'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
14. Back-to-Back Firm Name Changes
Trending
The frequent name changes of the firm—Pearson Hardman, Pearson Specter, Pearson Specter Litt—are highly impractical for branding and client trust. Rebranding a law firm involves massive costs and risks, particularly when it occurs due to internal conflicts. Constantly changing the name would confuse clients and damage the firm’s reputation. While the changes symbolize power shifts and internal politics, they ignore the reality of how firms build long-term client relationships. A subtler way of showcasing these dynamics could have maintained consistency without unnecessary upheaval.
Feedback
Edited by Ritika Pal
GIF
Comment in moderation
Your perspective matters!
Start the conversation
