Martindale-Hubbell ups the ante : Price tag for lawyer to display rating online goes from $50 to $599

I received word from a law firm marketing and client development professional that, effective this January, the LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell lawyer directory is increasing the charge by 1,200% for displaying lawyer ratings for lawyers who don't subscribe to Martindale-Hubbell.

For decades Martindale-Hubbell displayed a lawyer's and law firm's peer reviewed rating free of charge. First in hard copy volumes and then online.

An 'AV Rating,' the highest a lawyer or law firm could attain, was aspired to by young lawyers and law firms, and was widely viewed as a significant factor to consider when selecting a lawyer or sizing up an opponent in the case of another lawyer.

Lawyers and law firms were rated whether they were a subscriber to the Martindale directory or not. Subscribers paid thousands of dollars (hundreds of thousands of dollars for large law firms) to have profiles of their firm and lawyers displayed in what was generally accepted as the premier lawyer directory in country.

Two years ago, Martindale started charging an administrative fee of $50 to display the rating. If a lawyer or law firm didn't subscribe to Martindale-Hubbell by paying a pretty significant fee, you pay the admin fee or your rating would no longer be displayed on what was being billed as the most widely viewed lawyer directory.

Starting in January 2010, Martindale will apparently no longer display a lawyer's or law firm's ratings, at any charge, unless the lawyer or law firm is a subscriber of the directory.

The below is an email which this legal marketing professional tells me was sent to them by LexisNexis Martindale.

As of January 1, 2010, the Ratings display will be taken down for any non-subscribing attorneys or law firm. Moving forward, the only options for Ratings display/subscription status are: 1) our three subscription packages (Standard, Enhanced or Platinum) or 2) our individual lawyer non-sub package which is currently priced at $599 an attorney. This policy change dictates that one of these subscription options is needed otherwise the attorney rating will come down effective Jan 1, 2010. There is no longer an admin fee as a solo option.

The new offer is $599 for an individual lawyer profile that includes the following:

  • Offers the individual lawyer unlimited online content, including the inclusion of membership in organizations, awards, publications, etc. Allows for complete control over the length and depth of the online profile content without restrictions. The more content provided, the more information prospective clients have to make a decision when selecting counsel. And, the content is searchable - over 1.7 million searches are conducted on martindale.com per month.
  • Offers individual lawyers the opportunity to take advantage of the many resources of Martindale-Hubbell.
  • Is available to lawyers who wish to further showcase their expertise and credentials to their clients, prospective clients and other legal professionals that trust martindale.com when selecting outside counsel.
  • Offers added functionality on Martindale-Hubbell Connected allowing the lawyer to create groups and invite others to join the group; create blogs and forums; and build their individual network.
  • Was created in response to lawyers that asked to subscribe individually on martindale.com even though their firm had cancelled their MH subscription.
  • Display's the lawyer's Peer Review Rating online.
  • Allows the lawyer's Chambers icon to display.
  • Allows the subscribing lawyer to take full advantage of Client Review Ratings online.

No question lawyers and law firms receive more as a subscriber to Martindale than those who merely paid an admin fee for their ratings to be displayed.

But it's questionable whether law firms see as much value in the above features as Martindale does. In which case, aren't these firms going to feel they are being blackmailed into remaining as subscribers? With the advent of the Internet bringing law firm websites, Google, blogs, social media, and so many other Web 2.0 marketing alternatives, law firms no longer seeing the value of heavy annual Martindale subscription prices are leaving the directory.

Martindale may also be shooting itself in the foot here. Martindale just released a survey on the value of ratings, particularly reliable ratings. But having a pay-for-play ratings service, in which many good law firms are going to choose not to play, is going to make the Martindale ratings more and more unreliable.

How do you compare law firms and lawyers by ratings when the directory won't disclose the ratings for half of the lawyers and firms? How do you send out LexisNexis sales people touting the above survey on the value of lawyer ratings as a reason to subscribe to Martindale at the same time you're sabotaging your own ratings system?

Martindale's been a great company and directory. They have an asset of gold. Detailed and reliable lawyer and law firm profiles provided by law firms for decades because they trusted Martindale. I fear Martindale is tearing this relationship of trust to the ground.

