Real Lawyers Have Blogs : Law Blogs, Blawgs, Law Firm Marketing

Seattle based Avvo, a free online legal directory for lawyers with consumer and small business law practices, announced a blog service for lawyers a couple weeks ago. Avvo charges $300 per year for the service.

I've got a couple of concerns as to whether Avvo's blog solution is a credible client development tool for lawyers. Sure I've got a dog in this hunt, but over the last six years this blog has been all about honest and straight forward counsel to lawyers looking to achieve client development success via the Internet.

No question Avvo is targeting lawyers unwilling to invest in a blog for reputation enhancement or client development. I'm perplexed though as to what Avvo offers that lawyers cannot receive for free from Wordpress, a well known free blogging platform used by many lawyers.

Here's the features of an Avvo blog:

• Blog running on Wordpress technology.
• Your choice of one of 9 Wordpress design options.
• Customizable blog pages.
• Pre-populated and customizable blogroll.
• Support (as to buying blog and turning blog on).
• Hosted on your own domain.

Here's the features of a Wordpress blog:

• Blog running on Wordpress technology.
• Your choice of one of 60 Wordpress design options.
• Customizable blog pages.
• Customizable sidebar allowing customizable blogroll and other elements.
• Free support on setting up blog.
• Free hosting on a Wordpress-owned domain.
• Hosted on your domain name for $9.97/year.

I met with Avvo CEO, Mark Britton, and Conrad Saam, Avvo's Senior Marketing Manager, on the day of the announcement to get a better understanding of Avvo's blog offering. I also wanted to learn how Avvo blogs compared to our professional turnkey blog solution at LexBlog.

Mark and Conrad made clear Avvo didn't look at Avvo's offering as competing with LexBlog. No strategic consulting, customized development, training on blogging/networking through the net, SEO, marketing, syndication, or network.

Avvo's goal was simply to get more lawyers using a more effective means of Internet marketing - blogs. The concept being if lawyers just get started blogging, they'll realize blogging's potential and in many cases move on to a solution like LexBlog's.

I laud Mark's goal of bringing technology to legal marketing and offering a free online directory, arguably offering more features than Martindale-Hubbell's pay per play directory. I've met lawyers around the country who've obtained clients through their Avvo listings. Speaking to consumer and small business lawyers, I suggest completing an Avvo profile and participating in other areas of Avvo's site such as the question and answers section.

I wonder if Avvo's blog effort is misguided though. Blogging for client development is an art and a skill acquired over time. Blogging is not throwing content onto a website. Throwing yourself on the Internet as a lawyer where everyone sees you immediately while driven by the goal of not spending more than a dollar a day seems odd.

I'm not sure how much time Avvo has really thought about a credible blog solution. They've only got two references to blogs on their web presence. One page on its website and a blog post. Each mislabeling Incisive Media's Legal Technology Blog as running on Wordpress when it's running on Six Apart's TypePad blog platform.

Avvo has sought my counsel in person any number of occasions, before and after their website went live. Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking credit for what they're doing, but I suggested ratings and questions & answers long before they were implemented. I provided counsel to Conrad Saam as to blogging and how to work with bloggers for more effective PR. Seems strange that being only a mile away I was not asked about blogs if the goal was to serve lawyers.

For six years I've worked my ass off to assemble a team of 20 people at LexBlog, many of whom train and provide ongoing support to lawyers for years. Ask anyone on my clients services' team if lawyers are natural born bloggers. Ask anyone of them if most lawyers will have fun and achieve success in client development through blogging on their own.

There are many lawyers who on their own have achieved success through blogging and who publish wonderful blogs. I read a ton of them. They're the exception, not the rule.

Sell someone lower cost ski equipment, give them a week's pass at Aspen, and then push them out of the Gondola at the top of the mountain when they have never skied before and without any lessons. At least an unenjoyable experience. At worse, fraught with danger and injury.

Don't tell me there's beginner's blogging at the bottom of the mountain on the 'bunny hill.' Blog and you'll get seen fast. Do something stupid and embarrassing - Google has a lifetime memory.

Lawyers are busy people. The good ones are willing to invest in client development for their professional and personal success. They've often got a family and a mountain of debt riding on their success.

LexBlog is more than happy to provide Avvo lawyers a credible blogging solution. We'd welcome a partnership with Avvo which would mutually benefit Avvo and the lawyers in its directory.

