When designers are briefed they often get limited information about the client’s role, target audience, sector, etc. When they look for stock photography based on certain keywords, they attempt to encapsulate a broad range of functions, practices, etc. into simple, powerful conceptual statements. If the distinction had not been made 100% clear to the designer that this firm DEFENDS people charged with these crimes, rather than simply handling these sorts of cases, this kind of problem would easily crop up.

So while it is tempting to blame the designer for their stock photo choices, project managers should have given clearer direction, and certainly should have caught and corrected the conceptual error in layouts. It’s mind-boggling that neither the agency nor the firm thought twice about this, but certainly possible given certain (easily avoided) pitfalls with vendor-client communication.

Of course, the cynic in me thinks this was no error in communication or judgment, but an attempt to shoot for visceral (if grossly inappropriate) imagery.

If that is the case than the law firm (and their design agency) were truly myopic. Taking the extremely sensitive subject matter out of the equation for a moment, why would someone choose to be represented by an organization capable of misrepresenting themselves (or their client) so terribly? Definitely a contender to rival BNET’s worst branding blunders of 2009!