How to Safeguard Law Firm Thought Leadership

How to Safeguard Law Firm Thought Leadership

According to an article by Copo Strategies, attorneys in certain legal practices, such as corporate litigation, family law, or intellectual property, may hesitate to publish thought leadership due to the fear that opposing counsel might later use it against them or their clients. This concern arises because attorneys often need to argue different sides of legal issues in various cases. However, the article offers a simple solution to safeguard law firm thought leadership: argue both sides in the thought leadership piece, similar to how law students tackle exams.

By presenting both perspectives, attorneys can protect themselves from a “Gotcha!” moment, where opposing counsel might attempt to cite their own published views against them. Although such attacks rarely influence judges, they can cause embarrassment, particularly if a client questions why the attorney’s own work is being used against them.

Addressing both sides of an issue in a thoughtful, balanced manner ensures that the attorney is not rigidly committed to a single stance that could be weaponized later. While this approach may seem to dilute the strength of the argument, it doesn’t diminish the value of the analysis, insights, or guidance provided.

For attorneys who consistently represent the same type of client, like plaintiffs in personal injury cases or insurance companies, arguing both sides may not be necessary. However, this strategy offers protection for those who could find themselves on either side of a legal issue. 

Ultimately, attorneys should not let fear of their thought leadership being used against them stop them from contributing valuable insights. Playing both sides allows them to continue providing meaningful analysis without jeopardizing future cases.