Law firms are facing difficult decisions about what to say about the war and how to respond to comments from job candidates.(iStock.com/Tomas Ragina and Allexxandar)
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP rescinded job offers to three law students who hold leadership positions at organizations Harvard University and Columbia University that signed on to a letter calling Israel responsible for the militant group's killings.
A week earlier, Winston & Strawn LLP confirmed that it had pulled a job offer to Ryna Workman, a former summer associate and former New York University School of Law Student Bar Association president, who the firm claimed distributed "inflammatory comments" about Hamas' attack on Israel.
Global law firm Dentons reportedly had to pull and replace a statement about the war posted on LinkedIn that had drawn inflammatory comments.
And on Friday, the Law Centres Network had to apologize after one center's employee emailed more than 3,000 lawyers and other staff, inviting people, including some outside the legal aid charity, to join a national march in support of Palestine.
A New Challenge
No one denies the difficulties law firm leaders face in this situation.
Robert Kamins, principal and founder of Vertex Advisors, pointed out that law firms are increasingly under pressure to say something to keep up with the competition, and to do so in a timely way.
"Especially because of the rise of social media, LinkedIn, X, they see their competitors increasingly in the public square of discourse, putting out statements," he said.
But at the same time, he pointed out that "a lot of law firms are struggling with what to say," asking themselves, "How much are we weighing into societal or international or legal issues and are those representative of our firm, our people and our clients?"
While it poses some of the same questions, the Israel-Hamas war, unlike the invasion of Ukraine, where the question of how to react was largely less controversial, the political sensitivities around one of the world's most intractable geopolitical conflicts have proved less straightforward for law firms to take a stand on.
Kent Zimmermann, a U.S.-based strategic adviser to law firms at Zeughauser Group, argued that law firms "have found it easier to call out Russia for its unprovoked attack."
Indeed, many professional organizations in the U.K. have stayed mum so far. Neither the Law Society of England and Wales, which represents the bulk of lawyers in the U.K., nor the Bar Council, which represents barristers, has issued any comment since the war started.
Kamins said he sees more parallels in terms of issues firms have had to navigate with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision that there is no constitutional right to abortion in the country.
"It put some law firms in very similar situations there about what stand they are making about that, what are their values," he said.
Taking a Stand
And there are risks in speaking out. If comments rub clients or employees the wrong way, firms risk losing work or finding it harder to recruit talent. Given how risk-averse law firms typically are, those decisions to speak out are likely the product of a thoughtful assessment of how the firms want to be seen in the market, according to Kamins.
"Ultimately a firm expressing a viewpoint on a candidate is not a bad thing," Kamins said. "People probably want to make sure both clients and recruits ... are a good fit, meaning that if somebody is going to have a political position or feelings or sensitivities, they are going to be at odds with an institution."
He said that law firms are representative of their own culture and history.
"It is not uncommon that there are, at least in the United States, many firms that were created by groups of people who were previously discriminated against," he said. "So their identity may be based on people's ethnic or religious background, so that their values are very prominent."
It's a hard balancing act between where firms draw a line and how much they espouse those values, and the fact that as businesses they must consider their clients, practices and geographies, as well as the makeup of their partnerships.
That's why Kamins' message to law firms in these situations is "to be true to yourself."
"It really comes down to the culture of the individual firm," he said.
Los Angeles-based Ronald Wood, managing director in the partner practice group of legal recruiting firm Major Lindsey & Africa, told Law360 that as private enterprises law firms can set their own boundaries and rules, including setting expectations for employees' conduct and public expression.
"If [firms] choose to be apolitical or to have people express their personal political and social views outside of the workplace, then they certainly can do that," Wood said. "That doesn't take away people's rights to have whatever passions they have, you just may not have the right to express them in every way in every environment."
That's why Wood argued that what Davis Polk did "should be a lesson to a particular generation."
"They've grown up with digital devices and the internet and communicating their every thought ... they live with a free flow of their lives," Wood said. "This may be an instance where, coming into a particular profession, they have to observe certain guardrails, and some of that is that passions don't really find a lot of opportunity in the workplace, particularly [the] professional services workplace."
For all these reasons, law firms may opt to stay silent, and most do. But even that approach may not help firms in the long run.
U.S. industry experts pointed out that law firms do sometimes take a position on the news of the day to set themselves apart from their rivals at a time when competition for talent and clients is tight. Taking a public stance also helps law firms bring in new talent with those same values, they say.
For these reasons, it may be more advantageous to speak out rather than not. Still, experts expect the law firms that do take a stand to focus on relatively uncontroversial issues like opposing terrorism.
The American Bar Association, for its part, has condemned the violence and attacks on civilians, calling for both sides to abide by international law.
"We call on members of the legal community, including legal employers, law schools and other legal institutions to recognize the humanity of both Palestinians and Israelis when commenting on the crisis and to ensure that employees, students and others can respectfully express their diverse view without fear of unjust punishment or censure," the ABA said in a statement.
Dealing With Diversity
While law firms as private businesses have the freedom to set their own parameters, they also have to reckon with the impact any restrictions they place on what their employees say in public will have on their recruiting.
And that's particularly true at a moment when many firms are trying to improve diversity, equity and inclusion within their workforces, experts said.
"Law firms put a major focus on diversity, and this is where it becomes a very interesting topic. To what degree do you enable true diversity, [which] is going to mean all kinds of different thinking?" Kamins asked.
Others have taken a more critical stance on the rescinded job offers. International law specialist Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Partners warned that what Davis Polk did will have "a massive chilling effect" on the profession.
"We are so far away from human rights and freedom of expression. We condemn many of our young people for this 'cancel culture' and then you have Davis Polk revoking offers based on political views. It's absolutely outrageous and shameful," Amsterdam said.
"These are not the moments to give up our rights and our principles," he added.
There is already disquiet in other parts of the legal profession. A London-based recruiter told Law360 on the condition of anonymity on Friday that over the past week law firms have been asking their lawyers, including associates and partners, to assure clients of the firms' political leaning, one way or another.
"People are uncomfortable. They say that to appease clients [in these situations] is not part of their job," the recruiter said.
This includes one Muslim candidate whose firm required them to assure clients of their support for Israel. "It's an unfortunate situation all round," the recruiter said.
Another U.S.-based industry expert speaking on condition of anonymity warned that the move to pull job offers may be "creating some kind of slippery slope."
"The Hamas-Israel situation may be at one end of the spectrum, but for a lot of law firms, if they are going to go down this path of trying to say that they hire or decline to hire people based on their political views, [that] gets into really dicey territory," the person said, and pointed to examples of firms hiring "diehard" Donald Trump supporters.
"As much as I abhor Donald Trump and his policies, I think that law firms by all means ought to still hire people who disagree with me and believe that he is right, if they do excellent legal work," the person said.
--Editing by Robert Rudinger.
Clarification: This story has been updated to clarify that it was an individual law center's employee who emailed regarding a protest march.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
