.
These are undoubtedly good things, but what about what each law firm stands for? Many firms want central values that dictate their aim to make the world a better place.
One large U.K. firm has spent the best part of a year devising a plan to turn itself into a "purpose-driven law firm." Unfortunately—perhaps inevitably—the list of bullet points it has agreed on as its purpose is slightly vague and predictable. It argues that its slogans were agreed on by the firm's entire partnership and lawyers, meaning everyone is fully on board with them. But it is hard to imagine any great change coming from a term such as "making business work better for people."
Then again, at least that firm is trying. Like every firm discussing this topic, it is facing the same challenge that has always existed: how a benevolent motive fits alongside law firms' remuneration structure, which encourages little retention of capital and needs to maintain high salaries to remain competitive.
Despite these issues, the industry is wise to be taking this question seriously. The push to find a purpose is in part to appease an incoming generation of lawyers who are taking a lot more interest in these topics than their predecessors did. The battle for talent is not just about salaries, which are already sky-high. Lawyers want to feel like they work in a place that thinks about the outside world, not just its profits.
Clients are also driving change. Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis recently said it would withhold 15% of billed time payments if its advisers fail to comply with its diversity and inclusion requirements. Lawyers say it is becoming essential to turn up to pitches with more than just evidence of expertise. To gain a competitive edge, they are being asked to show they think more widely about their role in the world.
And because some firms are making noises about such things, everyone else feels the need to do the same. Funds for diversity, cross-firm climate change initiatives and charity donations are just the start of it. Expect a flood of slogans and corporate social responsibility efforts in the coming years. It's far less clear, though, whether any of it can ultimately answer the questions about purpose lingering in the minds of many.
Email: [email protected]
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 AllAs Tech-Focused Roles in C-Suite Expand, Newcomers Embrace Big Law Opportunities
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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