But selling lawyers something that on the face of it looks like they can get for free without the necessary turnkey solution that brings client development success is not the answer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was speaking to a reporter from Montreal on Friday afternoon. He wanted to know why social media, including blogging, was becoming so popular for lawyers.

I fell back on what's becoming increasingly more clear to me. I explained the best lawyers have always gotten their best work by word of mouth. To generate a word of mouth buzz about what you do as a lawyer (and that you do a nice job of it), you have to network with your target audience of clients, prospective clients, referral sources, and those people who influence those three groups.

I continued by explaining that with the Internet driving all commerce today, networking is done online as opposed to offline.

Good lawyers who have gotten their work by word of mouth need to move their networking online. Otherwise their word of mouth reputation is going to dry up. May take some time to lose their hard earned reputation being spread by word of mouth, but it'll happen.

Knowing these things, I explained lawyers and law firms who are still growing their reputations and their business are looking to network through the Internet. The concept of networking remains the same. It's just where that networking takes place has moved - from offline to online.

Blogging, Twitter, and popular social networking sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook are just a means of networking - a way to locate your audience, listen to them, and engage with that audience. The result being a word of mouth reputation which brings in new clients and keeps the clients you have. An added kicker is the fact that online networking is like networking on steroids compared to offline networking.

When your partners and law firm management question the use of blogs and social media, take them back to the future. Ask them if they've always gotten their best work by word of mouth. Ask them if that word of mouth reputation was earned by networking. See if they agree that the Internet is driving commerce today - or at least increasingly doing so.

Then advise, rather than sticking your collective heads in the sand and hoping that the Internet will pass, that your law firm must take the safe and prudent route to protect what you have. That's to continue networking to maintain that word of mouth of reputation. The only difference will be networking online.

Sure, there will be some learning along the way. Blogs, Twitter, social media, and social networking are foreign concepts to most law firms. But the concept of networking to grow that word of mouth reputation to grow business remains the same.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Steve Rubel, SVP at Edelman Digital, might as well have been talking to law firms in his blog post about the end of destination websites.

For the last 15 years marketers lived like kings online. We built ornate palaces in homage to ourselves in the form of web sites and micro sites. Each acts as a destination that embodies our meticulous choice of aesthetics, content and activities.

We still put a lot of time, effort and money into erecting these palaces, much as Louis XIV did in planning Versailles. And, for the most part we have been rewarded handsomely for our efforts. For years consumers flocked to our sites, reveled in all we had to say, played with our toys and, sometimes, were motivated enough as a result to buy our stuff.

As Rubel rightfully points out, the destination web is drawing to a close.

People (rightfully) have reasoned that they too can be creators, not just consumers. Content choices became infinite and peers are trumping pros......In March the average American visited a mere 111 domains and 2,500 web pages, according to Nielsen Online. What's worse, our attention across these pages is highly fragmented. The average time spent per page is a mere 56 seconds. Portals and search engines dominate, capturing approximately 12 of the 75 hours spent online in March. However, people-powered sites like Wikipedia, Facebook and YouTube are not far behind, snagging nearly 4.5 hours of our monthly attention.

So what's the future for law firm Internet marketing? Per Rubel:

"Earned media" through direct public engagement in the venues where our consumers spend time will become the only way to truly influence a behavior change.

Engagement? That's interesting. Engagement is how good lawyers have traditionally grown their business.

By networking with clients, prospective clients, and their influencers (reporters, editors, conference coordinators, business associates etc.) a lawyer established their reputation as a reliable and trusted in a niche area of the law. This reputation spread by word of mouth.

Websites have never been the be all and end all of law firm Internet marketing. Good lawyers get their best work by networking through the Internet, not by building shrines to themselves in the form of websites.

This is the case for firms with 1,600 lawyers or 2 lawyers and for practice areas ranging from estate planning to personal injury. Being recognized as a reliable and trusted authority in your niche by engaging with your target audience on the Internet is what brings in the best work from the best clients.

Fortunately there's still time for you to get started with more effective Internet marketing. As Rubel says, 'The greatest advantages will go to the first movers who embrace this shift. It's not too late.'

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (13)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Doug Cornelius, as savvy a guy as you'd want to know when it comes to knowledge management and social networking for large law, offers his take on LexisNexis' venture into social networking for lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell Connected.

