The basis of Martindale's claim is the 2007 comScore Media Metrix monthly reports measuring traffic patterns at competing online attorney directories. Per the press release, 'comScore reported more combined unique visitors to Martindale-Hubbell sites martindale.com(R) and lawyers.com(SM) than competing directories when seeking a lawyer.'

Nicholas Karrat, Sr. Director, Traffic & Alliances for Martindale, went on to say:

Consumers, small business professionals, lawyers, and corporate counsel seeking a lawyer or lawyer referral rely on online resources designed specifically for their needs, and the results of the comScore reports show that when these individuals go online to look for legal assistance, they turn to martindale.com and lawyers.com.

Google is the biggest competition Martindale-Hubbell has. I emailed LexisNexis PR Manager, Holly Michael, last Saturday asking if Google was one of the competing online attorney directories included in the survey results? No answer yet. Perhaps someone from Martindale will comment here providing an answer.

If Google is not included in the results, you have to question Martindale's assertion that when individuals go online to look for legal assistance, they turn to martindale.com and lawyers.com. The goal in issuing such a press release should be to provide lawyers an accurate picture of online searches for a lawyer, not to demonstrate you get more traffic than Findlaw.

If someone truly wanted to show lawyers where individuals and corporations go online to look for a lawyer, including Google in your report is a no brainer.

LinkedIn company profiles for each of the 20 largest law firms in the country include the following info:

• Firm synopsis
• Career path of lawyers before joining the firm
• Career path of lawyers before joining the firm
• Who law firm employees are most connected to
• New hires
• Recent Promotions and position changes
• Popular firm member profiles
• BusinessWeek profile and related news
• Top locations of firm
• Top schools lawyers graduated from
• Median age
• Gender breakdown

Here's a list of the LinkedIn law firm profiles for AmLaw's top 20 largest firms with the number of their LinkedIn members in just my LinkedIn network. The total number of LinkedIn members for each firm I am sure is much higher. Click on the firm's name to see their LinkedIn profile.

• Skadden Arps: 478 LinkedIn members in my LinkedIn network
• Latham & Watkins: 500+ LinkedIn members
• Baker & McKenzie: 500+ LinkedIn members
• Jones Day: 500+ LinkedIn members
• Sidley Austin: 330 LinkedIn membersk
• White & Case: 337 LinkedIn members
• Kirkland & Ellis: 500+ LinkedIn members
• Mayer Brown: 215 LinkedIn members
• Weil, Gotshal & Manges: 316 LinkedIn members
• Greenberg Traurig: 470 LinkedIn members
• DLA Piper: 500+ LinkedIn members
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius: 429 LinkedIn members
• Sullivan & Cromwell: 239 LinkedIn members
• Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr: 203 LinkedIn members
• O'Melveny & Meyers: 302 LinkedIn members
• McDermott Will & Emery: 307 LinkedIn members
• Shearman & Sterling: 257 LinkedIn members
• Paul Hastings: 334 LinkedIn members
• Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton: 183 LinkedIn members
• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher: 271 LinkedIn members

How are the profiles being constructed? Via social networking.

Lawyers in the firms are creating individual lawyer profiles at LinkedIn. There are 118,000 LinkedIn profiles listing their profession as a the practice of law.

Those profiles are constantly being updated. Not only by the lawyers themselves, but more importantly by LinkedIn's social networking features.

Don't look now, but LinkedIn may over the next couple years become a more effective way to get a 360 degree view of a law firm than a law firm's own website and any of the major lawyer directories.

In honor of upcoming Earth Day, Steve points out that it's just not the environment that's filled with toxins. 'The all too convenient truth is that it's very easy for advertisers to pollute the web with their garbage.'

Lawyers, law firms, and legal internet marketing companies are among the worst polluters.

