Discussion re: Law Firms response to Russia Invasion

[Cool_name]

If a firm has an office in Russia, it can hardly be surprising a firm’s public position is wishy-washy. 

Not only do they need to protect their bottom line, but I’d be seriously concerned about subjecting the employees at the Russian office to real harm by releasing an anti-Russian stance. 

[DannyFinn]

51 minutes ago, Cool_name said:

If a firm has an office in Russia, it can hardly be surprising a firm’s public position is wishy-washy. 

Not only do they need to protect their bottom line, but I’d be seriously concerned about subjecting the employees at the Russian office to real harm by releasing an anti-Russian stance. 

I guess none of these consulting and professional services firms have Russian offices or revenues. Law firms have no good excuse to be silent.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by DannyFinn

[Cool_name]

None of that changes my point that you shouldn’t be surprised if a firm’s pr position is wish washy. 
 

More to the point, making a decision regarding which big firm to work for based on statements their global PR department made or didn’t make is a terrible way to pick a firm. 

[CleanHands]

Just now, Cool_name said:

None of that changes my point that you shouldn’t be surprised if a firm’s pr position is wish washy. 

Who said it was surprising?

There are certainly business reasons why it would be good to be tight-lipped about this. But economic incentives don't negate the moral point. In fact, behaving immorally and/or unethically in pursuit of profit maximization seems like something any reasonable person should agree is worthy of condemnation, rather than a defence.

3 minutes ago, Cool_name said:

More to the point, making a decision regarding which big firm to work for based on statements their global PR department made or didn’t make is a terrible way to pick a firm. 

I'm very cynical about BigLaw social washing practices, but it seems to me that it is perfectly valid to be turned off by a firm not even putting in minimal efforts to pretend to share your values.

[Cool_name]

To be clear I am referring to the truly big firms, not just the firms which are big within Toronto. 
 

For a big firm like dentons, what their global pr department states in a press release offers zero insight into the culture or practices any of their particular offices have.

[BlockedQuebecois]

Nonsense. It tells you one of two things: 

1. The office you are interested in agrees with the statement put out; or
2. The office you are interested in disagrees with the statement, but doesn't have the internal sway to change the statement. 

The first option is obviously bad, and in a situation like this is a fully legitimate reason to not work somewhere.

The second option is also obviously bad, because if your satellite office of a big firm isn't able to sway PR statements it sure as hell isn't going to be able to sway any high level decisions at the firm (including, sometimes, what mandates you accept). Why on earth would you want to work somewhere where a bunch of lawyers in Chicago and China are calling all the shots on the direction of your firm? 

Now, credit to NRF and Mr Soliman. I still generally wouldn't want to work there—both because of (2) above and because I'm not drawn to firms whose first reaction to the pandemic was to cut associate pay—but at least he's showing some backbone, and it at least suggests the Canadian branch of NRF has enough internal cache to not get beaten down for not toeing the party line. Though of course, you never know what is happening internally as a result of his statement. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

4 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

The office you are interested in disagrees with the statement, but doesn't have the internal sway to change the statement.

....

The second option is also obviously bad, because if your satellite office of a big firm isn't able to sway PR statements it sure as hell isn't going to be able to sway any high level decisions at the firm (including, sometimes, what mandates you accept). Why on earth would you want to work somewhere where a bunch of lawyers in Chicago and China are calling all the shots on the direction of your firm?

The screenshot below is an excellent example of what I mean here. Norton Rose has 2,850 lawyers according to their website, of which 635 are in Canada. The only country they have more lawyers in is the US, where they have 714 lawyers. 

Despite being the second largest bloc of lawyers in the firm, NRF Canada is such an afterthought that the chair of the Canadian partnership doesn't even know the provenance of the note sent by the firm's "global office", which presumably means either the US office alone or the US and UK offices together, seeing as their CEO is based in Houston and their global chair is based in London. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois

[easttowest]

Just don’t apply to international or US-headquartered firms. The Canadian office is likely an afterthought. That was my approach when I was going though. 

[CheeseToast]

20 minutes ago, easttowest said:

Just don’t apply to international or US-headquartered firms. The Canadian office is likely an afterthought. That was my approach when I was going though. 

I think very few OCI applicants think this through at all - does it really matter that much as a junior lawyer? It seems that this also applies to some national firms as well where their offices in other provinces have less decision-making power.  

