By Julia Reischel

June 2, 2008

 

On March 6, nearly three months after a first-year associate at Bingham McCutchen reported that she had been drugged at a firm-sponsored holiday party, the firm's chief human resources officer sent out an e-mail to members of the Boston office informing them of the incident.

 

"The safety of our attorneys and staff is of paramount concern to Bingham," Lynn A. Carroll's e-mail began. The firm would be hosting "a safety training program" that would address "workplace safety, safety while travelling and personal safety," Carroll continued, noting that "we have been reviewing training options over the last several weeks in response to a report that one of our employees unknowingly ingested a drug at the associates holiday lunch. While we have been unable to determine who did this, we believe this training program is a productive step in addressing personal safety for us all."

 

By the time the e-mail was sent, the alleged victim, Michelle Moor, had resigned from the firm. Two months later, on May 7, she filed a sex-discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination against the firm, citing Bingham's "failure to investigate and take prompt and adequate remedial action" in response to the incident and two other disturbing events: the alleged drugging and rape of another associate at the firm, and a dinner at which a Bingham employee had allegedly discussed date-rape drugs and his penchant for having sex with unconscious women.

 

While news of the allegations immediately made headlines in the print media and throughout the blogosphere, the firm managed to maintain some control over the story thanks to Carroll's e-mail announcing the forthcoming training program and a series of carefully planned statements, some of which were leaked to the public, in the wake of the incident.

 

Still, the she-said/firm-said statements threw a spotlight on the modus operandi of law firms caught up in a swirl of unfavorable publicity, and, with disclosures about less-than-flattering goings-on at other Boston firms, that spotlight is unlikely to dim anytime soon.

 

 

In fact, Bingham's handling of the Moor matter is being lauded by some public relations professionals.

 

 

On his "Legal Blog Watch," Robert J. Ambrogi, a Rockport lawyer who specializes in the media, calls the incident a "textbook example of crisis PR done right."

 

"They made clear in their response that they took the matter very seriously," Ambrogi tells Lawyers Weekly. "They didn't dismiss it out of hand. Not only did they take it seriously, but they made it clear that they followed up immediately, or at least attempted to follow up immediately and investigate the action. And finally, they really went beyond what the immediate situation necessarily required. They didn't just address these particular allegations; they put into effect training that went way beyond [what was necessary]. They weren't just trying to provide a response; they were taking control of the story."

 

 

While Moor's allegations are particularly troublesome, Bingham McCutchen is only one of a spate of law firms facing recent negative-publicity challenges.

 

The same week that Moor publicized her complaints, a dramatic e-mail from a female associate at San Francisco-based Paul Hastings made the rounds in cyberspace, alleging that the firm concocted mediocre performance reviews in order to fire the lawyer after she suffered a miscarriage.

 

In March, meanwhile, Lawyers Weekly reported that the Boston firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo was the subject of an MCAD complaint filed by a female associate who alleged that that firm fostered an atmosphere of sex discrimination.

 

And last December, a feud between former and current attorneys at Boston's Donovan Hatem made headlines.

 

While firms choose different ways to deal with negative publicity, N. Jay Shepherd, a Boston employment lawyer who represents law firms in sensitive situations, says that an attorney's instinct is to remain silent in the face of a crisis.

 

 

Refusing to comment is a tactic that often backfires, experts say.

 

"‘No comment' sounds like a cover-up," Shepherd says. "It's the corporate equivalent of pleading the 5th. ... You look guilty."

 

The way Ambrogi sees it, "the more you refuse to talk to the press ... the more you're going to look bad. The worst [thing] you can do is not talk to the press at all."

 

 

But even when law firms do respond, experts say, they often issue statements that are too defensive or are so full of legalese that they can alienate the audience they are hoping to win over.

 

 

When Mintz Levin responded to reports of Kamee B. Verdrager's allegations of gender discrimination, the firm issued a written response with statements from its staff explaining that Verdrager was demoted for performance reasons.

 

"My takeaway was that it's kind of a way of dismissing it, in a sense," Ambrogi says of the way Mintz handled the situation.

 

"The response seemed to be saying, ‘This didn't happen; this couldn't happen,'" he says. "I don't think it works. Certainly in Mintz's response, they should have said that they've been ranked among one of the best law firms for working mothers. But that doesn't mean that this couldn't happen there."

 

Mintz Levin's PR director, Gina Addis, explains why the firm responded as it did when the story first broke: "Prior to the story ever appearing, the firm had already fully investigated this matter. Because of that, the firm knew that the charges were without merit. When the story appeared, we had only to inform our lawyers and staff of the facts, so that they would have a fair and balanced account."

 

 

In the case of Bingham McCutchen, news of Moor's complaints became public when her lawyers e-mailed a copy of her MCAD complaint to several news organizations.

 

Overnight, Bingham released its response - a short statement emphasizing that it took the allegations seriously and that it had responded by starting a new safety program.

 

In January, the firm had hired Kroll Inc., an international risk consulting and investigations firm, to hold two-hour "personal security training" courses with its employees. The training covers safety topics ranging from general home and travel security tips to specific instructions on how to avoid being drugged at a bar. So far, about 300 Bingham members have participated in the course, according to the firm's spokeswoman, Claire Papanastasiou.

 

 

And Bingham moved on another front to control the story. The morning after Moor's complaint appeared in the news, Ralph C. Martin II, the firm's managing partner, fired off an e-mail to those in the Boston office addressing Moor's "alarming allegations" in detail.

 

Martin related Bingham's side of the story, pointing out that, at Moor's request, the firm did not initially investigate the drugging incident but that, after she reported her co-worker's inappropriate comments, the firm undertook an "exhaustive confidential investigation," at the end of which the employee was fired.

 

Regarding Moor's claim that another Bingham associate had been drugged and raped, Martin wrote that the firm also investigated that incident, although it made no headway because Moor would not identify the victim. But since then, Martin said, the firm understood those allegations to be false.

 

"We have very recently been contacted by the associate referenced by Ms. Moor," he wrote. "Without going into details, we have learned Ms. Moor's information is fundamentally inaccurate."

 

 

Martin's e-mail was sent at noon. Two hours later, a similar e-mail, this one from William G. Southard, the firm's general counsel, was sent to Bingham's nationwide staff. Although Southard noted that his e-mail was confidential, it appeared on blogs within hours and was incorporated into the story by major news outlets by the end of the day.

 

Attempts to interview Martin and other Bingham partners were unsuccessful, with the firm citing the pending litigation. "While we would like to talk about it, and we do think we did the best we could, we're not in the position to discuss this in the press right now," Papanastasiou says.

 

Ambrogi, meanwhile, says that leaking the e-mail to blogs may have been a deliberate strategy.

 

"I don't think that anybody in the management structure at Bingham would be naïve enough to believe that the memo was going to stay within the virtual walls of Bingham," Ambrogi says. "My take on the situation is that that memo was written for the public as much as for the staff."

 

The leaked e-mail allowed Bingham to disseminate its version of events unofficially, while officially saying little about the charges, Ambrogi says, adding that the communication meant the firm could cover itself legally and get out its side of the story at the same time.

 

But even that kind of sophisticated response is not enough, according to Shepherd. He notes that Bingham still relied on PR professionals to speak for the firm, instead of encouraging the firm's lawyers to speak for themselves.

 

"I think [talking about crises] is something that lawyers need to learn to do better," he says. "But law schools don't teach you [that], and most law firms don't teach it to their people."