• Spam. I'm deluged with emails from people who have never read my blog asking me to exchange links with law sites and blog about legal stories, conferences, and products totally unrelated to what I blog about.
• Splogs. Blogs with gibberish law content or content stolen from legitimate law blogs are rampant. These blogs are supported by lawyers buying Google Adwords and SEO services setting up splogs to link to their unknowing law firm customer.
• SEO. Many lawyers are addicted to search engine rankings like crack cocaine. They get their fix from snake oil salespeople getting them unscrupulous links from link farms and spam blogs.
• Sponsored links. Bankruptcy, DUI, and personal injury lawyers pour money into Google Adwords leaving unseemly billboards all over Google and other sites that display ads.
• Companies selling exclusive blog territories to personal injury lawyers in return for 25% of the lawyer's fees.
• Legal directories providing 'blogs' to lawyers without disclosing that what is being provided is not a blog.
• Law firm website companies producing websites rivaling the worst on the net, but making sure the 800 number is an inch tall.
• Lawyer and client matching service misleading lawyers with promises of clients lined up for them.
• Personal injury lawyer blogs naming injury victims in hope the victim calls them or cutting and pasting news stories in entirety offering no value and violating copyright law.
• Banner ads. Many just litter the web and get in the way of what you want to do. Click-through rates remain abysmal. Eye-tracking studies have revealed 'banner blindness.'
• Video. Law firm videos about lawyer exploits and services offering nothing of value to potential clients produced by law firm website vendors looking for increased revenue.

As Steve says, 'The web is facing it's own global warming crisis as marketers continue to pollute it.' But he n that 'Consumers are voting with their clicks and eyeballs by engaging with authentic content thaotest adds value, while ignoring the rest. That's good news that shows maybe we'll solve this crisis...'

Though there's always going to be lawyers and legal vendors looking for the get rich schemes polluting the web, I'm seeing positive trends in the legal arena as well.

Many good lawyers who would shun unseemly net advertising are publishing blogs offering valuable info to the public and other lawyers. Consumers of legal services, whether they be corporate heads or consumers, are now looking for valuable legal information on the net.

Next Earth Day, may be we'll see a little less brown smoke and haze from lawyers on the net.

Read today on a listserv that Martindale-Hubbell, in trying to keep a 100-lawyer client in their directory, told the law firm that Martindale would be the new Facebook or LinkedIn for lawyers in due time.

Martindale is saying they will be the next LinkedIn? If that's true, it seems to be totally irresponsible statement.

LinkedIn:

• As of March 2008, LinkedIn had more than 20 million registered users, spanning 150 industries.
• As of December 2007, its site traffic was 3.2 million visitors per month, growing at an annual growth rate of about 485%.
• Founded by co-founder of Socialnet.com & leading exec at PayPal and funded by Greylock, Sequoia Capital, Bessemer Venture Partners, and the European Founders Fund, all tier one VC's funding Silicon Valley companies.
• Reached profitability two years ago.

Martindale:

• No management team that I know of that has experience with building social networking sites.
• Unique visitors to Martindale.com down 13.4% over last year per Compete.com.
• Struggling with the launch of a corporate blog, something much simpler than software infrastructure and management team needed for successful social networking site.

As far as becoming the next Facebook? Seems rather silly. Makes as much sense as Martindale saying we'll become the next place where all young lawyers will hang out to socialize online. Does anyone really believe that will happen?

Martindale has been a great company as a lawyer directory. But to try and create something that's vogue today by boasting that we're a new company that's introducing Web 2.0 solutions is irresponsible and is only going to damage to reputation of the company.

That's nuts. I'm not sure Ben honestly believes that.

If there's lawyers and legal marketing professionals who honestly believe blogs are only for search engine rankings, I expect they're the ones who previously believed the only way a lawyer could get new clients was through large yellow page ads and other advertising. You know, the biggest and gaudiest ad with call the 1 800 lawyer thing.

They believe Google is replacing the yellow pages for people selecting a lawyer. God forbid you're not at the top of search engine results page of Google when someone searches your town and the type of lawyer you are. 'If I'm not at the top of Google, I'll never get any work. I'll go broke.'

The same thing that has allowed good lawyers, no matter their area of practice, to get good work over the years is why law blogs work so well. The ability to network with thought leaders in your field, influencers within your community, and prospective clients.

When I practiced in a small rural town in the Midwest a leading law firm ran only a very small in column ad in the yellow pages listing their 12 lawyers by name. That's it. Only advertising they did. And they got as much work as anyone in the area in everything - personal injury, divorce, real estate, corporate, estate planning, bankruptcy, probate and what have you.

How they'd do it?

• By striving to be good lawyers - staying up to speed on legal developments and news that effected their practice.
• By writing articles for legal publications and regional newspapers.
• By presenting at seminars and conferences for lawyers and relevant industries.
• By being well known by the press and being available when reporters need resources or a quote.
• By becoming leaders regionally and state-wide in bar and legal associations.
• By networking with good lawyers around the state.
• By networking with community leaders and influencers in various civic organizations.
• By being social and cordial with people who influence others in their selection of a lawyer - bailiffs, court clerks, judges, bankers, doctors, insurance agents, realtors, title company personnel, court reporters etc.