Formerly a Senior Attorney with Goodwin Proctor and now Chief Compliance Officer with a real estate private equity firm, Cornelius' take is blunt, matter of fact, and telling for LexisNexis.

Cornelius finds Connected's story a compelling one.

The lure of Connected is the idea of combining an online networking community, the Martindale-Hubble lawyer listings, and the enormous pool of data in the Lexis databases. Theoretically, your lawyer listing, articles, cases, news, and people connections would be all linked together in one place. As with blogging, you could show your expertise through the stuff you write, the cases you work on, the transactions you work on and the news about you. Then you tie that all information to a central profile and connect with the people you know.

But for Cornelius, who's been using Connected for months, it's just that, a story. 'Either they have a lot of work to do, or the site is intended to be mediocre.'

• The site is merely a social network site with a connection to Martindale-Hubble listings, there is no connection to substantive Lexis content.
• The social networking tools are mediocre.
• Admittedly still in beta, the site is sparsely populated and lacks content.
• They are having trouble trouble tying blog posts to Connected profiles.
• Does not have the large population of users like LinkedIn and Facebook.
• Lacks many of the rich features of LinkedIn and Facebook.

The biggest question I've had about Connected is that it's a closed community requiring authentication by Martindale-Hubbell, and designed to be open only to lawyers. Though Martindale conceded yesterday in a comment to a blog post they'll let non lawyer large law firm management people in later this year.

Why would I as a lawyer not want to be networking with professionals from 140 industries ala LinkedIn? Why wouldn't I want more people to get to know me better both as a lawyer and as a person, as opposed to only those people Martindale approves?

Cornelius agrees.

Part of Connected's approach is create an authenticated community. So that the person is who they say they are. An interesting approach, but to me it seems like a lot of work for little value. (Perhaps they are scarred by the squatters holding LexisNexis in Twitter.) The authentication seems designed around the Martindale listing. So to start you need to be a lawyer to get...

Frankly, I am not sold on having a gated community for a broad legal community. What would I publish or say in Connected that I would not otherwise say on this blog, Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn? I am an early adopter, so maybe the general legal population would be more likely to contribute in Connected than on one of the public platforms? I am skeptical.

I just got into Connected last week after first asking Martindale last fall and have not used it other than to start completing my profile. But I'm not impressed at this point. My gut tells me it's a failure as far as heavy 'real adoption' by law firms.

We're going to hear of some successes. We'll hear the site is in beta. The marketing pitch will continue. There will be surveys telling us how in-house counsel like Connected. LexisNexis has a lot of money.

But in addition to what Cornelius offers, here's my take:

• The UI and development work is of far lower quality than that of LinkedIn's.
• It felt slow and clumsy to use.
• It doesn't look to be the type of system for which new features can be added regularly, something LinkedIn and Facebook are constantly doing.
• Unlike LinkedIn and other innovative companies succeeding on the Internet today, LexisNexis' culture is not one to let lots of users in and make further development based on their feedback. Rather than getting early adopters to help you improve your product and tell others about it, LexisNexis appears to building ill will from other than their closest friends.
• Lack of clear direction and strategy from Martindale personnel to the legal Internet community. LexisNexis employees, as recently as last weekend, told me all lawyers, including me, can get in Connected. It just may take a few days after registration. Another LexisNexis employee tells me on Monday no, 'employees were told at a recent national sales meeting, that membership is still limited to corporate counsel.'
• Inability of LexisNexis engineering and development team to keep pace with the likes of LinkedIn, Facebook, and even legal upstarts like LegalOnRamp and JD Supra.

Most telling for Connected though is a growing large law feeling that Martindale-Hubbell's value for large law is no longer there. Toby Brown, in Marketing and Knowledge Management at Fulbright & Jaworski, commenting to Cornelius post:

Although MH sits on a goldmine of information, I think it's in serious trouble. With firms looking to cut non-essential costs, over the next year as MH contracts come due, I predict a major exodus. Frankly I've just don't see the value in MH. Years ago an AV rating may have brought some work in the door. Not today - or at least not much. With so many emerging options that demonstrate ROI, MH is going down. (IMHO)

Guys like Cornelius, Brown, and I could be wrong. Connected could be a huge success, turning everyone's opinion of Martindale from that of a dinosaur to an innovator. I just don't see it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

In a blog post last week Legal website developer, Pete Boyd, took issue with my blog post and my subsequent interview with LawyersUSA advising lawyers to get their blog outside their website.

