Legal community its own worst enemy when comes to teaching innovative client development
Just exchanged Twitter messages with New York Attorney Scott Greenfield. I explained to Scott that if he had been able to attend the LexisNexis sponsored LegalTech panels on blogging and online networking, that Scott would not have been able to resist calling BS on the panelists.
That would have been especially true as to the presentation by John Lipsey, VP Corporate Counsel Services for LexisNexis, who appeared to run a standard PowerPoint he uses as an intro to Martindale-Hubbell's long discussed, but never launched, social networking site, Martindale-Hubbell Connected.
LexisNexis sponsored the Web 2.0 trek at LegalTech New York. As such, LexisNexis, I am told, got to pre-approve all speakers on the panels at the sessions. I was invited and accepted to speak on one the Web 2.0 panels months ago but was 'apparently bumped off the panels' by LexisNexis when LexisNexis reviewed those invited to present.
The result of LexisNexis sponsored panels was taking exciting topics such as blogging, social networking, and social media and turning them into pretty boring sessions. I've seen record attendance at similar sessions the last year for legal professionals in Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Cleveland, and Portland. At each of those events no one left and many crowded the stage to ask panelists questions.
At LegalTech's LexisNexis online networking session at least 25% of the crowd exited early, with many more who would have liked to. With 10 minutes to go in a 75 minute session, an attendee raised their hand and asked for one example of how online networking could be used for client development and if one of the presenters had a good example. 65 minutes in and you've left the audience asking what good could come of using mediums that Fortune 200 companies and lawyers are using in innovative and exciting ways for business development, PR, and customer service.
Watching the Twitter discussion about the panel became the most entertaining part of the session. (@GabeAcevedo: @LTNY online networking panel. This is not what I expected. Must either leave/kill self soon as possible.) If we would have followed one person's tweet suggestion that we take a sip of water each time a panelist said Martindale, we'd have drowned.
If I'm not familiar with blogging and attended the LexisNexis sponsored blogging session to help make the decision on blogging, I'd pass. Law firms talking of printing out blog pages to get copyright protection. Law firms matter-of-factly not allowing comments on a blog because of liability and ethics fears that were never challenged.
At non legal technology and new media conferences I attend, these type of sessions would never be allowed. They're looking for innovators. They're looking for excitement. They're looking for people who don't try to spam the audience with presentations discussing their own products, let alone stack panels with promoters of your products and with people who do not challenge sponsors.
If non legal technology conferences pulled the BS pulled in the LexisNexis sponsored online networking and blogging sessions, conference attendees would have revolted. Attendees would have called BS and conference spam right from their seats in the audience. Panelists would have been put on the spot. Discussion, some heated, between the panelists and the audience would have ensued.
Perhaps that's too much for the legal profession. But at a minimum, we in the legal profession should demand more. It's not enough that bloggers are critical and that the twitter discussion makes fun of the panels. Email conference coordinators and demand better. Email the conference presenters and the CEO's of their companies, especially those promoting their products from the stage and complain. Comment on the presenter's blog posts telling their readers how great the presentation was. Voice complaints through comments on their corporate blogs.
It's clear LexisNexis has no shame on this front. They also have a vested interest in keeping a muzzle on innovative thought leaders who may shine a light on less costly and more effectively client development solutions than those sold by LexisNexis.
Incisive Media put on a heck of a conference in LegalTech. There must have been two or three hundred exhibitors. Networking between attendees was great. But to put this conference over the top, let's shoot for the best when it comes to innovative presenters. Don't limit speakers to those vetted by LexisNexis or other companies. Don't let presenters use the stage to market their wares.
Ultimately, it comes down to the us in the legal community as a whole to speak out and demand more. With the advent of blogs, Twitter, and online transparency we've never had a better chance. And don't just send me side notes and emails because you feel intimidated to speak out (I receive many), speak up.
Imagine open and engaging education sessions about social media, effective Internet client development, online word of mouth marketing, effective PR online, effective blogging, and online networking. It can happen if we demand it.
And if the traditional companies such as LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, and Incisive Media won't serve it up, we'll put on alternative conferences bringing in the best and brightest.
The legal community, lagging other professions, as well as the people and organizations to which we provide legal services has so much to gain through innovation across our industry. Innovation needs to begin with real teaching and evangelizing to the masses in our profession. Let's bring it about for the benefit of us all.
Nothing worse than attending a conference session and being duped. Sounds like the session was an infomercial. When did Legal Tech start selling advertorials? Having been a speaker at Legal Marketing Association conferences, it is a mandate that programs are not self-promotional. It's in the contract. It wasn't always like that, though.