They further enhanced their reputation as good lawyers you could trust by networking. Word of mouth spread.

Blogging is a new way of networking with thought leaders, community leaders, the media, current clients, and prospective clients. It's how you further enhance your reputation as a lawyer who can do a heck of a job for people and companies needing legal services in your niche. It's how you generate a word of mouth reputation that's far wider reaching than offline.

Ask any lawyer who knows how to blog effectively. They'll tell you their blog is much more than search engine rankings. Don't get me wrong. Search engine rankings are important, but they'll come anyway through effective blogging.

Let's act like lawyers folks. We didn't go to law school so we could run the largest yellow page ad, billboard, or to rank at the top of something called Google - which in our wildest dreams we could not have dreamed of in law school 30 years ago. What's after Google? You'll be chasing that too with the latest gimmicks.

Rise above the pack. Be the lawyer you want to be in the area of law for which you have a passion. Become a lawyer's lawyer. Establish a reputation that's not fleeting. It can be done via online networking through effective blogging - not by just being at the top of Google.

Then yesterday, Jonathan Lin, Martindle-Hubbell's Director of Product Management, links to a spam blog in his post responding to my post asking 'Will Google offer better search of lawyer directories than lawyer directory websites themselves?'

By spam blog, I mean a blog that just copies other people's content (in this case, mine and other law bloggers) and republishes it. It's done in hopes to generate a few bucks for law related Google adsense ads run on the spam blog.

Linking to spam blogs is as lame as it gets. I'd give Jonathan more credit if he was doing it to get my ire up. But I'm not sure that's it. I don't know if Martindale-Hubbell understands blogs and what it even means to blog.

Today, Jonathan, responding to others' criticism of the blog concedes he just wanted to get the blog up quickly and would make needed improvements on the fly.

I made the call to get something out there quickly to begin 2008, even with known limitations, so we could at least start the conversation with you all and then make improvements as we go based on real-time feedback.

That’s the web 2.0 way right?

Ironically, I suspect that if we took the other route and did extensive research and development until we were comfortable that we got everything thing figured out, we would have ended up launching in December. And, I bet along the way, we would be equally criticized for being slow moving and “not getting it.

That slower method is how we used to do business, and it’s what we are trying to change.

That may be the 'new Martindale-Hubbell', but to me it's nuts. Martindale-Hubbell is a legacy product that's been around for 130 plus years. As a practicing lawyer for 17 years, the Martindale-Hubbell name meant a heck of a lot.

You hold yourself out as a first class company working with leading lawyers. If Martindale is going to get into something, it's got to get it right. Or least get close. If you don't know what you're doing, get some help. Companies launch good blogs in weeks and months, not years.

To his credit, Jonathan did ask for suggestions today. Here's my quick advice.

• The blog needs to be outside the Martindale website. Keeping it inside the website makes it look like advertising no matter what you do. You lack credibility using a medium that's all about transparency and credibility. Your blog posts are also going to get cited very little, if at all, in blog discussion when you put something up in a very heavily branded website you call a blog.
• Create a proper user interface for the blog. You don't get to the home page for any blog or website via a link that's number four in a side navigation bar of 20 other links.
• Create a proper comments field. There is a reason you are not getting comments. You should not require registration. And in no case should you be attempting to collect demographic information of interest to sales people.
• Get rid of all the ads & links to your other products. There's at least 25 links promoting various services of Martindale and LexisNexis. A blog is your mouth in a conversation, not a billboard.
• Set up proper management of your RSS feeds. Best I can tell your feeds are not getting indexed at Google Blog Search nor Technorati, the largest blog aggregators. No one can call when their name, their company's name, or their url is mentioned in your blog. Until you do that, you are shouting in the middle of the forest, as opposed to engaging in a conversation.
• Create a proper software architecture for SEO. The present set up for title tags, headers, and more is not getting your content indexed properly at Google. Your posts will never be found on search.

You guys have other suggestions? Appears we have Martindale's ear.

Tom references a recent newsletter article from Trey Ryder on 'How To Build Your Image As An Authority.'

