Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
To ensure lawyers avoid errors in their branding strategies that may undermine their credibility and impede their ability to differentiate themselves, three legal professionals have identified common pitfalls they should avoid.
Building a legal brand is not typically taught in universities, and it’s not a common topic of discussion within the legal profession. As a result, many lawyers, especially those at the start of their careers, often make mistakes in developing their legal brand, which can harm their professional image instead of enhancing it.
Speaking to Lawyers Weekly, Pancho Mehrotra, the founder and principal of Frontier Performance; Katrin O’Sullivan, general counsel at non-profit organisation The Fred Hollows Foundation; and Melissa Barlas, the founder of Conveyed, shared valuable insights into some of the most common mistakes lawyers should avoid when developing a legal brand.
One of the most common pitfalls lawyers face, Mehrotra revealed, is over-reliance on their academic achievements and technical expertise.
While credentials such as degrees, certifications, and awards hold significant value, Mehrotra articulated that a sole focus on these elements may lead to creating a brand that “feels generic and impersonal”.
To prevent this from occurring, he explained that the key lies in integrating “credentials with a powerful personal narrative. By harmonising one’s professional expertise with a strong story, Mehrotra added that lawyers are more likely to attract clients, as they typically prefer to “work with someone who exudes both knowledge and confidence”.
Another common mistake that Mehrotra identified is the tendency among lawyers to place excessive emphasis on relationship building, to the extent, he added, that it inadvertently “undermines their authority”.
In their efforts to build rapport, Mehrotra explained that many lawyers often “fall into the trap” of dedicating excessive time to pose “endless questions” or engage in small talk. He argued that clients aren’t seeking a “guided discovery of your expertise”; instead, they prefer that their lawyer demonstrates that they “already know the solution”.
Mehrotra proposed that to mitigate making this mistake, lawyers should establish what he terms an “authority dump”. This concept, he explains, entails lawyers providing “concise, technical insights confidently and without hesitation”.
While placing an excessive emphasis on relationship building can be impactful, Katrin O’Sullivan expressed that it is essential not to neglect the importance of fostering professional relationships within the workplace.
She noted that this tendency is a common challenge many lawyers face, expressing that they often focus on improving their “technical skills” rather than fostering interpersonal connections.
O’Sullivan stressed the need for lawyers to prioritise this when building their legal brand, asserting that “your network will be one of your biggest career assets”.
Mehrotra explained that another common pitfall for lawyers is inconsistency in their messaging. He noted that a legal brand that undergoes frequent changes may “confuse clients and erode trust”.
He expressed that establishing a “consistent message” throughout all their communication channels enables a lawyer to establish a “lasting, influential brand”.
Melissa Barlas also echoed the importance of maintaining consistency in a lawyer’s branding message online. She noted that a disjointed visual identity, such as varying colours or colour schemes, can lead to potential clients feeling “confused [about] what you represent”.
While it’s important to have visibility, O’Sullivan cautioned that one of the biggest mistakes she has seen lawyers fall into the trap of is over-promoting themselves without offering real value.
O’Sullivan articulated that a legal brand transcends mere visibility and public recognition; it is fundamentally established upon the pillars of one’s “expertise, impact, and relationships.
While pursuing versatility and the desire to accommodate various demands can be advantageous, O’Sullivan said the effort to be all things to all individuals may ultimately “dilute your brand”.
She contended that it is more beneficial to cultivate profound expertise in a select number of key areas rather than “stretching yourself too thin”.
Barlas concurred with this perspective, stating: “Don’t try to be everything to everyone. The key is to niche and differentiate in an area you specialise, not to create a jack-of-all-trades generalist law firm.”
Jerome Doraisamy is the managing editor of Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader. He is also the author of The Wellness Doctrines book series, an admitted solicitor in New South Wales, and a board director of the Minds Count Foundation.
You can email Jerome at:
Get breaking news
Jerome Doraisamy