The big question in my mind is: why the corporate silence following your earlier post about getting booted from the conversation? No one wants a flame war, but silence? Nobody's telling them what they can or can't do. Their silence is like an admission that your point of view is the fact.
IMHO: If an organization wants to play big in the new media sandbox, they must be part of the conversation. I've seen many a corporate officer respond publicly to a sticky situation. They did it with honesty, with dignity and transparency. Take Dell as a prime example. What happened? They admitted their shortcomings, thanked customers for the feedback and moved on to improve things. Many customers were very very happy. Customers are king. And, the blogsphere is an an influencer. If you can't take the heat, get out of the frying pan.
Generally, I'm finding that law firm leaders are pretty skittish about blogging and social networking. My guess is that a long time supplier to the legal industry is pretty skittish too.
Smart law firms interview their clients and 9 times out of 10 receive "constructive" criticism. It's different when the bad news is delivered publicly and spreads virally. I don't want to think that a valuable institution in the legal industry believes for a moment that they are above a dialogue, especially in light of the fact that they market products and services to the social online space, perhaps they are just tongue tied? It's a learning curve for all of us. IMHO, we need to be patient.
Like I said over on twitter. I don't think your account of the blogging panel is entirely fair.
I tried to talk about those things that nobody told me about before I started. And I believe that many in the audience found that information useful. I'm not saying that you shouldn't criticize this or any other panel; just don't kill the entire panel and its general usefulness based on those criticisms. I was watching the twitterstream along with Roy Mura during the presentation so that I would know if we were in fact boring or not providing what people were looking for. I might have missed it, but I didn't find a negative tweet. Had I found one, I would have changed my direction accordingly.
So it's clear for all those reading, I was a panelist for the blogging discussion.
After reading yet another rant against my employer, I simply could not help but comment. Even though you are usually harsh on Martindale Hubbbell, I enjoy your passion. This particular post seems contradictory to me. You don't believe it was a good conference, but you are obviously hurt by your exclusion. Shouldn't you be relieved not to have participated in something so far beneath your level of "innovation?" Seems like you want your cake and eat it too. You'd like to benefit from a large corporation's ability to fund and drive attendance to an event, but believe you should then be able to chastise them at it. No judgment from me. I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. I like your style!
David, I apologize for painting with too broad a brush so as to paint all info and panelists as bad etc. I may have gone overboard in that regard.
There were good points made on the blogging panel. I was concerned though about no one speaking up about the correct law on copyright issues and why law firm blogs need to allow comments and how it could be done safely.
David, I am not saying it was a bad conference, it was a good one. I am saying that having sponsors present their wares during educational sessions and vet panelists and apparently dismiss those they do not like is not a good practice. It's also not in the best interests of those trying to learn.
Me being hurt for being bumped from presenting is not the issue (though I'd like to see corporations act with integrity and treat people with a little dignity), the issue is whether the conference can free itself of LexIsNexis control so as to bring in the best presenters, whomever they may be.
Also appears what you're saying is that if LexisNexis is not allowed to hand select speakers and present their wares from the stage at educational panels, that LexisNexis is going to pull its funding. That's not done by other leading companies whether they be Microsoft, Google, Dell, and the like.
As far as 'chastising' sponsors and conference coordinators it's called learning from your critics and improving your services accordingly. You cannot learn anything from those people telling you what a great guy you are. You learn and improve your services by listening to critics who care enough about the legal profession to speak up.
I think the description of this legal specific conference mimics that of every other vertical specific conference. There is a mish mash of big name or more importantly "big money" contributors trying to sling the next best mouse trap. The overall perception of social media as well as web 2.0 should be left to those who understand it best.
Would you go to the Best Buy Geek Squad for legal help?
Well don't assume you can get creative online marketing, or anything social media driven from an attorney. While attorneys on the whole are very intelligent and practical individuals, we must lean on them for their legal prowess.
I have been working in the legal field as a migrant from the internet marketing field. I have found huge inconsistencies when comparing techniques.
Lets face it we are working with the same internet. There is no "magic" method we all live and die by our indexing by search engines, right?
Moving forward I would ask all coordinators of legal events to allow for an outside social media specialist (who is not lawyer) to present on this topic. I assure you will see a greater embrace on the behalf of the attendees of social media and how it can help the legal world.
Kevin --
I, too, was a presenter on the blogging panel and candidly confessed my initial puzzlement at being asked to present on that Web 2.0 topic in my post-LegalTech post on the session. Frankly, I never thought of myself as having been vetted for that role, and can't recall have plugged LexisNexis directly or indirectly in any of my remarks during the blogging panel. None of the panelists did. Dave Gottlieb and I introduced ourselves to you on our way out of the then emptied out meeting room.
