A recent Finnish survey on how lawyers are perceived revealed an uncomfortable contradiction: people trust lawyers’ expertise, but many are not convinced that lawyers put their clients’ interests first. This made me think about trust more broadly.
We often speak about trust as something personal, built through integrity, empathy, honesty and good communication. These qualities matter enormously. But within organizations, trust is not only interpersonal. It is also a governance outcome. Even well-intentioned people will struggle to maintain trust within a system that is inconsistent, opaque or unfair.
An organization may state that it values openness while making important decisions behind closed doors. Leaders may encourage people to raise concerns but respond defensively when someone does. A board may emphasize accountability, only for responsibilities to become unclear when something goes wrong. People judge organizations not only by what they say, but by what they repeatedly experience.
Expertise does not automatically create trust. Legal knowledge and in-depth expertise is essential, but those alone do not help a client understand a difficult situation, evaluate the available options or decide what to do next. Nor does it answer the concerns that may sit beneath the surface: Why is this course of action being recommended? Were other alternatives considered? Is all this work necessary? What will it cost? Whose interests are being prioritized?
A good lawyer addresses these concerns by listening, explaining and making complexity manageable. Empathy, curiosity and clarity are not optional extras. They are part of professional competence. But trust should not depend entirely on whether a client happens to encounter an individual lawyer with excellent interpersonal skills. It also needs structural support.
Transparent communication, clear explanations of roles and options, effective conflict-of-interest procedures, meaningful complaints processes and credible professional standards all make trustworthy conduct more consistent and visible. Governance cannot manufacture trust, but it can create the conditions in which trust can grow.
Trustworthy governance is reflected in how an organization operates and makes decisions over time.
Trustworthy governance is reflected in how an organization operates and makes decisions over time. People need to understand who decides, who advises and who is accountable. Similar situations should be handled within the set governance structures, recognizable principles, and any differences should be explainable.
Transparency does not mean publishing as much information as possible. It means providing relevant and understandable information about decisions, processes and consequences openly to relevant stakeholders.
Accountability requires more than identifying a responsible person on an organizational chart. Questions must receive answers, decisions must be explained and justifiable, mistakes must lead to learning and, where appropriate, consequences.
Trust is tested especially when things become difficult.
It is relatively easy to appear trustworthy when everything is going well. The real test comes during disagreement, uncertainty, failure or crisis. How does the organization respond to criticism? Can people challenge a proposal without being labelled difficult? Does bad news reach the board? Are mistakes acknowledged? Do leaders apply the same standards to themselves that they expect others to follow?
These moments reveal whether organizational values are genuinely embedded in everyday practice or merely written into policies and communications. Organizations often speak about the importance of stakeholder trust as though it were something stakeholders should simply be willing to give. But trust cannot be requested into existence. It develops through repeated evidence: fair decisions, clear responsibilities, honest information and credible accountability.
Trust is an outcome of good governance.
The most useful question for a board or leadership team may therefore not be to ask if our stakeholders trust us. It may, instead, be what is it about the way we govern, decide and act that gives them a reason to do so.
Trust is personal. It is cultural. But it is also structural. Trust is an outcome of good governance.