Better kept under wraps?

The recent news that Linklaters obtained an injunction preventing its former CMO from sharing information to expose the firm’s alleged struggle with women in the workplace gave us food for thought. Is it always better to keep your dirty laundry out of the public eye?

From a reputational perspective the answer is, usually, yes. Faced with the option of being vilified by the media exposing such stories, it’s easy to see why a firm would choose to try to stay quiet. The public consuming any such media reports begins to form a view of the company or firm at the heart of the matter, its culture and attitudes of those at the top with responsibility for setting the tone – as well as judging its reaction to complaints from within. Stories also influence the perceptions of partners, employees, future candidates, suppliers, clients, and regulators alike.

In this instance of course, Linklaters didn’t succeed in quelling the whiff of dirty laundry altogether. Whilst the firm may have kept the details under wraps via means of litigation, the impression remains of an institution with a problem. Injunctions are a risky tool and can sometimes have the contrary effect of drawing attention to the very thing the injuncting party is trying to downplay.

Consider the alternative strategy. Had Linklaters allowed the exposé without looking to silence the messenger, might it actually have created an opportunity? It could have redefined the firm into a #MeToo trailblazer, offering a sincere, robust and public response and highlighted positive action by the firm, illustrating to the public both its abhorrence of an outmoded culture and determination to demonstrate there are consequences for those, no matter how senior or important to the firm, who transgress a newly-implemented zero tolerance policy. Compulsory training and education on expectations could have been rolled out across the firm – yes there would likely have been howls of disapproval from within, at the suggestion that everyone should need to be taught basic behaviour – but then going forward, the onus would fall onto the individual rather than the firm, to defend an accusation that their conduct had fallen short of norms that they should have known was expected.

Sadly Linklaters didn’t take such a bold and forward-looking view. Just think if this giant of law firms had set such a precedent, it might not only have earned a very different reputation on this topic but perhaps the rest of the legal community would have sat up, smelled the coffee, bowed to peer pressure and followed suit.

Litigation PR

Litigation PR
Eclipse Partnerships Bell Yard was appointed by law firm, Edwin Coe, to raise awareness of a potential investor group action over the now disgraced Eclipse...
Litigation PR
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Bell Yard is advising a core participant of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry....
View more Ligitation PR Case Sudies


Reputation Management
Publishing Company Bell Yard assisted the Directors of a traditional UK publishing company, based in the south of England, when they were forced to make t...
Reputation Management
Global 100 Law Firm Bell Yard provided public relations support to an international law firm with offices in London, Europe and the Middle East. Our brief...
View more Reputation Management Case Sudies


Chris Tappin Bell Yard assisted Chris Tappin and his family in attracting media interest in the absurdity of his extradition to the US. After his ap...
Richard O’Dwyer We were asked to assist Richard O’Dwyer, the 23yr old Sheffield Hallam University student who faced prosecution in the US for copyrig...
View more Campaign Case Sudies

Contact us

Bell Yard Communications Limited
21 Fleet Street

Sw: +44 (0) 20 7936 2021

M: Melanie Riley, Director: +44 (0) 7775 591244