Editor's Comment: Growing up

Perhaps this is age or the impact of web interactivity, but I've been thinking a lot about trust recently. Partly, I suppose it is linked with our parent company's acquisition of American Lawyer Media, which does some excellent in-depth journalism but has some cultural differences with the news-driven Legal Week. But most importantly, it strikes me that the trust between the legal media and law firms is in short supply; one managing partner recently told me that half his partnership regard him talking to the legal press as supping with the devil.

Deserved? Not entirely. One reason for such sensitivities is that City law firms so rarely hit the radar of the general business press, so supposed sensationalism is sometimes just the cut-and-thrust of media, which law firms are still getting used to. I can think of two memorable occasions in which magic circle firms were utterly shocked over the rough-and-ready treatment they received from some highly respected broadsheets when the firm turned from pundit on the sidelines to the main meat of the story. In the former case there was some justification, even if the paper's treatment of the story got a little hyper-ventilated. In the latter, it was a straight hack job and I do not think I'm exaggerating to say the firm in question was grateful for the measured handling of the story by Legal Week.

There are also some out-of-date claims regarding sensationalism. The days when you would read headlines about 'raids' and 'exoduses' have long gone. Do stories ever get over-egged? Sure. Journalism is not an exact science, but there are as many stories where I look back and think we erred too far on the side of caution (which is as it should be).

So far, so self-justifying. For all the above caveats, and for the fact that I'm proud of the magazine and the work of its team, there is room for improvement - and it comes back to trust. We deal in stories that often involve contentious issues, which tend to generate a range of opinions. In the rush to establish facts, not enough effort has always been made to represent differing viewpoints or to give a right to reply to the people and firms we are writing about where they disagree with the thrust of a story or comment. That quality is a particular strength of US business journalism and something we can learn from our new stable-mates.

Legal Week, which has been going through a lot of changes over the last two years, has already taken steps to bring in a more measured, mature style - the use of talkative 'sources' and 'former partners' was heavily restricted some time ago - but there is still some way to go. That is not say we will be writing about different subjects. We are there to cover the hard news of managing law firms and our news has to address the key issues. But we must be measured and use more precise sourcing that gives the reader more confidence that the journalists have done their leg-work. Perhaps then only 25% of the above partner's firm will think we have smoke coming out of our ears.