Testimonies from college presidents before Congress last week raised questions about their preparation and approach. Normally, the fact that all three were women would be a point of pride, but their responses muted any celebration of progress.
There are important lessons for lawyers in this public relations disaster. Understanding the audience—whether a jury, lawmakers, or the public—is crucial. The university presidents were reportedly prepped by a top law firm, but what they truly needed were crisis management and public relations experts. As noted by The New York Times, they were prepared as if they were giving legal depositions rather than addressing a high-stakes public forum. Their approach failed to resonate, and I wasn’t alone in thinking that was the wrong strategy.
Lawyers don’t know everything, despite the common perception. It’s essential to recognize when expertise from other professionals is needed. Assuming otherwise is pure arrogance.
In this case, lawmakers weren’t interested in legal technicalities or carefully worded statements. Their audience wanted clear, direct answers. Were the college presidents caught in a political “gotcha” moment? Perhaps. But a more human, empathetic response could have been more effective.
This is a reminder that in public settings, strictly legal correctness isn’t always the best approach. Context matters. A robotic, detached tone can backfire, making speakers seem unfeeling rather than competent. Former President Bill Clinton’s infamous denial of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky is a prime example of how parsing words can backfire.
On another note, common sense seems increasingly rare. Take the bizarre case of a lawyer in Ohio who had a habit of defecating in Pringles cans and tossing them out of his car—one of which landed in a crime victim advocacy center’s parking lot. As punishment, the Ohio Supreme Court suspended his law license for a year. His excuse? He had done this at least ten times in 2021 as part of an ongoing “prank.”
While that attorney might need a serious reevaluation of his life choices, there’s at least one bright spot: California recently admitted its youngest lawyer ever. At just 17 years old, he’s officially licensed to practice law. Hopefully, he has enough life experience to handle the responsibility.
That said, plenty of experienced lawyers still lack basic common sense. Intelligence alone doesn’t guarantee good judgment—something the college presidents, the Ohio lawyer, and many others have demonstrated all too well.