Pete's a bright guy when it comes to law firm websites and has done some excellent work. But I think he misses the most powerful point of having a blog. It's not to create SEO for your website. It's not to get people to look at the wonderful things marketing people have written for copy on your website. It's not to save money by powering the blog with your website.

Think of the way the best lawyers have gotten their work over the years. Did the best lawyers get their work out of the yellow pages and TV? No. Even as a plaintiff's a personal injury myself for 17 years and spending a ton on yellow pages, TV, and the like, I got my best work by word of mouth. I got my work because other lawyers, doctors, and the public saw me as a good lawyer with a great team and with a passion for what I did.

Being at the top of the search results for location and what you do as a lawyer is increasingly becoming like running the largest ad in the yellow pages or the most TV ads. A word of mouth generated reputation on the Internet for lawyers is now as powerful, if not more powerful, than an offline word of mouth reputation.

Word of mouth is generated with a blog far, far greater when the law blog is away from the website. It shows your audience you are nor afraid to enter into a conversation and to share of yourself without saying see how great I am, see my 1-800 phone number, etc.

Law blogs inside a website get cited a lot less than blogs outside a website free of all the marketing spin. Law blogs outside a website are far more likely to be referenced in social media (twitter etc) and have their contact syndicated to major news sources such as the WSJ and the New York Times. I suppose law blogs inside a website could do the same, they just don't.

Pete's had a blog inside his PaperStreet website for years. I don't see his blog content being regularly cited in a robust blogsphere and media discussing Internet marketing for law firms. I don't see his blog posts being syndicated by mass media such as the WSJ. I don't see his blog posts being referenced on Twitter by the thousands of legal professionals using this powerful word of mouth and branding tool.

Maybe Pete's offering wonderful insight and commentary on law firm websites and Internet marketing on his blog. If so, it's not be discussed. It's not generating citations by other thought leaders and the media or being syndicated to mass media online sites, things that would generate a powerful word of mouth reputation.

Being referenced on other blogs, in the media, and across social media online is 50 times more powerful for a lawyer marketing on the Internet than high SEO.

Who am I more likely to hire, a lawyer #1 at Google for Tampa Personal Injury Law or a lawyer whose name I search at Google and find all types of references to what she's written about by thought leaders and the media? SEO is great, and good blogs will dominate Google. But strong references to what I am saying, a tacit endorsement of me as an authority, is much more valuable.

As far as complimentary branding and info on the lawyer and their services, it's all there on a well designed and architected blog. All with strategic linking to a law firm website. Sure, there's a ton of a law blogs that do not do this branding right. That's a reflection of many people saying you can do a blog yourself or at little expense.

A lawyer's most important investment is the investment they make in themselves. An investment that makes certain that the public, referral sources, bloggers, conference coordinators, and the media see the lawyer as a thought leader in their field - see the lawyer as a reliable and trusted authority in the lawyer's area of expertise.

Realizing that investment doesn't come because all a lawyers energy and money goes into a website, chasing SEO, and pinching pennies when it comes to a blog, something much more powerful in creating a word of mouth reputation than a website alone.

It's time we who have practiced law for years and who know how the best lawyers got their work to tell lawyers how to best leverage the powers of the Internet. The timing has never been better on the Internet than now to to leverage social media, blogging being a central part of it, to further enhance a lawyer's reputation and grow their reputation by word of mouth.

The best lawyers are not going to achieve what they can via the Internet if we're directing them to more of the same. More money on Websites. More money on SEO. More money on adwords from Google.

Good lawyers need to use the tools at hand to get work and retain clients the way we always have as lawyers - by having an outstanding reputation generated by word of mouth.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (11)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I posted last November that every major law firm in the country has a LinkedIn profile providing detailed demographic information.

Law practice management expert, Rees Morrison, emphasizing the the value of LinkedIn for law firms in a post this morning thought my statement about every major law firm having a profile a touch of an exaggeration. I'm not sure it's an exaggeration.

Is there a law firm in the AmLaw 200, widely accepted as the 200 largest law firms in the country, which does not have a detailed law firm profile in the company profile section of LinkedIn? I am not aware of any. Let me now if you know of any AmLaw 200 firms without a LinkedIn profile.