• Write articles for publication
• Appear as a guest on a radio talk show
• Offer opinions and advice on the TV news
• Present seminars to other lawyers
• Present seminars for your prospects
• Write and publish a newsletter
• Write a book
• Host a web site (or blog)

Interesting that the easiest way to get these other opportunities to write and speak is by publishing a blog. I present at seminars across the country - all because of my blog. I have written and am regularly requested to write articles - all because of my blog. And I have turned down the opportunity to write a book on more than one occasion - all because of my blog (though it looks like I may relent and do a book on blogging for lawyers).

For Trey and other professionals who have been in business for years, getting speaking and writing opportunities may be easier. For those lawyers who may have been practicing for less time, you'll need a leg up to open up the doors. There's not a better way to open the doors than a niche focused blog.

Hello Sir,

We are a newly launched Internet startup called SueEasy.com (name ought to offend public and lawyers equally). Right now (missed the 'we') have cases pertaining to Family Law, from Little Rock, AR (Wow! That's broad coverage). SueEasy aims to be the Youtube and Facebook for the litigation industry (that's right you'll become ubiquitous and be acquired for $1 billion).

With hundreds of potential cases being filed everyday on our website, SueEasy.com is a great place to get more clients (never heard of one lawyer mentioning service). SueEasy has been featured on the Wall Street Journal (WSJ law blog asked if readers saw ethical problems with service) and was a Techcrunch 40 winner in 2007 (Techcrunch predicted it would become a breeding ground for personal-injury lawsuits). The service is completely free for both lawyers and litigants.

www.sueeasy.com

There's crazies running free of asylums. Their business will go to dust when the hysteria of what's being labeled Web 2.0 dies down.

Please do not spend a lot of time evaluating whether your law firm should sign up for all the wacky services you hear of.

From Darren Rowse at Problogger, with my added commentary, here's 6 reasons to replace a website with a blog.

1. Blogs give individuals, companies and brands 'voice.' Professional services providers, lawyers included, build their brand by getting out and talking - sharing their intellectual capital and showcasing their philosophy.
2. Blogs are conversational - both in the style of writing, the way they interact with one another and the way that they are designed with comments at their heart blogs are all about the conversation. Interaction also ensues from citing other thought leaders and them citing you.
3. Blogs build Trust - as a result of being a relational/conversational medium a blogger can build trust with their audience. Is there a profession that could benefit more from trust building than the law?
4. Blogs build profile - looking to become an 'expert' (or at least be perceived as an expert) in your field. Blogs have the ability to showcase your expertise and help you become the 'go to' person in your field. LexBlog's clients are seen as the 'go to' person on issues ranging from Connecticut Employment to California biotech law to Maryland IP law.
5. Blogs are immediate - blogs are a great way to communicate with people because they are so quick to use. Have a thought, write it down, hit publish and within minutes it can be being read and commented upon by your readers. Impossible with law firm newsletters and articles.
6. Blogs are a doorway to search engines and social media - one of the great things about blogs is that they are indexed so well by search engines which love sites that are focused upon a topic, updated regularly etc. Social media sites (particularly bookmarking ones) also love blogs.

Of course there's reasons a blog is not a right for everyone. Darren even goes through a number of them in his post.

And in the case of a large firm, or a firm with diverse practice areas, a niche focused blog cannot replace a law firm website.

But for solo's and small firms with a focused practice area, a blog has it all over a website.

Like Bob, I was originally skeptical of Avvo's goal of serving as a consumer resource by rating and profiling every U.S. lawyer. But as I have gotten to know Mark Britton, Avvo's CEO, and watched the site in action, there's no question Avvo serves as a worthwhile resource not only for people looking for a lawyer, but also for lawyers looking for a cost effective way to connect with prospective clients.

Bob provides a nice summary of the Avvo service.

The site operates by collecting information about lawyers from multiple sources -- bar records (including disciplinary sanctions), court records, Web sites and the lawyers themselves -- and assigning each lawyer a rating of one to 10. For lawyers for whom only minimal information is publicly available, Avvo provides no rating but labels them as either 'Attention' or 'No Concern.' Lawyers can 'claim' their own profiles and add information about themselves and also request peer endorsements and client ratings.

Avvo also includes Avvo Answers, a forum in which consumers can ask questions and lawyers can post answers with links back to their profiles. In addition to Massachusetts and Florida, its profiles now cover lawyers in Arizona, California, D.C., George, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington.

