Weekly take: Crying at work should not be a story

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Weekly take: Crying at work should not be a story

Hands holding paper cutouts of people holding hands. Concept of employee assistance programs support, care. Care for employees well-being, personal issues. Confidential support systems. Crisis

The insensitive reaction to a UK politician crying on TV proves we have a long way to go before we can say we are tackling workplace wellbeing

Be honest with yourself, have you ever cried at work?

It may have been because trying to meet that deadline became too much, perhaps a tricky litigation resulted in yet another late night at the office, maybe you received an email where a certain turn of phrase just triggered you, or maybe it was a personal matter.

You might cry often, you may have cried only once, you might not have cried for years, you might wait until you get home or go somewhere private to let out emotion, and it’s possible that you haven’t cried at work at all.

Spoiler alert: all of the above is fine.

But when Rachel Reeves, the UK government’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, was seen becoming visibly emotional during a parliamentary debate yesterday, the reaction, including from the mainstream media, proved we have a long way to go to normalise being in touch with our emotional side at work.

Law firms and corporations often talk about ‘normalising’ mental health and wellbeing.

They rightly encourage their staff, including lawyers, to be open about their emotions and take time for themselves.

If we truly believe that, then when someone becomes emotional at work, wherever they are, we must respond in a way that shows we back up all that talk.

Reeves is the second-most senior person in government, true. But she is also a human.

Sadly, much of the media coverage has been unsympathetic, to say the least.

Close-up pictures of Reeves’s face, coupled with insensitive language like ‘sobbing’ and ‘blubbing’, have dominated.

The BBC, the UK’s national broadcaster, no less, chose to speculate about how Reeves’s “tears” raised “big questions” within her parliamentary party.

Meanwhile, the social media ‘commentators’ and fringe political figures have offered their two pennies’ worth.

Many of those comments have depressing and yet predictable misogynistic undertones, implying that this show of emotion somehow proves the fact that women should not hold senior roles.

It’s not even worth the effort to type out a response to that sort of misguided bigotry.

I don’t know why the Chancellor was upset. Only a few people will know the true reason.

It may have been a personal matter, it may have been work-related, but the why is not the story here.

Humans are not robots. They are allowed to cry. If anything, it shows they care.

At times, it feels we have a long way to go before we can truly say we are making progress on tackling workplace wellbeing.

I should add that plenty of people have reacted with sympathy, with some sharing their own stories.

For the most part, though, those are not the views being amplified.

I worry too about the ramifications of this kind of coverage and fevered debate.

How many pressurised lawyers in our industry will have seen the reaction to this story and think that keeping quiet and getting on with the job must be the best approach? How many will feel ashamed for having become emotional themselves?

If there’s a positive to take from this, it’s that it has at least created a conversation.

Sadly, though, it seems like we still have some way to go before we can address it.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Magdalena Bonde discusses Abion’s AI experiments and reveals why an entrepreneurial mindset and a willingness to learn about a business are essential skills
Partner Ginevra Righini explains how she secured victory for the Comité Champagne in its fight against an EUTM application for ‘Nero Champagne’
Volkan Hamamcıoğlu joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss meditation, tackling deadlines, and taking inspiration from Hamlet
A $110 million US verdict against Apple and an appellate order staying a $39 million trademark infringement finding against Amazon were also among the top talking points
Attorneys are watching how AI affects trademark registrations and whether a SCOTUS ruling from last year will have broader free speech implications
Patent lawyers explain why they will be keeping an eye on the implications of a pharma case and on changes at the USPTO in the second half of 2025
Adrian Percer says he was impressed by the firm’s work on billion-dollar cases as well as its culture
Gift this article