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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.