More than the Avvo ratings, reviews from lawyers and past clients posted to the site are a huge plus for consumers. I can't imagine buying a product or service these days without doing research on the Internet. I'm particularly interested in reviews of the service or product from people like me. Heck, that's why I thought Amazon was so cool when I first saw it 13 years ago.

Look at this review page of Kirkland, WA divorce lawyer, Araceli Amaya. In addition to the basic info on years of practice and emphasis of her work, look at these reviews by past clients.

• Araceli Amaya was a great relief to me after I had spent useless time and money for a previous attorney who did little for me overall. Araceli was always quick to respond to my question, was thorough and, in the end, saved me over $5000.00 that the previous attorney would have, undoubtedly missed. I would highly recommend her as an honest representative in any divorce proceeding.
• Araceli was very attentive to my case, worked hard, great results. Very responsive, well experienced, great leadership skills. I would most definitely recommend Araceli to any one needing a family law attorney.
• She is very professional and knows her law, especially dealing with the military. She is patient and can be trusted to not only get the job done, but done the right way with a first time go.

Each of her reviewers gave Amaya 5 out of 5 stars on the four areas Avvo seeks past client feedback.

• Trustworthy
• Responsive
• Knowledgeable
• Kept me informed

That type of information and review runs laps around the lawyer bio's on Marindale-Hubbell's consumer site, lawyers.com. And Avvo is a free service for lawyers.

People do not ask you as a lawyer where you want to law school and undergrad. They don't care what award you received 15 years ago. People looking for a lawyer want to know what you can do for them and whether you'll be trustworthy, responsive, and keep them informed. And they want that info from people like them.

I've heard the same bull crap for years. The outcome of one person's case is not indicative of the next so we cannot allow client review of lawyers. People are not knowledgeable enough to know whether a lawyer is any good. Past clients will just criticize lawyers so we cannot allow clients to speak up on websites like Avvo's. Bunk.

People are entitled to information on lawyers. They can take Avvo's info on a lawyer into consideration with any other info they have on a lawyer. The more information people have on lawyers the better - for both the public and our legal profession.

Look at the below example for the Super Lawyers lawyer directory.

Internet users would not need to go to the Super Lawyers website to search for a lawyer. If I'm looking for an environmental lawyer in New York who went to Harvard, I just enter 'environmental lawyer New York Harvard' in the 'search superlawyers.com' box at Google.

Here's the first three results displayed - right in the Google interface without going to Super Lawyers - and in a fraction of a second. When I click on the result I go directly to the lawyer's page in the directory, skipping the website home page and any interim search pages.

Expect the Martindale-Hubbell, Avvo, and FindLaw lawyer directories to be next in line for the Google treatment.

What's the implication? For Internet users, there may be advantages. No limited text fields or 'drop-downs' for search such as by practice area and location, the type of things Martindale-Hubbell requires.

Google's search will allow us to do a search for exactly what we want - like I just did for the Harvard environmental lawyer in New York. I could have added an association or two that I wanted the lawyer to belong to limiting my results further. I'm not sure searches at lawyer directory sites themselves would allow me to do that level of search.

For lawyers, it may be great. People can search for someone matching my background and find me immediately. That's impossible if I'm displayed in a Martindale-like directory as one of 165 lawyers in an area of practice in a locale.

For lawyer directories? I think they'll be uneasy allowing Internet users to search their data without going to the directory's website. No adds displayed. No fancy user interfaces with pictures and the like. No branding of the directory. Lots of confusion with lawyers asking directory salespeople questions.

Where do you see this headed? See advantages for people looking for lawyers? See advantages for lawyers?

For you readers employed at legal directories - Martindale-Hubbell, FindLaw, Avvo, & Super Lawyers - what do you think of the development?

Answers ranged into the hundreds for some with the vast majority of professionals subscribed to feeds from at least 20 or 25 blogs.

Tells me that PR people are using blogs for a few purposes. One, as a means of following what's going on in areas they're working on for clients. Two, learning new skills and methods from thought leaders in the PR and communications field. And three, for networking with fellow professionals and mentors.

I question whether PR and communications employed in large law firms are monitoring that many blog RSS feeds in newsreaders. I talk to a lot of law firm marketing professionals who are not using RSS feeds from blogs and keyword searches at all. Some PR and communication professionals have even told me it sounds like a waste of time getting information from unreliable sources.

