"Firms need to demonstrate transparency and empathy. Equivocation creates concern about what the firm really stands for—what are the firm's values and can we trust the firm, both as an employee or a client," said Steven D. Cohen, a professor of communication at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. "The key in reputation management is that if you don't define what you stand for, someone will do it for you. And you might not be happy with how they portray you."

Among notable exceptions, some firms have announced clear vaccination mandates, including Arent Fox; Cooley; Crowell & Moring; Davis Polk & Wardwell; Davis Wright Tremaine; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson; Lowenstein Sandler; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo; Norton Rose Fulbright; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; and Ropes & Gray.

Others' policies are more limited.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld—which reports that 95% of its staff and lawyers are already vaccinated—has taken an arguably hedged approach. While it presently requires personnel and visitors to be vaccinated if they head into the office over the summer, the firm isn't committing to requiring vaccines after its reopening—which has been delayed from Sept. 13 to Oct. 11. Firm chair Kim Koopersmith said Akin Gump is "evaluating" whether vaccinations will be mandated when it reopens.

And Goodwin Procter seemed to channel sentiments common with the vaccine-hesitant by linking a potential vaccine mandate with full Food and Drug Administration approval of COVID-19 vaccines.

On Tuesday, Goodwin told personnel that it anticipates the FDA will approve the COVID-19 vaccines for regular use "in the coming weeks," and once FDA approval has been issued, it will open its offices only to those individuals—including onsite vendors and visitors—who have been fully vaccinated.

While news reports point to the FDA officially approving at least the Pfizer vaccine early next month, communications experts say hedging policies by tying vaccination mandates to future dates or events brings reputational risks.

Meanwhile, many other law firms have stayed silent. So far, among Am Law 200 firms, roughly 20 have publicly announced vaccine mandates of some sort in order to enter firm offices. For the other large portion of large firms, most are either quiet on the subject of vaccinations, or say they are "encouraging" or "urging" vaccinations. Others are "monitoring the situation," or words to that effect.

Equivocation is particularly risky behavior for staff retention, said Dario Bernardini, a communications professor at American University who specializes in reputation management.

"You have different levels of employees—high powered lawyers who may not be in the office all the time, and support professionals who are more tied to the office, sometimes for more than 12 hours a day. If you're going to equivocate or not mandate vaccines, that's sending a message to your employees—your paralegals, IT and admin assistants," Bernardini said. "Firms need to ask themselves what message they are sending to those people."

And the pros of law firms communicating vaccination policies are clear—exhibiting health and safety concerns to staff and clients and the appearance of transparency (which builds trust), said Cohen, at Johns Hopkins Business School.

To be sure, challenges remain for total transparency too.

Bernardini recognizes that law firms are in a particularly challenging situation—especially those firms that have clients across the broad spectrum of political and cultural views. Some firms, he thought, may be reticent to disclose vaccine mandates for fear of alienating clients who, for whatever reason, are philosophically opposed to vaccine mandates.

Cohen echoed these concerns, saying a mandate "could put the firm in the political crosshairs" and there may be adverse reactions among some clients who may fall on one side of the spectrum. "Certainly, from a revenue standpoint firms need to be careful."

There's also risk among employees.

"Some employees may feel it's an invasion of privacy. Vaccination status is inherently personal, and requiring people to communicate it may make some employees feel the employer is overstepping," Cohen said, adding that some employees may feel singled out, depending on how a firm communicates a vaccine mandate policy.

To assuage concerns, Cohen advises that law firms be explicit about how data will be collected and used.

"You don't want to alienate staff, so it's very important to limit the inquiry to the specific information that's required and be explicit about the fact that this information will be kept confidential," Cohen said.

But overall, Bernardini and Cohen say the benefits of being clear on vaccination policies, in favor of mandating them, outweigh the risks.

While it's "definitely a challenge," Bernardini said, he notes that over the past few months of the pandemic, corporate America has increasingly taken stands on vaccinations based on science, rather than politics. Companies as diverse as Disney, Goldman Sachs and Google have all implemented—and publicized—vaccine mandates.

"Science tells us that the vaccines overwhelmingly have been effective—they've been safe—and it's important for everyone to get vaccinated. You're seeing brands starting to take that stand," said Bernardini. "There's no politics involved. This is a public health safety issue."

Bernardini suspects that even firms that may have anti-vaccine clients they don't want to alienate are likely privately pro-vaccine.

Ultimately, if firms don't come out with a vaccine policy, Bernardini said, "people are going to wonder what is it that you're trying to hide."

"From a reputation standpoint, if you're not being as transparent as you possibly can be, that's probably going to be a problem for you," he added.