Law Firm Crisis Management & Regulatory Reputation Defence

SRA Investigations & SDT Defence PR:

• Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) investigation or enforcement action
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) proceedings or hearings
• Legal Ombudsman complaints require careful communication
• Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) data breach investigation
• Health and Safety Executive investigation following workplace incident.

Litigation PR & Adverse Judgment Management:

• Adverse judgment requiring careful explanation to stakeholders
• High-profile case loss attracting media attention
• Client complaint becoming public
• Costs order or wasted costs application
• Allegations of professional misconduct

Partner Exits & Internal Restructuring Comms:

• Partner departure or team exodus raises questions
• Financial difficulty or cashflow challenges
• Merger, acquisition, or office closure
• Significant redundancies or restructuring
• Employment tribunal or discrimination claim against the firm
• Workplace incident or health and safety issue

External attacks on reputation:

• Negative media coverage (accurate or inaccurate)
• Social media criticism or online reviews
• Competitor attacks or market positioning challenges
• Campaign groups targeting the firm or specific cases
• Political or government criticism

Proactive reputation protection:

• Entering sensitive or controversial litigation
• Handling a high-profile client or case
• Navigating political or regulatory changes affecting the firm
• Managing stakeholder expectations during transformation or change

David managed all internal and external communications during Leigh Day's extended engagement with the SRA investigation and the seven-week SDT hearing, the logest in the history of the tribunal, operating without using an external crisis communications agency. 

longestThe firm faced allegations regarding conduct in Iraq historical allegations litigation, with potential outcomes ranging from individual solicitor sanctions to firm closure. Media coverage was extensive and often hostile. Staff morale and client confidence were at risk. Referral sources needed reassurance. The hearing lasted seven weeks, with daily press coverage, and the firm was ultimately found not to have been unlawful or fallen foul of any SRA principles.

Approach:

• Daily staff briefings throughout the hearing period, maintaining morale and providing accurate information
• Partner communication,s ensuring leadership alignment despite differing views
• Client communications providing reassurance while being careful not to prejudice the hearing
• Media management, including daily press attendance, correcting inaccuracies, and providing context where appropriate
• Strategic decisions about what to say publicly vs. what to save for the legal process
• Stakeholder communications with major NGO partners, maintaining relationships
• Post-hearing communications managing outcome and positioning for future

Results:

• Firm's reputation is protected throughout the process
• Staff remained confident and committed (minimal departures during crisis)
• Client relationships maintained (no significant client loss due to hearing)
• Media coverage balanced (firm's perspective represented alongside criticism)
• Referral relationships continued 
• The firm emerged from the hearing able to continue operations and rebuild
• Internal communications approach became a model for other firms facing similar challenges

• Speed balanced with accuracy: Responding quickly to demonstrate control while ensuring information is accurate and getting out in front of narrative without getting ahead of facts.
• Transparency within appropriate bounds: Being as open as possible within legal, regulatory, and strategic constraints and explaining what can't be shared and why, rather than appearing evasive.
• Consistency across all clients and partners: Ensuring everyone hears the same core messages through appropriate channels and avoiding mixed signals that breed confusion and concern.
• Empathy and humanity: Acknowledging impact on affected parties. Avoiding a defensive or legalistic tone that increases rather than reduces tension.
• Strategic patience: Knowing when to respond immediately and when to wait. Resisting pressure to comment before facts are clear or while the legal process is ongoing.
• Focus on what matters most: Protecting the relationships and reputation elements most critical to the firm's future, not just managing immediate media headlines.

• Proven experience in highest-stakes situations: Having managed communications through SDT hearings, multiple SRA investigations, government scrutiny, and high-profile case controversies, David has demonstrated capability in situations where reputation and firm survival are genuinely at risk.
• Legal sector specialisation: Understanding of regulatory environment, legal constraints on communication, stakeholder dynamics specific to law firms, and how legal practice operates during a crisis.
• Embedded experience, not just consulting: Having operated as a senior leader within law firms during a crisis, David understands the internal dynamics, politics, and pressures that external consultants miss.
• Calm judgment under pressure: Crisis communications requires clear thinking when everyone around you is panicking. David's experience provides the steady hand that keeps the response strategic rather than reactive.