What are you guys seeing? If you're a law firm marketing professional, how many blogs do you subscribe to via RSS feeds?

I agree [with Hubbard One] that web video can be extremely compelling. Sadly, Hubbard's video advocating the use of video is of such low quality it will probably discourage a lot of prospective clients.

For law firms, web video has to be extremely well produced and must deliver something of real value to clients and prospective clients. It can't just be eye candy. The law firm has to deliver really compelling and useful information and create a reason for website visitors to return, learn and ultimately hire the firm.

Video on law firm websites needs to offer useful information to lay people about the legal issue facing them. Otherwise, Hubbard One and Martindale-Hubbell, also hawking law firm video for websites, are just generating incremental income for themselves from their unknowing law firm customers who believe video will generate more legal business.

At least Martindale-Hubbell, which has not produced informational video that I know of, agrees with me that law firms benefit much more from video relevant to the law firm's clients needs.

Give advice; answer basic questions; describe what typically happens in relevant matters; provide value with timely commentary. As with all good marketing, if you can put yourself in the shoes of the buyer and empathize with them and give a little value, you're more likely going to win the business.

My guess is that if we're going to see informational video, it's going to come from the firms themselves using YouTube, as opposed to companies like Hubbard One and Martindale. Hubbard One and Martindale are likely to charge a hefty price for video. The result being not much video, video which will stay on the website for months or years, and video being focused on the law firm and its lawyers.

I thoroughly enjoyed my time at TechShow though this 52 year old body has a hard time staying up to bar time with the likes of Ben Stevens, Dominic Jaar, Adriana Linares, and Ben Schorr (there's many more whose names slip my mind).

Working the concierge desk gave me the opportunity to meet a ton of folks. Existing LexBlog Clients and fellow speakers were among the many I enjoyed talking with.

If you haven't been to TechShow in the past, start going. There's much to learn from presentations that are heavy on practical information that can be put to immediate use.

You'll receive plenty of inspiration to use technology in ways to make your personal and professional life more rewarding. And, perhaps most importantly, are the life long friends you'll meet and get to know.

I first attended TechShow in 1997. As I told Adriana Linares, but for the inspiration I received there and at a Web marketing conference in California, I'd still be practicing law (not that that's a bad thing). I would have never gone on to found Prairielaw.com and now, LexBlog.

Many lawyers accept their fate, foregoing greater heights within their reach. Going to conferences like TechShow can inspire you to reach for something more. I strongly encourage you to do so.

Thanks to Tom Mighell and the other board members who were kind enough to give me the privilege of presenting (with Greg Siskind, the Godfather of legal marketing even). I hope I didn't let you down. And I look forward to attending for many years to come.

From Paul Saffo, a technology forecaster in Silicon Valley:

Laggards have a bad rap, but they are crucial in pacing the nature of change. Innovation requires the push of early adopters and the pull of laypeople asking whether something really works. If this were a world in which early adopters got to choose, we'd all be using CB radios and quadraphonic stereos.

Don't laugh. Dad had a CB radio in his yellow Cadillac to listen to whether he could take it to up 60 mph during Jimmy Carter's 55 mph national speed limit. A few years before my high school debate partner, and still good friend, bought a Panasonic quad stereo (4 speakers each the size of a microwave) on which I fondly remember blasting 'Wild Carpet Ride.'

Evangelizing blogs, RSS, and newsreaders, I run into lawyers and law firm heads questioning why blogs. What's the need? What's the value? Does this really work? Why do it before everyone else? Why do it the LexBlog way?

I have been too quick to label them luddites. Fact is luddites questioning my evangelism and LexBlog's offerings is good a thing. I should be so lucky.

Reminds me that when evangelizing to think in terms of the value of blogs & RSS to those slower adopting technology. When LexBlog is developing a new solution or unwilling to change our existing ones, rather than dismiss naysayers labeling them as luddites, to listen. Their questions, comments and critique may well lead us to improved product and service offerings - offerings for which there is a large and lasting market.

I got an email from an insurance coverage lawyer last night who is pushing blogs in his large firm. I met a week ago with he and his marketing director. Looks like they're sold, but he needs to justify the value proposition to firm management.

His management's questioning value is a good thing. Gets me to refocus on the benefits, efficiencies, and cost savings of blogs, RSS, and newsreaders to large law firms.

