Law firm websites : Do all lawyers need them?
Talking to lawyers about websites, you'd think one of the prerequisites of being a lawyer is having a website.
'I just graduated and I'm opening my solo practice, I need to get my website done.' 'Three other partners and I splintered off from a larger firm to set up a boutique IP firm, we need to get our website up before we can open the doors for business.'
Wonder how we all survived before the days of websites? How could a solo lawyer I clerked for during law school start his solo practice after leaving the federal bench without a website? Without even a yellow page ad? How could my mentor while I practiced law and his partners in Milwaukee get the best work in the state as trial lawyers without the semblance of an ad anywhere?
Lawyers did it the old fashioned way. They established themselves as trusted and reliable - whether in a niche area of expertise or as a lawyer in a small town rendering various sorts of legal services, like the lawyer I clerked with in law school. Their reputation as good lawyers who could be trusted spread by word of mouth.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. The best lawyers, whether as recent grads or seasoned veterans, get their best clients by word of mouth. Word of mouth spread offline or online, it doesn't matter. Though word of mouth spreads faster online.
So when going website first, as every lawyer and small firm does, ask yourself three questions.
One, what is this website going to do to further enhance my reputation as a good lawyer, perhaps in a niche I am focusing in? Two, is this website going to drive word of my reputation as a trusted and reliable authority? And three, when I launch this website will I be comfortable that I have down all I can to use the Internet to get work the way the best lawyers do - establishing a reputation and having that reputation spread by word of mouth.
If you've answered those questions affirmatively, you're kidding yourself.
A website doesn't enhance your reputation as a good lawyer any more than a three color two page spread in the yellow pages or a glossy brochure with carefully crafted text citing your accomplishments and availability. A website, like a yellow page ad or brochure, doesn't drive your word of mouth reputation as a trusted and reliable authority. And if you're thinking websites are the best way of getting good work online, you're uninformed.
Fortunately for good lawyers the Internet is all about word of mouth. In 1996, long before all the law firm websites, I went on AOL and answered people's questions. Word of a plaintiff's trial lawyer representing injury victims and their family members listening to consumers and small business people spread by word of mouth to people using AOL.
Word spread to the offline world, through people telling others by phone, email, or in person. Word even spread to the media - sadly a lawyer trying to help people online was news. I received the work I was looking for. (I did have a website, but it's purpose was to archive my networking with folks by storing all the questions and answers)
13 years later the Internet's still the same. Listen to people in your target audience. Interact with them. Share your thoughts based on your knowledge of the law. Give of yourself. Add value to the conversation. It's called networking. And it results in your reputation as a trusted and reliable lawyer spreading by word of mouth, online and offline.
A website alone won't do it. Blogging, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and other social networking sites are much more effective methods of getting the best legal work overtime. This doesn't mean you need to master all of these mediums. You just need to start using the Internet in an effective way to enhance your reputation and to generate word of mouth about you.
I'm not saying do away with all websites. But there are solo lawyers who are blogging effectively without a website who are getting exactly the work they want. There are also small law firms without websites whose emphasis of practice is in one area who have blogs with all the info a website does who are using their blogs to enhance their reputations and bring in work.
Even lawyers in the larger firms such as Skadden Arps, Dechert, and Fox Rothschild understand that the firm's website and traditional marketing isn't enough to protect their reputation as 'go to' lawyers in niche areas of the law. Historically, they used speaking and writing articles to enhance their reputations. Today they using blogging and other means of Internet social networking to spread word word of their reputation as a trusted and reliable authority.
30 years ago I had great respect for the lawyer I clerked for. He was a lawyer's lawyer. He got his work by word of mouth with only a business card he handed out to folks he met. I wanted to be like him. I think it would be the same for any law student today.
A lawyer who establishes themselves as a reliable and trusted authority through effective use of the Internet will garner the respect of the public more so than a lawyer relying on a website to enhance their reputation and have that reputation spread by word of mouth.
