Law firm histories make clients and lawyers feel good and help preserve institutional memory, but someone needs to determine who will play a starring role in the work. |
Firms need to realize two things: No one is going to read a
firm history cover to cover except—possibly—a suck-up summer associate. These
volumes, whether thick or thin, are meant to be flipped through. Formatting and
imagery should be attention getting. Publishing an encyclopedic tome is likely
to be waste of time and money. Make it of manageable length.
The second point firms need to realize is that not everyone
is going to get a starring role. That’s where difficulty sometimes creeps in.
Firms agree, the marketers agree, the publicists agree that putting together a
firm history would be a great idea underscoring the firm’s historical importance.
As institutional memory fades as time wears on, a firm history will commemorate
highlights that no current partner actually can recall. The problem comes with
whose name will be mentioned first, whose anecdotes make it into the published
work, whose practice area will be highlighted, who will be merely a footnote,
who won’t be identified at all. All history is revisionist, told typically from
the perspective of the winner. Fantastic firm feats will be told from the
perspective of the firm, not from that of a losing opponent. There’s nothing
wrong with spinning the narrative to emphasize certain contributors. No one
wants to read book-length lists of deals and people involved with the
transactions.
What some firm leadership is reticent to do, however, is to
confront this reality early on. Partners may agree they want the firm to
publish a history. What they’ll likely bicker about is how that history will be
identified and who will be mentioned and who won’t. Don’t wait until the firm
has invested significant time and funds to have a monstrous battle. Manage the
process early on.
—Lori Tripoli
No comments:
Post a Comment