A Lawyer’s Reputation
Right out of law school there is a general theme that is expressly stated that a lawyer must maintain a “good reputation” – one that reflects well on the individual and also the legal community as a whole. This is furthered in rule 2.1-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers which states in part: “A lawyer has a duty to uphold the standards and reputation of the legal profession”. As a result of the above, I find that many lawyers, young and old, guide their actions and practices based on their personal interpretation of this rule and their own idea of “reputation” rather than its objective nature. This further leads to a lawyer’s conservative behaviour. Their advice to clients reflects their conflicting personal beliefs of maintaining good “reputation” even if the clients they are trying to serve have a different idea about risk and reputation. I have seen lawyers turn away clients or matters, not because of a matter of conflict with ethics (although that is certainly something that they rely on – a conflict with the duty of reputation) but as a matter of conflict with their own ideas of reputation which are unfounded. This is further exacerbated given lawyers must look over their shoulder at the Law Society who can suspend their licenses (and way of earning a dollar) based on another’s idea of reputation. So, reputation, both psychologically and in reality, is a powerful tool in the legal industry that affects not only how lawyers act towards clients but also creates pressure in their personal lives. I know of lawyers who have separated from partners or good friends so as not to be associated with a “bad” reputation and lawyers who remain unable to find work so as not to run afoul of their idea of a good reputation.
As lawyers enter their careers and face the inevitable adversities and politics involving their clients, colleagues, courts, careers, families and communities at large, there is an ultimate conflict that is faced between having a good reputation and living authentically and (ironically) ethically. This leads to interesting questions. What makes a good reputation? To take an extreme example – does a man like Donald Trump have a good reputation (he is the current sitting president of the US) or a bad one (his policies and communication create a divisive media). Are there different facets of a reputation? For example, one can have a negative reputation in the courts by losing a number of cases with harsh rebukes from judges while at the same time, have a positive reputation in the online community or with clients and the community with which the individual volunteers. On the one hand, there is the idea to be authentic and not to guide your life by what other people think, but on the other hand, your career prospects and compensation is based on your perceived value which is judged by society. So, reputation plays some role and cannot be simply ignored.
Many people attempt to control their reputation with reputation branding, social media, and even paying companies to assist. However, when adversity hits to damage those who control their reputation, it tends to (at least temporarily) crush the individual psychologically based on negative criticism they tried so long to protect against. Others try to ignore the subject completely – they ignore social media and even have a website for their practice; only relying on word of mouth by their clients. But the issue here is that if there is no reputation online, the negative events associated with that individual tend to be seen as more prominent and become that person’s reputation by default. This is simply because people tend to search for a person’s negative red flags and search engines drive headlines based on clicks and length of time (smarter people than I understand how this works). Thus, even with a good word of mouth; there is a default negative reputation to the community at large based on the influence of the internet today. We also see this very much with court filings – most time, just one piece of the entire narrative is made public and captured on search engines or by those who profit from publicizing these filings on their platforms (and others who profit in removing them). The ultimate irony is that the more success that is gained, the greater likelihood of negative press and in turn, a negative reputation. Look no further at professional athletes and celebrities as proof of this point.
My advice to all lawyers is that while lawyers have to maintain a level of integrity in their profession, that is separate from reputation. Integrity is something that can be controlled and is personal – are you doing what you say you will do and living honestly. Reputation can only be controlled to a particular point (again with branding and strategy) and that is a useful tool in your career but there is a point where reputation is not ultimately controllable. A false reputation changes with the times like the stock market and can be refreshed and retooled. Instead, a person’s true reputation is known by friends and family – those closest to you that understand you – and whether you can justify your actions to anyone who asks. This is the best protection against false ideas of reputation. I am not saying to ignore public reputation but it is crucial not to conflate the two types of reputation or you may find that it is not you who controls your reputation but it is the reputation that controls you.
This article was originally published by Law360 Canada, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.