[KOMODO]

9 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

.....

2. The office you are interested in disagrees with the statement, but doesn't have the internal sway to change the statement. 

....

The second option is also obviously bad, because if your satellite office of a big firm isn't able to sway PR statements it sure as hell isn't going to be able to sway any high level decisions at the firm (including, sometimes, what mandates you accept). Why on earth would you want to work somewhere where a bunch of lawyers in Chicago and China are calling all the shots on the direction of your firm? 

....

I agree that these policies are bad from a moral/ethical standpoint and it's crappy that Canadian offices aren't making more appropriate PR statements, but don't agree that these types of procedures have an impact on regular life at those firms. The process for commenting on global events likely goes through very different (global) channels while the vast majority of decisions that actually impact your job and life are made in the relevant local office. For one thing, frankly, the global headquarters of Whatever LLP likely don't give a damn about much the day to day drudgery at their local offices 99% of the time. 

I have also seen people at various companies suggest that where they have staff in Russia, they are afraid that commenting will put their staff in danger, and I can see why they would be hesitant to do that and wonder if the same thought process is going on here. Not saying it's the right decision, but it may not be as coldly limited to business interests as some have suggested.

[epeeist]

18 hours ago, Cool_name said:

If a firm has an office in Russia, it can hardly be surprising a firm’s public position is wishy-washy. 

Not only do they need to protect their bottom line, but I’d be seriously concerned about subjecting the employees at the Russian office to real harm by releasing an anti-Russian stance. 

That may be fair enough, if that was the reasoning - for similar reasons, I don't see it fair to pressure Russian citizens living in other countries, who may have family still in Russia, to condemn Putin, given his background and what has happened to critics even those living in other countries.

Re NRF, I agree no one should be prohibited or discouraged from expressing dismay personally, using their own name. But institutionally, using the name of the law firm including mentioning where one works? A large firm might be representing people or organizations challenging sanctions, seeking workarounds, representing groups building pipelines, logging, polluting, whatever. A criminal defence firm will represent people factually guilty of crimes. For a law firm to tell people not to use the name of the firm - if it had been limited to that - strikes me as not only not unreasonable, but obvious. I haven't seen the text of the memo, but an excerpt quoted in Bloomberg makes it sound like perhaps they didn't want any comments to be perceived as advice by NRF (advice should be provided "directly" through "appropriate channels")?

If one doesn't like some of the clients a firm represents that may be a reason not to apply there, but what large firm isn't going to have at least some vile clients?

 

[BlockedQuebecois]

36 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

I have also seen people at various companies suggest that where they have staff in Russia, they are afraid that commenting will put their staff in danger, and I can see why they would be hesitant to do that and wonder if the same thought process is going on here. Not saying it's the right decision, but it may not be as coldly limited to business interests as some have suggested.

We will have to agree to disagree on your first point, but on the quoted point, in those circumstances the clearly correct thing to do is to not comment. The correct thing to do is not to circulate a note that has been interpreted, at least by some lawyers at the firm, as being a ban on commenting on the sanctions imposed. And the correct thing to do is certainly not issuing a statement calling for "grace and understanding". 

22 minutes ago, epeeist said:

I haven't seen the text of the memo, but an excerpt quoted in Bloomberg makes it sound like perhaps they didn't want any comments to be perceived as advice by NRF (advice should be provided "directly" through "appropriate channels")?

I think what you have identified as an "excerpt quoted in Bloomberg" may actually be what was said by a NRF spokesperson to Bloomberg: 

Quote

A Norton Rose Fulbright spokesperson told Bloomberg Law that the firm issued an internal note specifically regarding external comments on the sanctions, calling such notes “standard practice” where clients could be affected. “Our sanctions team is advising clients across the world and, given the rapidly evolving situation, it is important that this advice is provided directly, through the appropriate channels,” the spokesperson said. “We take client confidentiality extremely seriously.”

 

[easttowest]

1 hour ago, CheeseToast said:

I think very few OCI applicants think this through at all - does it really matter that much as a junior lawyer? It seems that this also applies to some national firms as well where their offices in other provinces have less decision-making power.  

I honestly don’t know and have candidly told that to students when describing my approach. However I know of one situation at an international where a conflict between files opened in Toronto and an American office had to be resolved in London (guess who got to keep their work?). 

