Is your firm's publicity putting you in the risk zone?

"There is no such thing as bad publicity" is a familiar saying, but not one which should be taken too literally by lawyers. Solicitors should be mindful that it can generate many risks and needs to be kept under review, says Tracey Calvert

In the pre-SRA handbook era, thinking about publicity was high on the agenda of many practitioners. There were many common queries. What should we put on our notepaper? Do we need to list all of our partners? Can we advertise "no win, no fee"? With the move to principles and outcomes, and the regulator's very different style, some firms have turned their attention away from this to other risk targets.

However, publicity remains a concern, both in terms of legal and regulatory compliance, and also because of the risks attached to different forms of publicity. While most firms understand and manage the risks connected with cold-calling, as a form of publicity and means of generating business, they are perhaps not so focused on other publicity methods, as once was the case.

To set the scene, publicity is a defined terms for Solicitors Regulation Authority purposes. It covers all promotional material and activity, including the name or description of the firm, stationery, advertisements, brochures, websites, directory entries, media appearances, promotional press releases, and direct approaches to potential clients and other persons, whether conducted in person, in writing, or in electronic form, but does not include press releases prepared on behalf of a client.

The outcomes that must be achieved are in chapter 8 of the SRA code and, in a nutshell, require that publicity must be accurate and not misleading, clearly expressed, and not involve any form of cold-calling to members of the public.

A prudent approach

In terms of emails, letterheads and websites, the firm's COLP will demonstrate a prudent approach to risk by ensuring that the following points are among those captured in their compliance planning:

• the full, and unaltered, statement "authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority" is on the website, emails and letterhead;

• LLPs and companies include full company registration details and partnerships and sole practitioners include details of their authorisation records with the SRA;

• all types of entities publish their SRA registration number;

• that firms comply with the relevant requirements about naming managers (principal, partners, directors or members) and this is kept accurate when there are changes in composition;

• non-managers named in publicity are not held out incorrectly;

• references to the SRA and conduct requirements (as required by The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002) have been updated to reflect current requirements with links to the latest website resources;

• that the firm's VAT number and professional indemnity insurance details are on the website;

• that the SRA logo is not reproduced;

• that accreditation logos are used only in circumstances where this is allowed and that the design has not been altered in any way;

• that publicity complies with all relevant legislation (bearing in mind Outcome (7.5) of the SRA Code and taking into account the countless requirements in this area such as the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008, the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (as amended));

• and that internal marketing teams and/or external advertising agencies understand restrictions and requirements and they do not produce publicity which places the firm in breach.

Publicity also generates risk of a more reputational nature. We are all familiar with the developments in cyber crime and it makes sense to be alert to the fact that publicity initiatives can facilitate such activity. A simple step to incorporate into risk prevention routines is regular googling of lawyers' and the firm's name to monitor for identity hi-jack or other scams. An associated benefit of such googling is that it allows any negative publicity which is being posted about the firm or individuals within it to be addressed.

More generally, it is sensible to ensure that work colleagues, consultants and third parties working for the business do not use the firm's name to detrimental effect in blogs, on social media and the like. Many firms have reviewed their internet and social media policies to prohibit this and, of course as a knock-on effect, this can minimise the risk of breach of confidential information about clients with the conduct and Data Protection Act issues that this may create.

Tracey Calvert is a regulatory compliance specialist and the director of Oakalls Consultancy Limited. She is the author of "Conflicts and Confidentiality for Law Firms" and "A Practical Guide to Ethics in Law Firms" and co-author of OFR: Compliance in Practice and COLP & COFA: Compliance in Practice all published by the Ark Group.

tcalvert@oakallsconsultancy.co.uk

www.oakallsconsultancy.co.uk