While you still can Martindale, why not leverage this asset of lawyer profiles in an innovative fashion that conforms with where the Internet has taken us?

  • As I posted earlier, get your ratings everywhere immediately through an open API.
  • Include peer reviewed ratings on all lawyer and law firm profiles free of charge.
  • Contact other websites in the legal profession who would pay to use your detailed and reliable ratings. Getting reliable lawyer profiles that law firms work hard to keep accurate is no small feat. You've done it for years with a talented editorial team.
  • Like Google and other smart companies, focus on your core strength. Yours is having a talented editorial team that profiles lawyers and law firms.

The legal profession needs you, Martindale. There are emerging lawyer directories (Avvo, Justia, Nolo, Super Lawyers) taking hold who offer significant value to lawyers and to the American public, but there's still a place for a premier directory for the American lawyer and the nation we serve.

It's not the time to respond by saying "We're a new company. We're listening to law firms, in-house counsel, and consumers - we have surveys to back it up. We're looking at all sorts of new things. The profession will be surprised and pleased with what's coming."

We've heard that for almost 10 years from Martindale executives who have come and gone. It's time for real leadership and decisive action.

Don't get left behind, get your own blog

Lexblog

Become a part of the conversation

LexBlog creates and maintains professional, turn-key blogs for law firms and businesses. For more information fill out and send this form or call 1-800-913-0988.

all information is required please

Legal community abuzz about LexTweet

Many of you (we hope) are familiar with LexTweet, the website LexBlog launched on New Years Day. As Kevin explained last Friday, the goal of the site is to showcase members of the legal community who are using Twitter as well as what they are tweeting.

There has been a lot of feedback and a fair share of suggestions for how to improve LexTweet. It still has a few kinks that need to be worked out, and look for faq and disclaimers coming soon -- but the early response has been overwhelmingly positive.

  • Ed Adams (@edadams), Editor and Publisher of the ABA Journal, tweeted that LexTweet is a 'Massive game-changer for social media adoption by lawyers.'
  • Edmund Scanlan (@edscanlan), CEO of Total Attorneys, called LexTweet 'a great business vertical specific site built around Twitter.'
  • Author and legal commentator, Walter Olson, (@walterolson) tweets, 'Now we have faces: outstanding resource for anyone interested in law/lawyers and Twitter.'
  • Attorney Alexis Neely (@AlexisNeely) had a rave response of 'Dude, I LOVE LexTweet.com. You are so awesome. Lawyers on Twitter go to LexTweet.com and join now.'
  • M. Stucky, an ungrad with an interest in law (@stupub13) said, 'I'm incredibly pleased with LexTweet. A great tool to find people to follow when you're new to Twitter. Thanks!'
Already, people are seeing a bounce in followers after joining LexTweet, like attorney Erich Rapp (@erichrapp): 'I Like Lextweet. I have had an increase in the rate of new followers joining my log in the last day or so. Probably attributable.'

Along with the positive there has been constructive criticism.

  • Attorney Daniel Schwartz (@ctemplawyer) questioned, 'Is ranking people on lextweet by followers the best way? You wouldn't rank blogs by lexblog by hits, would you?'
  • Bruce Carton (@brucecarton), Editor of 'Securities Docket' noted, 'The truth: LexTweet is a brilliant concept, visually beautiful. But without groups, not very useful to me because way too broad.'

Both good points, and under consideration by the LexBlog development team.

If you have feedback and suggestions on LexTweet, we want to hear from you. Tweet your suggestions while referencing the term lextweet (we monitor our name), reply or direct a tweet to Kevin O'Keefe (@kevinokeefe), or email Kevin.

Martindale-Hubbell taking huge beating on Twitter

Discussion of whether Martindale-Hubbell is dropping its lawyer ratings system is running rampant on Twitter today. The original discussion on Martindale-Hubbell lawyer ratings began on the blogosphere last evening.

In addition to well respected legal voices on the blogsphere and Twitter, the discussion involves some major players. Heavy influencers of opinions within the legal industry. Virtually all are asking if Martindale-Hubbell ratings are dead.