[Cool_name]

11 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Nonsense. It tells you one of two things: 

1. The office you are interested in agrees with the statement put out; or
2. The office you are interested in disagrees with the statement, but doesn't have the internal sway to change the statement. 

The first option is obviously bad, and in a situation like this is a fully legitimate reason to not work somewhere.

The second option is also obviously bad, because if your satellite office of a big firm isn't able to sway PR statements it sure as hell isn't going to be able to sway any high level decisions at the firm (including, sometimes, what mandates you accept). Why on earth would you want to work somewhere where a bunch of lawyers in Chicago and China are calling all the shots on the direction of your firm? 

Now, credit to NRF and Mr Soliman. I still generally wouldn't want to work there—both because of (2) above and because I'm not drawn to firms whose first reaction to the pandemic was to cut associate pay—but at least he's showing some backbone, and it at least suggests the Canadian branch of NRF has enough internal cache to not get beaten down for not toeing the party line. Though of course, you never know what is happening internally as a result of his statement. 

1. A firm is just a collection of lawyers. Assuming a firm’s global press release represents the collective and diverging interests and opinions of the lawyers who all joined the firm before the press release is not a realistic assumption. Do you really think lawyers at dentons are any less likely to support Ukraine then at any of the other big law firms because of their statement? 
 

2. choosing not to work at a firm because its a mere satellite office or a small office in a larger swiss verein structure is fine, but at that point the reason for not picking the firm is the structure of the firm, not the content of their global pr statement. 
 

You also missed option 3: the vast majority of the lawyers in the office did little more than quickly skim the email, mark it as read, and move on with their day.

 

[BlockedQuebecois]

Do I think lawyers at a firm which has sought to gag its lawyers from discussing the sanctions against Russia because it wants to keep advising its Russian oligarch clients on how to avoid sanctions against Russia are more likely to support Russia than lawyers at firms which have denounced Russia's atrocious decision to launch a war of aggression? Yes, yes I do. 

After all, a firm is just a collection of lawyers. Its job is to represent the interests and opinions of its partnership. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois

[KOMODO]

6 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

We will have to agree to disagree on your first point, but on the quoted point, in those circumstances the clearly correct thing to do is to not comment. The correct thing to do is not to circulate a note that has been interpreted, at least by some lawyers at the firm, as being a ban on commenting on the sanctions imposed.

If there are, in fact, safety concerns (and I don't know whether there are, but I accept the premise that there could be), then I can see why a company including a law firm might tell its employees not to speak to the media on the issue, including on social media, as representatives of that company. So I disagree with you that the "clearly correct thing to do" is to say nothing, I think they should be allowed to tell people not to make media statements. I have a harder time accepting a prohibition on what people do on their own personal social media, especially if it is private, but again it's a question of degrees and I can see how it might be hard to have a policy that catches the danger-causing behaviour while allowing non-danger-causing comments through. Ultimately, even if I agree with you that comments should be freely allowed on an employee's personal social media, I disagree that it's a totally easy decision to make.

You really seem to have an axe to grind against one particular firm, and I don't know what some of the people there did to you, but I think it's important to counterbalance your incredibly regular and negative comments a bit - there are plenty of great people and excellent lawyers at every large law firm on Bay Street, including NRF, Dentons, Gowlings and any other large/global firm. I personally know a few lawyers at Dentons who I really respect as human beings and as practitioners (along with a few idiots, as there are at every large firm in the city). I bet you don't know every lawyer at the firms you keep skewering, so try to keep an open mind and remember that as @Cool_namenotes, firms aren't homogenous, they consist of a variety of different people. And on your last comment that a firm represents the interests of the partnership - again, this is just not really an accurate way of explaining what's going on - every partner has their own distinct interests and naturally partners within firms disagree on all sorts of management and other issues on a regular basis. This is no exception.

[Jaggers]

1 hour ago, KOMODO said:

You really seem to have an axe to grind against one particular firm, and I don't know what some of the people there did to you, but I think it's important to counterbalance your incredibly regular and negative comments a bit - there are plenty of great people and excellent lawyers at every large law firm on Bay Street, including NRF, Dentons, Gowlings and any other large/global firm. I personally know a few lawyers at Dentons who I really respect as human beings and as practitioners (along with a few idiots, as there are at every large firm in the city). I bet you don't know every lawyer at the firms you keep skewering, so try to keep an open mind and remember that as @Cool_namenotes, firms aren't homogenous, they consist of a variety of different people. And on your last comment that a firm represents the interests of the partnership - again, this is just not really an accurate way of explaining what's going on - every partner has their own distinct interests and naturally partners within firms disagree on all sorts of management and other issues on a regular basis. This is no exception.