Today IMHO having a website is the same as having a telephone number. The same as a b.card ... that must be on good card stock.
What I see on the web is how badly attys prepare a website. the typically unfocused site is then made worse when a lawyer or firm puts up a site and fails to update it for months.
Before attys jump off a cliff on social network sites ... which are 3rd party sites that could become yesterday's news in 6 months (or go under), I suggest spending 90% of one's time on their site. Then, blog.
The market of 40 and under looks to the web IMO first. I see it every day in my firm. A crappy site is the same as a lawyer who is not trustworthy .... the opposite is true.
In injury cases, if a lawyer goes the twtter and s.n. route, it will eat up your time with little positive result.
Thanks for the comment Mark, points well taken.
I'm not sure why spending more time on a website is worthwhile. I see little that a law firm is going to do on ongoing basis to make people return to their website. People are not excited about going to your website on a regular basis - not matter what you do.
Like a well designed law office, get it right, make it attractive, and then get out of the office to network and enhance your reputation.
I think the website is needed primarily as proof of existence, rather than as a meaningful marketing tool. While it fails to serve the latter function well (if at all), it is very much a part of a lawyer/firm's presence as brick and mortar. It's something that simply needs to be as demonstrative evidence that you're real, even though it provides little substantive value otherwise.
When I go to look up an attorney, particularly if they are an adversary, and can't find anything about them on the net, it leaves me with a very negative impression of their bona fides.
A website is certainly an important aspect for lawyers to establish themselves as credible - particularly with current clients and referrals. But if left outdated, it can be detrimental -- appearing unprofessional or unreliable.
On the other hand, if lawyers expect a ton of business to come by just having a website, they have misunderstood. A website is only as good as those who visit it...so having good distribution is important. But paying for search engine optimization could be extremely costly.
I agree with you that FaceBook, Twitter, a blog and other social media tools are important to reach potential consumers, network with other lawyers, and rank wtih search engines...the more you do, the better your rankings.
It's also important to take advantage of online services available to assist with reach and there are many available that are much more affordable than hiring an SEO expert...
Kevin -
It is clear you need a web presence. Prospective clients, current clients, and opposing counsel all use the internet to find information about lawyers and to find legal information.
As SHG point out, if you can't find something about the lawyer on the web it leaves a negative impression.
I don't but into the website versus blog argument. The most popular blogging platform, Wordpress, has morphed into a content management platform. I know you pitch the idea of naming the blog after your practice and the webpage for the firm name. That seems the only reason to separate them.
Firms are already blogging. Nearly every firm publishes client alerts, newsletters or some kind of content to highlight their expertise. They just do a poor job of blogging.
They upload poorly named pdf files and expect people to be able to find the content.
They expect people to subscribe by email under poorly-defined topics with no idea what may come by email.
They don't give authorship to individual attorneys, failing to highlight their expertise.
Blogging would not cause the firm to do anything different. It would just make their existing content much more accessible and therefore better highlight their expertise.
When I am looking to find out something on a professional when I am considering hiring them, I am looking for something other than their website.
Where have they been quoted? Are they viewed as thought leaders in their field? What are others saying about them? Who recommends them? What's their take/commentary on issues effecting their clients? None of that comes from a website.
I certainly would not select dishwasher based on info on the Maytag website. Why would you expect anyone hiring a lawyer to hire with less research than they'd do on an appliance?
Sure have a web presence, but doesn't a blog used stragically do that for you and more in the case of many solo's and small firms? Why do they need a website?
Law firms still need website, but they need to change if they are going to remain relevant. The law firm that expects clients to repeatedly visit its site for updated content may be sorely disappointed. Law firm websites need to be a go-to for basic information, but otherwise should be used more of a tool to push visitors to other sites (e.g. twitter / facebook / linkedin) so that visitors can keep up with the firm in the medium of their choosing. It’s becoming more important to engage users outside of your site, but you need somewhere to store basic info and let people know where else you can be found. It’s also important from an SEO perspective to have the foundation of your own site. Without establishing your presence with your site, you leave the door open for some other site to take the #1 spot in a search for your firm name. That lack of control is likely enough justification for most firms to never ditch having a site. So, yes, I think firm’s need sites, but they also need to have a realistic view of how they are going to be used.
