Rebranding ‘lawyer’: why it matters more than you think
Is the title of lawyer or attorney an advantage or disadvantage to those working as in-house counsel? It’s a topical question, and one that engenders strong opinions. According to LawVu legal evangelist Shaun Plant, it’s high time to ask if the traditional title is a good fit for the modern-day in-house environment?
The Legal Leaders Connect conference, held in London earlier this year, presented a great opportunity for Shaun, cast in the role of debate moderator, to test the opinions of whether in-house counsel are ready to cast aside the lawyer title or whether it’s a moniker they are keen to retain. He gathered together two teams to debate the “to be or not be called a lawyer” conundrum and asked the audience to decide the winner.
Team A, represented by Danny Bugler, Associate GC at The Trade Desk, and Sumeet Chadha, Senior Legal Counsel at Marketing & Regulatory BAT, argued against in-house counsel retaining the lawyer title, while Team B, made up of Scott Brown, Founder and Chief Visionary Officer at Heriot Brown In-house Legal Recruitment, and Maria Wrede, Region Counsel at EMEA Nuix Technology Ltd UK, supported the continued use of traditional terminology.
Sumeet opened the debate, arguing that it’s time to let go of the lawyer title. “It doesn’t really fit what we do anymore. The word ‘lawyer’ is far too generic, far too broad a term to capture what we do,” she said, adding that the legal function has moved far beyond being the “department of no” to become the speakers of common sense – the guardians of the company.
“Often, we are the ones creating the solutions, looking for where and how the business can succeed. Never is our job about slowing the business down, it’s about trying to help it move the right way at the right pace. To truly succeed in-house, you need to be a genuine business partner. And that means being a businessperson who happens to have a law degree rather than just the lawyer in the room.”
Sumeet further argued that the word ‘lawyer’ lacks specificity, that as a term it is too broad to adequately cover the variety of job experiences many lawyers undertake. “You can’t just label us with one title. To put us into one bucket is unfair and doesn’t do us justice.”
Lawyers being the butt of jokes was another thing that irked Sumeet, and few in the audience would have disagreed with her assertion that good lawyer jokes are hard to find. “I did a bit of Google research and according to a report published in the Law Gazette, people are likely to view lawyers as ‘intimidating and arrogant, disinterested and unapproachable’ – which are not titles I want to be associated with.
“We are also seen as being risk averse, defensive and reactive. And whilst I’m confident we don’t all live up to that image, having that title of lawyer brings with it all that baggage.”
Interestingly, although supporting the retention of lawyer, Scott shed the title when he changed career direction, going from corporate lawyer to legal recruiter. He urged the audience to stop apologizing for their job title because “it’s what gets you in the room”: it bestows credibility.
Lawyers’ communication skills are well known and Scott warned that losing the lawyer title could weaken that recognition. But then, wearing his recruiter hat, he dropped a bombshell of a question: “How are we going to find you? Most recruiters need a signpost; we need something that allows us to get in touch with you. Burying the lawyer title, replacing it with something that doesn’t explain exactly what you do, risks making you invisible.”
Given that invisibility could be a career death knell, Scott’s case for retaining the title of lawyer was indeed compelling. But Danny, second speaker for Team A, was not going down without a fight. “Bear with me because we’ve been given a hard task,” he pleaded. “We’ve been asked to talk to people hardwired against change; to change the status quo of the last few hundred years. And we’ve got to do that in less time than a Katy Perry space mission.” (High five Danny, for that quip!)
Danny emphasized the negative connotations of the lawyer title, using a personal experience to drive home his point. “Have you ever been introduced to a non-legal colleague by a non-legal colleague? One of my favorites was being introduced as, ‘This is Danny, who is on our legal team. He’s a lawyer… oh no, he’s a good one.’” The implication being that non-legal people think a good lawyer is harder to find than a bad one.
He also mentioned how lawyers love their title because it’s like a comfort blanket. “We think that if we change ourselves to something else, much like Katie Perry was derided for calling herself an astronaut, we will be derided for calling ourselves something different. I don’t think that’s warranted. We’ve been beyond being lawyers for years. I remember when I first went in-house, and for the first month or so I was petrified I was going to get fired because I wasn’t doing any law really.
“We percolate ideas across the company, we cross-pollinate. We are the sounding boards of various people. We are diplomats. We take the heat out of situations. We are a wide range of activities, and law is such a small part we do. We need to break out of the lawyer mold we have been pigeonholed into.”
Preparing for the debate, Danny undertook some research and what he discovered was that only ten percent of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies have a legal qualification, and only three are former lawyers. Far more, 160, have backgrounds in finance. “We are being held back because we are viewed in a certain way. That is partly because finance is seen as a viable way to lead a company. But we have the same skills, we are just words instead of numbers. Yet it’s the bean counters who are being identified as better for the top jobs.”
When it came to Maria’s turn to speak, she began by saying that she agreed with Sumeet, in that being in-house counsel comes with a lot of emotional baggage, and she was confident that all in-house lawyers have at some point been called either a party pooper, a showstopper or a bottleneck.
“But I don’t think that’s going to change if we change our title,” she said. “It’s not that simple. We need to change our attitude; we need to move with the times. A lawyer is not just a lawyer anymore, but being a lawyer does get us in the door.
“I am a very typical lawyer. I do not say ‘yes’ to everything my salespeople want, and I do not cave on every request. It’s a hard battle some days. But I think we are very well equipped to fight that battle. We can handle it. And from my personal experience, it doesn’t hold us back from being business partners. In fact, it makes us better business partners. If you are just another numbers guy, another bean counter, what are you going to contribute?
“If you don’t want to be a lawyer, don’t be a lawyer. But if you are a lawyer and you want to be a business partner, embrace the value you bring because why else would you be in the room? I would say your vision as a lawyer is unique.”
Don’t let your lawyer title hold you back, Maria implored. “It may seem like the easy way out to say, ‘I don’t want to be called a party pooper anymore. I’m called a visionary, or I want to be called a support.’
“I don’t know what it is you want to be called if you don’t want to be called a lawyer. But I don’t think we should let our title hold us back in any way.”
With arguments delivered, it was up to Danny to sum up for Team A and Scott for Team B. According to Danny, a move away from the lawyer title signals a casting off of the shackles of long-held beliefs about what a lawyer does and what they stand for. “We heard a lot about being a lawyer, about being proud to be a lawyer, but we’re trying to get beyond that, to move on.”
As to what lawyers should be called instead of… err, lawyers, Danny didn’t offer a viable alternative. His suggestion of “chief adult in the room” was met with deserved laughter.
In his closing argument, Scott pulled out the big guns, saying, “Are you going to shed something you’ve worked hard for, that gives you credibility, and throw it away for something flaky?”
Being credible was the main point of his argument for retaining the lawyer title. “Whatever you call yourself, at some stage in a meeting you’re going to say, ‘did I tell you I was a qualified lawyer?’ It underpins your credibility.”
All the signs, it seemed, pointed to being known as a lawyer. The result? A win for retaining the title of lawyer.
There are options, of course. Maybe being known as a lahwita would work? It’s the Old English word for sage, or wise man.
