All professional organisations face a challenge: how to communicate the work that they have produced on behalf of their members to those very same members. There is a natural tendency for members of professional organisations – at least in all those with which I have been associated – to take pleasure in running down the headquarters. That tendency needs to be overcome for the headquarters to be heard saying: ‘Here is something useful for you!’
The Law Society has developed a focused communications strategy. For instance, if you have not yet heard that it issued climate change guidance in the middle of April, there is no reaching you, since it was plastered everywhere and repeatedly. I hope at least one of its messages passed before your eyes.
There are international membership organisations that produce equally useful work, but because their headquarters are more distant and cover whole regions, or indeed the world, it is more difficult for them to ensure their message penetrate to sufficient members.
So the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe – despite our departure from the EU – has vital information for solicitors on how the EU’s Russian sanctions regime operates, with answers to questions given directly by relevant EU officials. You can also discover comparative information about other countries’ laws and legal systems across a range of subjects from their website. But how to ensure UK lawyers know about it?
The organisation facing the biggest challenge is the International Bar Association (IBA). IBA policy development is largely left to volunteer lawyers from around the world without the support of expert staff. So the policy depends on the interests and energy of particular IBA committees, of which there are many.
Much excellent work is undertaken, but it lies largely unread on the IBA website, which is a shame for the millions of lawyers for whom it could be useful, despite the IBA’s efforts to promote it. I speak from experience, having undertaken much work for the IBA in international trade in legal services, and in ethics, which I can confidently say is almost completely unknown.
The IBA has published useful work which deserves a wide audience. I would point principally to its ‘Updated IBA Guidance Note on Business and Human Rights: The role of lawyers in the changing landscape’, which summarises the latest position on the topic succinctly. It is simplified guidance, not a long document, yet it packs in a large amount. Among other things, it recites the latest judicial and quasi-judicial trends in corporate accountability, and the legal practice areas impacted by the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
I would have liked a bit more about the threats to environmental, social and governance (ESG) from the political right in the US, which caused some Republican senators to write at the end of last year to several large law firms, stating that they have a ‘duty to fully inform clients of the risks they incur by participating in climate cartels and other ill-advised ESG schemes’.
However, I have an opportunity to point out my concern to the authors, since the IBA is consulting on the guidance. Commendably, it wants to ensure that its simplified document is accessible and used by lawyers around the world, and so is inviting comments by 9 June.
Related to this, but produced by a different part of the IBA, a new report has just been released on the growing importance of ESG considerations in capital markets transactions. This is an example of the important comparative work that international organisations can undertake as a result of their widespread membership.
The report gives an overview of how different countries regulate ESG disclosures and whether, and to what extent, these disclosures are now mandatory as a result of prevailing regulatory trends and institutional investors’ demands. Information from over 30 countries is covered. The conclusions are all pretty obvious – for instance, ESG disclosures are mandatory practically everywhere, and there are different thresholds for the size of companies caught by the laws – but it might be particularly useful for lawyers to know in which jurisdictions criminal sanctions exist for false or misleading disclosures. And it is the detail per country which should also be of great assistance.
In a similar vein, the IBA published last month a report which outlines fintech regulatory frameworks for 39 jurisdictions across the world.
How to convey this work to the lawyers who need it? How to break through the cynicism that such and such a professional body is useless? If you know a magic trick to achieve that, you could earn millions in consultancy fees. It is the Holy Grail for many organisations. Until then, we just have to plug away in Gazette articles like this.
Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society
3 Readers' comments