It's just a schtick he does. Like when I rant about how we should ban cars from all downtown streets, but I have actually driven my kid to daycare almost every day for the last two months because the weather has been so crappy (we walked today and it was glorious!).

[BlockedQuebecois]

Yeah, hating on Dentons is a bit, although I've explained why I hate on them elsewhere and don't think it's an unfounded bit.

To the extent I have "skewered" any firm in this thread, it's Norton Rose, and I would note nothing I have said about them is inaccurate or even particularly biased. NRF Canada did cut associate pay at the beginning of the pandemic. NRF's "global office" did circulate a note that at least appears to be attempting to muzzle their lawyers. NRF Canada has confirmed it wasn't included in discussions relating to that note, and in fact NRF Canada has said it doesn't even know the provenance of the note. If relaying facts about a firm is "skewering" it, then the firm should likely do some reflection. 

As to the ethics of attempting to muzzle your lawyers, there is a fundamental disagreement here. I think speaking out about a nuclear power violating international law and committing crimes of aggression (and likely war crimes) against a sovereign, peaceful nation is a moral imperative, even if there are safety concerns. Any firm (or employer) that purports to limit that moral imperative in my private time is one I have no interest working for. If I worked at NRF's offices outside of Canada, I would have resigned yesterday. Mr Soliman's rebuke of the note likely would have kept me onboard if I worked for NRF Canada, but even then I would be seriously considering whether or not I wanted to practice within that structure going forwards. 

Others can feel differently—and evidently do—but I'm not going to pretend I understand that position or think it's reasonable, even when it is coming from someone whose opinion I generally appreciate and find valuable (i.e. @KOMODO). 

Edited March 2, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois

[epeeist]

22 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Do I think lawyers at a firm which has sought to gag its lawyers from discussing the sanctions against Russia because it wants to keep advising its Russian oligarch clients on how to avoid sanctions against Russia are more likely to support Russia than lawyers at firms which have denounced Russia's atrocious decision to launch a war of aggression? Yes, yes I do. 

After all, a firm is just a collection of lawyers. Its job is to represent the interests and opinions of its partnership. 

[emphasis added]

No, its job is to represent clients. Which may mean that professionally, one shouldn't publicly comment on things that may deleteriously affect the interest of those clients.

Now, I do think that outside the criminal defence sphere (because of the importance of defending even people alleged to have done terrible things, or those proven to have done terrible things in e.g. sentencing or appeals), that lawyers and law firms should be more selective than they are in representing clients. I'm a part-time sole practitioner, so not typical, but there are many people, places, corporations, countries I wouldn't represent even when they have a meritorious case. Why shouldn't I expect large law firms to behave likewise, or criticize them when they're not selective enough in who they represent? And if a Swiss verein or whatever structure means no control over what clients other offices take, well tough, you chose to be part of that large megafirm, if you don't like it, leave. You think law firms represent billionaire Russian oligarchs in bed with Putin out of principle? Hardly, it's all about the money.

[123]

7 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Now, I do think that outside the criminal defence sphere (because of the importance of defending even people alleged to have done terrible things, or those proven to have done terrible things in e.g. sentencing or appeals), that lawyers and law firms should be more selective than they are in representing clients. I'm a part-time sole practitioner, so not typical, but there are many people, places, corporations, countries I wouldn't represent even when they have a meritorious case. Why shouldn't I expect large law firms to behave likewise, or criticize them when they're not selective enough in who they represent? And if a Swiss verein or whatever structure means no control over what clients other offices take, well tough, you chose to be part of that large megafirm, if you don't like it, leave. You think law firms represent billionaire Russian oligarchs in bed with Putin out of principle? Hardly, it's all about the money.

I mean, it's easy to criticize from the outside. But I can't imagine feeling comfortable staying on at a firm representing Russian oligarchic interests right now. Especially their financial interests. I don't want to be apart of any firm that's helping them wash their money through North American transactions, as they get around the sanctions, make-off with any spoils of war, and prop up their homicidal dictator. I couldn't read stories of kids with cancer running out of medication in the Ukraine, or parents being torn from children, and feel in anyway complicit. This is a "what side were you on" moment in history.

