Situation: Jim Sullivan is a solo practitioner, specializing in family law, in an upscale town of some 40,000 residents. In the 15 years he has been practicing, he has built a solid practice, with most of his business coming from client referrals. He volunteers time at a local legal aide society, and is known in the community for fairness and integrity. He took on a new divorce client, but found to his dismay that the man was attempting to have his wife of 20 years settle for less than 10% of their (significant) accumulated assets. There were no grounds for this, and Attorney Sullivan repeatedly explained to his client the improbability of obtaining the settlement, but the client was stubborn and adamant. When Sullivan pressed the issue, the client fired him. He then proceeded to write a letter of complaint to the BBO, and contacted the Better Business Bureau with another complaint. Sullivan also found out through his affiliations at a local country club and his Rotary membership that his former client had been slandering him, loudly and repeatedly, although not giving details of the situation. Gossip and some question about Sullivan’s abilities were beginning to arise. What should he do to stop and repair the damage this man is doing to his formerly sterling reputation?
Bad situations do not need to turn into big problems.
Advice: Negative gossip and whisper campaigns are the most insidious form of rumor because their expressed intent is to harm. In recent years companies have paid extra close attention to negative comments made about them because research has shown how important reputations are to business. In the case of the hypothetical, Jim is facing significant potential damage to his practice if the rumors about his competency go unanswered.
But that is the crux of the question – how to answer them. Especially given that there is only a potential (say 70 to 30 odds) for damage if they go unanswered. What a company or individual never wants to do is give proverbial “legs” to a story. That is, one never wants to legitimize something trivial by giving it weight in the form of acknowledgement.
The first step in this matter, therefore, will be to decide if the claims of Jim’s incompetence are being taken seriously by the community and enough so to harm his practice. Jim, however, is not the appropriate individual to make this judgment. He is too biased as the attacks are obviously so personal. He will, by default, think that they are more negative and more serious then they are (he’ll see the odds for damage as 99 to 1), and this will lead him to make poor decisions in resolving the trouble. He should seek the advice a trusted, independent source.
For the sake of this article, we’ll assume the advisor tells Jim that he is right to be concerned; there is potential for damage and the accusations should not simply be ignored. However, he also tells Jim that the strategy to deal with the situation should be a mild one.
This is because of the nature of rumors. First, rumors thrive in an atmosphere of ambiguity and spread based on their importance to the teller and receiver. Without one of these factors (ambiguity or importance) the rumor will die. Lawyers and law firms have a very difficult time dealing with the ambiguity surrounding rumors because of their confidentiality rules. Thus, Jim is not able to lay out the details of his slanderer’s case to show the man’s folly, instead Jim’s only option is to get people not to care so much. Second, the extraordinary thing about gossip and rumor is that it almost always has a deadline (the ambiguity evaporates on its own). In this case, the ex-client’s claims against Jim will be proven true or false based on the settlement he ends up receiving under the care of his new lawyer (surly he will express his feelings about that lawyer at the country club as well). If he gets his wife to settle for 10% or less of his assets, his beef with Jim will prove legitimate. But, if he fails, Jim will be redeemed.
So, first and foremost, if he trusts his own judgment, Jim should be patient and relax; this will work out. That doesn’t mean, though, that he should do nothing. It means that he should resist what would be his natural tendency to over react.
Indeed, Jim should withhold any desire to address the slanderer directly. Certainly he should not, under any circumstances, make the charges more public then they already are by going to the press or corresponding with his ex-client in any way that could be leaked to the press (or leaked in the gossip circles). Doing so would only legitimize the slanderer’s claims. Instead, Jim should react very mildly; he is aware of the accusations but not seemingly concerned by them.
If ever asked about his relationship by members of is country club or while at a Rotary lunch he should reply with a statement that takes the high road yet also sets the context in which others can judge the slanderous remarks: “Look, divorce is very unpleasant and unfortunately I can’t discuss the specifics of his case, but I am surprised by his displeasure in me. I, frankly, don’t understand it. I’ve been doing what I do for 15 years and I have a very successful practice. I think it’s unfortunate he feels the way he does, but I wish him all the best through what I know is, and will be, a difficult period in his life.”
A response like that will subtly reinforce and subconsciously remind gossips of Jim’s heretofore sterling reputation for fairness and integrity. Most important, the statement will make its way into the gossip circle and make it more difficult for the slanderer to be taken seriously, while at the same time, given its mild tone, it will not likely ignite a new wave of passion from him.
Next Jim should enlist the help of third parties – his friends. Much of the damage is being done in social situations where, because no one is familiar with Jim’s side of the story, he is seemingly without defenders. Jim needs to appeal to his friends to help him. He needs them to articulate a defense on his behalf using a similar message as the one he uses when talking about the situation himself (message integrity). Jim needs to coach them on what to say and appeal to them to say it: “If you hear someone speculating about this issue, please say something like, ‘I know Jim and he is a great guy and a very smart and successful lawyer. I don’t know the details of the case – ethics prevent Jim from talking to me about it – but the guy’s claims are difficult to understand. Divorce is a very emotional event — perhaps that has something to do with it – but all I know is that I would hire Jim if I needed help.’”
Such an appeal might be difficult for Jim’s pride, but that can’t stop him from making it. Jim’s allies can help shut down speculation and gossip and make Jim’s ex-client’s complaints a non-issue.
Lastly, Jim should start to pro-actively market his practice. Had he been doing this all along this situation would likely not have caused the risks to his practice that it did. Make no mistake, by relying solely on referrals and word-of mouth, Jim placed his practice at risk. This is a different and more competitive market then when Jim first started practicing, different and more competitive then even 3 years ago. As easily as he built his practice on clients’ quietly shared testimonials this latest episode should make clear how easily he could loose it.
Jim should immediately offer his analysis to reporters writing about family issues. He should help them identify such issues not just wait for them to call looking for quotes. Jim should offer to write a regular column on family law issues for the regional business journal. He should seek publicity for his legal aide society successes. He should hold community seminars on family law issues and publicly promote organizations that support healthy relationships or take care of people suffering from bad ones. If any of his more prominent clients are celebrating big events he could make contributions to charities in their name or he could place tasteful ads in the community paper congratulating them on their special achievements. Whatever tactics he employees (public relations, advertising, seminars, etc.), Jim needs be much more aggressive. By doing so, he will build up a store of “reputation capital” that he can expend when he needs it.
Bad situations do not need to turn into big problems. Professionals need to successfully plan for, identify and manage problems. Plan that something, someday will go wrong and seek to mitigate potential damage before that happens, properly identify a problem as a problem – before it turns into a crisis – and then manage the problem proportionate to the risk involved (i.e. strategically). If anything made this case more difficult to resolve and more potentially damaging then it needed to be it was because Jim failed to plan properly; he failed to recognize the risk of relying on his referral network as the sole source of his marketing. By responding to the gossip mildly, in way that reinforces people’s preconceived notions of his character without adding fuel to his slanderer’s fire, and by enlisting the support of his friends, Jim has a real chance at coming out of this situation unscathed and, perhaps, stronger then ever. Of course, praying for his ex-client’s wife success wouldn’t be a bad idea either.