"Jones Day’s London office has raised the hackles of its staff by allegedly failing to inform most of them about a Covid-19 outbreak that hit attorneys in the office’s corporate and restructuring teams, according to reports." - Rick Mitchell, Bloomberg Law, October 15, 2020.
Media outlets, such as The New York Times, make it their business to pick up on and run with negative developments associated with Jones Day.
For example, gender discrimination lawsuit "Tolton, et al. v. Jones Day, is very high profile. Had Jones Day not been the defendant it might have just rattled around the legal process as just another in workplace bias lawsuit. Also high profile is the lawsuit about alleged bias in paid parental leave "Savignac, Sheketoff v. Jones Day."
There is no ambiguity: Jones Day is excellent at what it does.
Actually, in myriad legal circles, it's assessed as the law firm you don't want to face if you are the opposing counsel.
In lawyerly folklore, the Jones Day attorneys, at all levels, are depicted as selfless monks laboring tirelessly for both the abstract idea of law and for clients.
All that could make Jones Day a target.
Success is a hazardous place to be. There's that great line from Shakespeare's "Henry IV, Part II." It's "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."
But, also, Jones Day may be making itself a magnet for very bad press. That's because it seems to have a genius for positioning and packaging itself as arrogant. Just one instance of that was posting on its website its push-back on the allegations in "Tolton."
The number-one flaw of Jones Day's "Tolton" statement is this: Both the tone and content are inward-looking. That's not the right communications space to be in when presenting a point of view on a public-interest issue such as gender equality. Think macro. Not just points of law or internal policies. Yes, the expectation is for transcendence.
When there is a miss on tone and content, not only is that annoying. It throws shade on the brand. That could eventually catch up to Jones Day.
Recently, I bumped into that same kind of stumbling in tone and content with search firm Heidrick & Struggles.
That was as a potential vendor. In the ESG ethos - or the triple bottom line in capitalism - vendors are supposed to matter.
As I explain here, I was applying for a part-time contract assignment as a career coach. The two communications - one with a partner of the firm, the other with a member of its in-house legal department - were quite the surprise.
For a public corporation like Heidrick & Struggles, perhaps it will be up to shareholders to hold Heidrick & Struggles' feet to the fire in how all its functions interact with all constituencies.
Modern Readers reports that Nuveen Asset Management has reduced its stake in Heidrick & Struggles by 14.6%. Zacks Investment Research shifted from buy to hold. ValuEngine downgraded its rating from hold to sell.
Meanwhile, unless Jones Day reviews how it interfaces with the world, it could continue to have a bullseye on its back.
Media outlets unleash negative coverage on Jones Day's whatever that is totally riveting. Such a pattern could not only continue but escalate. A good time will be had by all. That is, until attention is fixated on the trial scheduled for next March for "U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes."
The Future of Work. Ghostwriting on those issues and coaching for job search, transition, personal branding, re-entry after recovery and reputation restoration. Sliding scale fees. Complimentary consultation (janegenova374@gmail.com)
Comments