These profiles were not created proactively by the law firms, as they would be with Martindale-Hubbell. The LinkedIn firm profiles are automatically generated from the demographic information in LinkedIn profile's completed by lawyers and other professionals employed by law firms.

Let's pull randomly number 100 on the AmLaw 200, Kilpatrick Stockton, a full-service, international law firm in nine offices across the eastern United States and in Europe. You do this by clicking on the company link on the home page of LinkedIn. Key in the firm name or browse to law firms. Here's a the screenshot.

Look at Kilpatrick Stockton's law firm profile on LinkedIn. Included in the profile are links to the 418 employees with LinkedIn profiles, career paths to the firm, who the firm's employees are most connected to in LinkedIn, new hires, promotions, popular profiles, top schools, median age, gender breakdown, and much more. Here's a screenshot.

Free detailed law firm profiles in a social networking site that has 30 million registered professionals users spanning 150 industries. Powerful stuff.

Expect every law firm, large or small, to have a LinkedIn profile in the coming years. That's something I don't believe any legal directory is going to match.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

Last month I was invited to present on a panel at next month's LegalTech New York put on by Incisive Media, the owner of American Lawyer Media (ALM).

In that LegalTech is one of the premier legal technology events of the year, I readily accepted. It was an honor to be invited. I was to appear on a panel in the trek on how to use 'Web 2.0 Technology to Gain a Strategic Advantage for Your Practice.' The person from Incisive went so far as to say they were really excited to have me on the panel.

A week or 10 days ago the organizers of LegalTech called and for the first time told me that as LexisNexis is the sponsor of the panel, LexisNexis must give final okay on presenters. I took that as formality. I'm known as open commentator on products and services in the legal industry, but criticism of companies has never resulted in my being un-invited from presenting.

This morning I get a call from an Incisive Media employee that they're very sorry but that the panel I was invited to speak on was full. They 'didn't know what to say,' but were 'very sorry.'

I responded that it appears that LexisNexis, the sponsor of the panel, did not want me on the panel because of my recent commentary on LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell so bumped me. I doubt they ran out of chairs. Their response was basically 'can't comment on that, there's a lot of politics involved.'

I'm sure my comments have kept me off programs before. And I'm sure it's happened to others as well.

It's not a Kevin O'Keefe ego thing. I'll go to LegalTech and enjoy the camaraderie and the networking. I'll probably attend the session I was to present at. But there's a much more important question.

Does LexisNexis, via the position it holds in the legal industry, curtail innovation in the legal industry? Consider these points.

• LexisNexis is one of, if not the largest, sponsors of legal industry conferences and events.
• LexisNexis may be one of the largest advertisers in Incisive Media - American Lawyer Media publications and one of the largest sponsors of LegalTech.
• Any innovator in the legal vertical knows that to openly criticize LexisNexis will result in your being blacklisted from speaking engagements at events sponsored by LexisNexis.
• Innovators without huge advertising budgets like Martindale-Hubbell require the exposure speaking provides them.
• Innovation in other industries comes in part from open debate and discussion, often at conferences highlighting the innovators and their ideas.

LexisNexis should begin to realize that criticism from commentators like me is a good thing. You sure don't learn anything from the guys that say you're doing everything great.

Before LegalTech 2008, I challenged LegalTech to do more to empower bloggers to blog live from LegalTech. Monica Bay, editor of ALM's Legal Technology News, commented to my blog post that she was puzzeled by criticsim of ALM in that she viewed the company as a pioneer in legal blogging.

I responded to Monica the same way I still feel.

When I post criticism it is meant to promote discussion and possibly action on innovative items. Generating such discussion improves services, to the benefit of customers and the vendor, which in this case is the ALM.

An open conversation on the Internet involving customers, commentators, and innovative corporations seeking to improve their products and services by the taking part in this conversation is key to an industries growth. With the Web today, marketing is in fact a conversation. And this conversation and debate can be done in a constructive way.

I have an excellent relationship with Monica Bay. And though it's admittedly the result of Monica's work, LegalTech is going all out for bloggers this year. Bloggers are getting complimentary passes and reserved space up front in each seminar room.

Shame on LexisNexis here. For chilling some entrepreneurs from bringing needed innovation to the legal industry. And for giving the appearance you are unduly influencing Incisive Media, which as the leading legal press, should be free of your influence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link