Dad was obviously wrong on CB radios (I think he thought they were pretty silly anyway). Hoping he's wrong as to his views of the Internet - he and his retired golf buddies believe the world may be a better place without it. My debate partner? He's at Raytheon working on what we'll put in space 20 years from now.

And that's not my characterization of law firm video. This from a marketing technology person at one of the largest firms in the country commenting on the mounting evidence that blogging really does work (nice coincidence).

As pressures increase, whether from competition or clients, the need to differentiate and offer value to clients becomes important. Rather than spending $75K on a video for your Web site, try a professional blog. Not only is it substantially less expensive, with one post per week it offers continuing relevancy.

A couple months ago Martindale-Hubbell and their public relations company, Ogilvy PR, announced Martindale's new video on law firm websites service saying in part:

Lawyers are increasingly embracing new ways to differentiate themselves and attract new business while consumers and small business professionals are eager to learn more about a lawyer or firm's philosophy and demeanor prior to hiring the firm.

Take a look at the video on this law firm website (believe its one of the Martindale ones). Does anyone really think a video of lawyers standing around talking at each other, a framed certificate of admission to the Supreme Court, what looks to be an yellow page ad, and some newspaper headlines is going to incent clients to call them?

Martindale is not alone in selling this type of video as 'Web 2.0' technology that law firms are ready for. Look at the video on this law firm website. The theory is that paying a few grand for a video of lawyers talking about the things they do in front of courthouse pillars gets people to stay on the website longer than another website that does not include video.

So what? People staying to watch a TV ad on the Internet. What's the value to prospective clients and people looking for legal information?

Video yes. But let's offer something of value. How about lawyers answering legal questions in their niche? What about doing that on a weekly basis? That's value. That's a real differentiator - lawyers showing they care by taking the time to help people for free.

Those type of video's will also have a viral marketing effect being talked about online, passed to friends, and even displayed on other websites and blogs if archived at YouTube.

Picked that up in an article in UK publication LegalWeek. After talking with inside counsel, they raised the possibility that legal directories are more a self-perpetuating marketing-arena for law firms, as opposed to a useful tool for corporate clients.

John Wallbillich, a former general counsel in the States who turned me onto the Legal Week article, calls Wiseman's a common (and thankfully honest) viewpoint.

These directories serve some purpose, but their influence is more like a citation from a Louisiana state court in a legal brief. It's better than nothing, but in my experience only in limited cases (such as a foreign jurisdiction or a minor matter for local counsel).

Last month John Lipsey, VP of Corporate Counsel Services for LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, posted on the importance of legal directories to in-counsel in the lawyer selection process. John conceded personal referrals were twice as important to in-house counsl than Martindale, but still argued based on his survey that 40% of in-house counsel found Martindale as important in the hiring process.

I heard from multiple in-house counsel and lawyers in large law firms, that they didn't believe Lipsey's findings. They thought the survey was self serving and done to argue that Martindale remains relevant in the age of the Interet where referrals are an email or two away and so much information is freely available. Information too that's beyond the scope of a lawyer bio or firm profile. Information that provides a 360 degree view of a lawyer.

Ultimately law firms are going to make the call with their pocketbook. With large law firms leaving directories like Martindale-Hubbell or reducing their listings, law firms may already be making the call that legal directories are of declining value.

That's the word from an

Since 1868, Martindale-Hubbell has provided the largest library of lawyer and law firm profiles and ratings. Law firms across the country reflexively and dutifully subscribe to the company's hardbound volumes, placing them prominently in their libraries, confident they have taken the most obvious step to ensure clients looking for legal representation will find them. Just as important to such firms is Martindale-Hubbell's peer review and rating system, touted by the company as an objective measure of a lawyer's ethics and abilities. Receiving a peer review rating is a singularly egocentric moment for a lawyer, suggesting he or she had 'arrived' in a professional sense.......Today's Web 2.0 business models have completed the paradigm shift by eliminating the barriers to global publication and distribution of client opinions. Companies such as Avvo.com now give clients, as well as lawyers, the power to publish opinions about lawyers easily, instantly and without cost, in a medium that reaches a global audience. Harnessing the concept of 'collective intelligence,' there is now a totality of information about a lawyer available. Consumers can easily search for a lawyer and read what other lawyers and clients think about that lawyer. Lawyers are able to provide far more information about themselves, their practices and their experience than has ever been possible before. Some features provide a way for lawyers to communicate and interact directly with the public and showcase their understanding of the law and legal issues.

