I grew up in a family of lawyers.
Ethics.
Criminal law.
From defending Ozzy Osbourne to prosecuting members of the mafia, my childhood was surrounded by legal cases.
As the years passed, my father got a bit despondent about law.
He always felt it was about a quest for truth and justice – regardless of personal situation or circumstance – but saw how it was quickly becoming about cash.
Instead of solving issues, law firms seemed to be focused on keeping the problems alive as that ensured their high fees kept flowing in.
This might explain why there are now more lawyers than Police officers in NYC.
It’s a highly profitable business.
That said, I always loved the law and considered a career in it … until I realised I didn’t have the patience – or brains – to succeed.
Getting 2% in a maths exam pretty much confirmed that to me.
However, my upbringing had a huge effect on me in terms of right and wrong and that’s why the situation I’m seeing happening in adland in conflicting me.
On one hand I’m incredibly happy the predators are being identified, outed and held to task.
But I’m also conscious the way some companies/people/organisations are approaching the situation seems to be with one eye on how they look to the broader audience than being caring and compassionate to the victims who have been subjected to the abuse for so long.
It also bothers me when responsibility seems to stop at the abuser, not the people who enabled that abuse to continue.
Sure, sometimes the senior figures may have been in the dark, but it appears that is more the exception than the rule.
Look, if a company tells someone to leave, there’s obviously a reason for it.
But I must admit I’m finding it rather strange to see how some companies are publicly announcing they’ve let someone go – and specifically naming the individual – but using some ambiguous wording as to the reason why.
Maybe they are trying to offer some final professional respect to the person they’ve just let go, but if that’s the case, why name them at all given they must know the industry will automatically assume it was for some sort of sexual misconduct.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting we should feel sorry for anyone that has been dismissed for proven, serious wrong-doing, but I do think we need to ensure this situation is handled openly and transparently rather than trying to get some sort of popularity out of it.
And that’s why I’m conflicted, because criminal law is based on 2 principals.
The accuser is presumed to be telling the truth.
The accused is presumed to be innocent.
That’s why it’s so important to not taint the evidence – to ensure each element is given their own space and time to be explored – and while that fragile balance can, and has, been susceptible to manipulation and wrong-doing, it’s important it’s maintained so the victims can be helped and the wrongdoers can be held-to-task accordingly and appropriately.
As I said, I’m so happy to see the wave of change that is sweeping through society and giving a voice to those who have previously been silenced, but I do worry about some of the tactics being embraced by certain organisations because, ironically, they could give the guilty more ability to claim unfair treatment than they ever deserve and potentially get them out of properly paying for their misdeeds.
It’s why I love the #TimesUp movement as it’s designed to give financial and legal equality in the quest for truth.
By removing the advantage many have used to hide their crimes, we have a chance for lasting change. It’s not perfect but it’s better than throwing stones, even if you believe they are justified.
I think my Dad – and family – would be happy to see this.
Hell, they’d probably be passionately behind it.
I know I am.