I could be wrong, but I thought I saw you enter the 4:15-5:30 PM session and open your laptop at the very back of the room some time after the session began. Another panelist confirms this. I think you said something about having gone to purchase wireless access from the hotel. In any event, it's too bad that with all the folks tweeting their impressions of the blogging panel that you did not join the "conversation" and offer any thoughts and insight you may have had on the copyright and comments issues you apparently believe merited a BS call. Other than your tweet re web connectivity at 5:13 PM and retweet of 5:22 PM, we didn't hear from you on Twitter during the panel discussion, and I don't recall your having asked any questions or offered any clarifications or corrections during the session. Twitter coverage of the blogging panel currently starts on page 39 of #LTNY.
In addition to those in the room who were tweeting their impressions of the blogging panel, bloggers Jason Molder and Kelly Talcott posted their presumably unbiased and obviously favorable summaries of the session within hours. Bloggers Eric Turkewitz and David Hobbie, who also attended the session, left favorable comments on my post. Although I am admittedly not as well read in the blogosphere as you, yours is the first negative assessment I've seen about last Tuesday's blogging panel, read in the context of what I do understand is a history with and bias against MH and/or LN, at least insofar as your report of having been invited and then uninvited to participate in one of the three Web 2.0 panels at LegalTech.
Given all this, I must disagree with your prediction that Scott Greenfield would not have been able to resist "calling BS" on the blogging session's panelists had he been in the room. If that were so, those in the room who chose actually to tweet and post substantively about the session must either be terribly unenlightened or would not have benefited appreciably more from an alternate panel presentation from the "best and brightest", a category in which I readily concede I am not in matters Web 2.0. Besides, my goal, and presumably the goal of the other panelists, in participating in that panel was neither to teach nor to evangelize, but merely to share my legal blogging experiences with those attending on the advertised topic -- Adopting Web 2.0 Capabilities into Your Web Presence. Although I have not yet seen the speaker evaluations, from what I've read so far, both in tweets and blog posts, I believe the panel amply achieved that goal, irrespective of who sponsored the Web 2.0 track, and in spite of the fact that the six panelists may not have been, in the opinion of some, the best or the brightest.
Roy Mura
Kevin,
I'm really sorry to see that you're back to the subject of you being booted from the panel. I thought this was resolved a long time ago (here:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/01/13/legaltech-dirtied-by-lexis-lucre.aspx see the comments from Dave Danielson.) I'm also sorry that you didn't enjoy the panel - I know that many others did (and also it is not true that 25% of the people left. A handful of people left for the 4pm panel, something that happens in all the panels.) Please remember that although you are a good public speakers, there are other people out there that are worth listening to. I did enjoy listening to you at the Twitter session, but I enjoy listening to other opinions as well. While I agree that critism is important, it loses its credibility when it has only one target.
Mike,
Vanessa DiMauro (http://www.leadernetworks.com/about.shtml) was on the panel. Someone was listening to you...
There are hundreds of good presenters Ohad. I am not saying I need to be on all these panels. I enjoy hearing presenters at good conferences the likes of LegalTech.
I am saying that LexisNexis by bumping people off panels and having the final say on presenters excludes what can be some of the more talented presenters.
You're right 25% did not leave the blog session. But 25% or more left the online networking session earlier in the day - that's what I was referring to.
And if referring folks to Dave Danielson's comments on how I got bumped by LexisNexis, Dave's telling folks I had not accepted to present is totally false.
I am sorry to open a wound for some here. I am looking to make a constructive point. Thanks the sponsors for all they do. For them the conference sessions may not even be possible, but separate conference education sessions from sponsorship control.
Thanks for the comment Roy. I was not there for the beginning of the session but caught the majority of it. I should have mentioned this in my post.
I would have liked to join in the Twitter discussion but I could not get online. I did exit for a minute or two to go out to the LegalTech registration desk to get the WiFi access code, which they refused. I then bought access from the hotel registration web page, but that wouldn't work until the very end of the session.
There was meaningful discussion on blogs, but I thought the discussion on comments and copyrights issues was really misguided and went without being challenged.
I'll also admit as I did responding to Ohad that in my comments here I may have painted with too broad a brush so as to cast equal criticism as to each the blogging and online networking session.
After reading the article, tweets, and the above comments, I am reminded that the "powers that be" move slowly. In the end, the good ideas rise to the top. The behemoths either adapt and evolve, or die. Just ask the big three (and I don't mean Lexis, Thompson, and Incisive).