That said, I'm sure I am oversimplifying, and will be the first to admit that I know nothing about working at a large multinational firm. 

[epeeist]

24 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

I mean, it's easy to criticize from the outside. But I can't imagine feeling comfortable staying on at a firm representing Russian oligarchic interests right now. Especially their financial interests. I don't want to be apart of any firm that's helping them wash their money through North American transactions, as they get around the sanctions, make-off with any spoils of war, and prop up their homicidal dictator. I couldn't read stories of kids with cancer running out of medication in the Ukraine, or parents being torn from children, and feel in anyway complicit. This is a "what side were you on" moment in history.

That said, I'm sure I am oversimplifying, and will be the first to admit that I know nothing about working at a large multinational firm. 

I'm sure there are a few junior associates supporting a family while in massive debt including healthcare costs incurred for a severe injury or disease who can't readily change jobs. But everyone else doesn't need that much money and has enough of a reputation (and savings) to do something else. And for non-lawyers (e.g. admin staff) not the same luxury of either money or being able to readily work elsewhere.

Note, I don't consider my view the only reasonable moral and ethical calculus; my objection is not to those who disagree, but more to lawyers who've never thought about who their firm, including international offices, represents (wilful blindness). If they have, and have considered the moral and ethical issues and think it right to work there, good for them. I think it would be easier to self-justify if an employee (non-lawyer or lawyer associate) not someone who's more of a decision-maker. But I expect almost everyone hasn't thought about whether e.g. their firm is helping wealthy Chinese or Russian or Saudi or whoever people or corporations or countries silence international dissent with defamation lawsuits or continue to pollute or avoid criminal consequences or whatever, until it becomes big news like now.

I mean, as a for instance, has everyone who works at Jones Day read their Wikipedia page and the links from it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Day

[SlytherinLLP]

On the topic of not wanting to work somewhere morally questionable, to be fair, if you are working for any national full-service firm, you have by association, helped Chinese clients and advanced Chinese corporate interests. I would be shocked if every major Bay Street firm has not handled transactions for Chinese corporations (which are an arm of the Chinese state). Don't think I need to go into why these entities enable pure evil. 

So if it's a question of not working somewhere that prohibits anti-Russian or pro-Ukraine commentary on moral grounds, you might as well have quit already. 

Honestly though, social media statements, changing facebooks filter etc. means little to nothing, so who cares. Donate to the many wonderful charities active in Ukraine now. I've also seen that lawyers have coordinated to offer legal services without cost to Ukrainian refugees. Also excellent.

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by SlytherinLLP

[Zarathustra]

I don't recall these biglaw's taking a stance on any US-initiated wars in the past.

[Turtles]

NRF:

"We are winding down our operations in Russia and will be closing our Moscow office as quickly as we can, in compliance with our professional obligations. The well being of our staff in the region is a priority. We thank our 50 colleagues in Moscow for their loyal service and will support them through this transition.

Some immediate actions are possible and we are taking them. We are not accepting any further instructions from businesses, entities or individuals connected with the current Russian regime, irrespective of whether they are sanctioned or not. In addition, we continue to review exiting from existing work for them where our professional obligations as lawyers allow. Where we cannot exit from current matters, we will donate the profits from that work to appropriate humanitarian and charitable causes."

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nortonrosefulbright_norton-rose-fulbright-stands-unequivocally-activity-6906533154115727360-rMvs

[SlytherinLLP]

3 hours ago, Turtles said:

NRF:

"We are winding down our operations in Russia and will be closing our Moscow office as quickly as we can, in compliance with our professional obligations. The well being of our staff in the region is a priority. We thank our 50 colleagues in Moscow for their loyal service and will support them through this transition.

Some immediate actions are possible and we are taking them. We are not accepting any further instructions from businesses, entities or individuals connected with the current Russian regime, irrespective of whether they are sanctioned or not. In addition, we continue to review exiting from existing work for them where our professional obligations as lawyers allow. Where we cannot exit from current matters, we will donate the profits from that work to appropriate humanitarian and charitable causes."

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nortonrosefulbright_norton-rose-fulbright-stands-unequivocally-activity-6906533154115727360-rMvs

Now do China next.