The new paradigm is: clients and lawyers rating lawyers for the benefits of clients and lawyers. As with all change, this new paradigm creates a great deal of fear and uncertainty among lawyers, who are by training risk-averse.

......A collection of hardbound volumes cannot generate the sort of interactivity and real-world information about lawyers and law firms that is experienced, contributed and compiled on Avvo every day. Information about lawyers is being shared by those who have first-hand experience, resulting in a searchable database of information that is accessible to prospective clients around the country and the world. If information is power, then Avvo effectively shifts the balance of power away from lawyers and law firms to clients, prospective clients and every other user of its Web site.

Campos' firm, a 20 lawyer commercial litigation and corporate securities boutique, is embracing the Avvo concept.

A comment about a lawyer posted on Avvo has the potential to reach a global audience, whereas the letter of gratitude sent to a law firm requires action on the part of the firm to publicize it. We decided to take advantage of the opportunity. We now display 'Avvo badges' on our Web site profiles of each of our lawyers, which link directly to each lawyer's profile on Avvo. Rather than fear what clients have to say about us, we embraced the possibilities created by empowering clients to weigh in directly on their experience working with a lawyer or law firm.

And clients of the law firm are using Avvo to the benefit of future clients and the firm.

Though certainly not true in every case..., clients will often post comments on the Avvo Web site shortly after the conclusion of a particular matter. Such comments generally provide considerable detail about the specific matter handled by their lawyer and their overall experience. When a client posts a review about a lawyer, Avvo's system asks how long ago the client used the lawyer's services. This kind of information is an invaluable tool for prospective clients seeking to gauge the most recent experience others have had with a particular lawyer. Not surprisingly, one of the more common uses of Avvo by clients is vetting word of mouth referrals.

And it's not only smaller firms embracing Avvo. Davis Wright Tremaine, an AmLaw 200 international law firm, claimed the Avvo Profiles of all 225 lawyers in their Seattle and Bellevue offices.

The Avvo concept is here to stay. Consumers of legal services who can get online reviews on dishwashers are going to demand, through their behavior, that comments about lawyers be freely available. Whether comments come from other lawyers or clients, the information is just too valuable.

Martindale-Hubbell has been suppressing this concept for years. They want a monopoly on lawyer ratings. Money to made there. Plus when you're charging law firms 10's and 100's of thousands of dollars to display their lawyers in a directory, you don't want law firm customers walking when they don't like what another lawyer or consumer has said.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Martindale-Hubbell dismissed Google as a force in clients finding lawyers. Now their own studies find Google is viewed as an important source in locating counsel by almost 20% of corporate counsel. And Google didn't exist 8 years ago.

Avvo does have the staying power issue. Though VC backed, significant revenue generation will be necessary at some point. There's money via sponsorships, premium listings, and services, but will it be enough, and will it come soon enough.

And there's always the question whether LexisNexis will pay to just put a concept like Avvo's on the shelf. Though that's a little harder today with web based systems costing so little to develop and user generated content from all over continuing to flourish.

Related posts from elsewhere:

• Disrupting the Lawyer Ratings Paradigm from Avvo CEO Mark Britton
• Avvo: Dinner is Served from Scott Greenfield
• Why Not Web 2.0 Reviews for Law Schools? from Carolyn Elefant
• Finding the right lawyer for you from Heather Sunderman

Below is a sample of a how the blog posts are displayed on the right side of a lawyer's profile. This one is from Bay Area family law lawyer John Hardin, who publishes the California Divorce Blawg. Not a LexBlog client, but talking with John over the years, I know him to be a fine lawyer.

Shrewd move on Super Lawyers' part. Talking with their management team, Super Lawyers believes blogs allow sophisticated consumers of legal consumers to assess a lawyer's skill, experience, and philosphy. They see RSS feeds of blog posts like this to play a growing role in their directory.

Also won't hurt the performance of Super Lawyers' individual lawyer profile pages in Google search engine rankings. Regular content updates causing Google to spider the pages more often. More keywords and key phrases related to the lawyer's area of practice as well. Unlike Martindale-Hubbell, Super Lawyers looks to be making a real push to get their lawyer profile pages ranking highly at Google.

Kudo's to Super Lawyers for being the first on this front. Expect other lawyer directories to follow. It costs nothing for directories to take this step to serve not only lawyers but the consumers of legal services.