I certainly agree that law firms and professionals need to exist beyond their website and that demonstrating thought leadership and expertise in other online venues can enhance reputation (although with the media industry starved of resources to what extent content contributed by professionals is being adequately vetted is open to question).
But I'm not sure I buy the idea that a blog is credible and a website isn't. Blog content or web content is still self-promotional. The issue is whether the content is credible to the reader - does it demonstrate real insight and expertise? Sure I may not trust content on Maytag's site, but then I can't test the dishwasher online. And I won't trust a law firm's website that simply says they are experts. However I can start to test that claim if they have relevant bios, briefing papers and whitepapers etc.. So a website can be useful.
Of course a blog may be MORE useful since it can stimulate conversation that provides more compelling evidence of credibility than one way publishing.
I would never be so bold as to assume that a lawyer who lacked a blog was somehow incapable of kicking my butt at trial. The initial question was whether lawyers need a website. I think they do.
Do they need a blog as well is a separate issue, but let's not be so out of touch as to think that not having a blog, or facebook or whatever makes you a "thought leader" (you know how much I hate the phrase, Kev) means that the attorney isn't a killer. When I check out opposing counsel, the thing I first want to see if his resume. Then I check Lexis for decisions and publications with his name on them. But then, I'm a trial lawyer. If he has a blog, I'll certainly check it out, but it's unlikely to be meaningful since most blogs aren't worth spit.
Point is, only those caught up in social media think in terms of "thought leaders." The rest want hard info, and don't really care about the fluff.
Interesting post. My thoughts are here:
http://www.paperstreet.com/blog/index.php/archives/1373
In short, do all lawyers need a web site? No. All lawyers need a GOOD web site, or better yet a good web presence.
Sadly, most do not have either. They put up poor web sites, let them lapse, set no goals, then expect to raise their reputation and bring in clients as their only web presence. That simply will not happen.
Networking / marketing in the real world takes effort, the same is true for the online world.
You're missing the point Pete. I am asking why can't a well done blog serve as a solo and small law firm's Internet presence. It will rank at the top of the search engines. It will look every bit a website to a prospective client. It will include all the information about the lawyer, their services and their contact info that a website would. And it will run laps around a website as far as establishing the lawyer as a thought leader, enhancing the lawyer's reputation as a trusted and reliable authority in their niche, getting in the media, getting speaking engagements, the syndication of content and networking.
Sure, some firms are going to need a website in addition to a blog. But why all?
A simplistic view that you need to have a website to be viewed as a good lawyer seems awful shortsighted.
Unfortunately, all a lot of law firms and lawyers' websites tell me is how good a website designer they hired. The sites don't tell me anything about the ability or competence of the lawyers.
My experience is that a blog is far more flexible than a website in providing content and information to readers about the lawyer's area(s) of expertise and experience; a website may complement the blog, but if I were choosing to rely on only one, I would choose the blog without hesitation.
Plus, because a blog can -- and should -- be designed to provide the same contact and background information that a website traditionally conveys, a blog makes far more sense.
The most important thing about having a website, or other web presence, is that you have more control over what people find when they Google your name. I encountered a lawyer a few years ago and when I Googled him I found a disciplinary proceeding. You don't want that.
You go out there and build a good reputation, and then someone needs a lawyer and thinks of you. They go on the web to look for you. What do you want them to find?
You don't have to have a separate website. A blog can serve as your site if you do it right.
Another thing - it helps if you do other things online outside your work. For me it's mostly politics. Running for Congress got me links from CNN and the Washington Post. But I even have a blog where I review local restaurants.
My problem with a lawyer who doesn't have a web presence boils down to this. If you can't write decent web content, how are you going to write a quality memorandum of law? Web content is much easier to write.