  • Bloggers from American Lawyer Media.
  • Law.com, the flagship online presence for the National Law Journal and American Lawyer Media, is asking on Twitter '[I]s Martindale-Hubbell dropping its AV Ratings?'
  • Marketing professional with the International Lawyers Network.
  • Law librarian at multi-national large law firm.
  • Influential contributer and leader within the Legal Marketing Association.
  • CEO of Avvo, an upcoming lawyer ratings website.

Perhaps to no one's surprise, LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell has decided to ignore the discussion. Or worse yet, does not know how.

I'm not sure LexisNexis or Martindale-Hubbell has anyone using Twitter. On an inquiry from a Twitter follower yesterday, I asked if anyone at LexisNexis, parent of Marindale used Twitter. No one responded.

Worse yet for Martindale-Hubbell the discussion is generating negative comments about the company on other fronts. One well respected legal knowledge management professional commented that maybe eliminating ratings was to emphasize Marindale-Hubbell Connected. But he said 'Conected,' Martindale's upcoming social networking site which he tried is 'a mess.' Others are commenting that Martindale-Hubbell has been dead in general for a long time.

Martindale-Hubbell's lack of understanding of the impact of social media is telling here. How can Martindale credibly ask firms to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in subscriptions so the firms can participate in Martindale's upcoming social networking site when it appears to influencers in legal marketing that Martindale is a ship without a rudder and not capable of handling social networking/media in dealing with its own affairs?

Bill Pollak (@wpollak), CEO of Incisive Media (owner of American Lawyer Media) is a regular participant in Twitter discussions. Bill's proven that an innovative leader in the legal field can effectively use social media.

A Twitter discussion got going over the last weekend dissing an article in the National Law Journal about the risks in using Twitter. Bill jumped right in explaining the point of the article. Not only was the issue diffused, but Bill was perceived as someone who wants to listen to and get to know his customers.

For a graphic on the Martindale-Hubbell discussion for just the last few hours, see the Martindale-Hubbell Twitter Search below.

Martindale-Hubbell lawyer ratings Twitter

Lawyer ratings : In-house counsel don't use much

Law department consultant Rees Morrison reports that despite Martindale-Hubbell's and Super Lawyer's efforts, law firm ratings don't mean much to in-house counsel.

The Association of Corporate Counsel has found from 2001 to 2005 that in-house lawyers look to these directories - online or in print - about 18 percent of the time in hiring lawyers.

And Carolyn Elefant at Law.com's Inside Opinions, my source for this post, points out the the obvious to law firms buying into ratings as a way to market your law firm, "Eighteen percent doesn't seem like a very high ratio."

...[I]t also leaves open numerous other options for learning more about lawyers, such as perusing their blogs (if they maintain one) or searching for articles they've written on Google, or Google Scholar. So if I were a lawyer evaluating listing in one of these ratings services (assuming that option were available), and I had to pay to list (I don't know whether payment is prerequisite to listings in the services Morrison cites), I'd weigh the value of the 18 percent usage against what must be at least 50 or 60 percent search-engine use by consumers and in-house counsel looking for lawyers.

Any kid, in-house counsel too, knows that you Google what you are looking for. And for checking out a lawyer, you Google their name.

Find a ton of citations to what the lawyer has written pertaining to the lawyer's area of practice, and that's all the ratings I need. If a whole lot of folks, whether bloggers or the media, are quoting the lawyer, I know they are a trusted and reliable authority. I'm also going to give more weight to those citations to the lawyer than a rating service like Martindale-Hubbell or Super Lawyers that makes its living by selling advertising or services to the lawyers the companies rate.

Want to get cited and see those citations when people Google your name as a lawyer? Blog.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Lawyer ratings service in the works...

Heard through the grapevine here in Seattle that a Web based lawyer ratings service is in the works. Some folks from one of the biggest Internet companies are apparently behind it.

I am betting on the success of a new player versus LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell's lawyer rating service. LexisNexis has a tough time attracting the innovative folks they need to compete on the net. In addition it has not been known for its speed in bringing new products to market or keeping up with innovation from startups. And remember, Barnes and Noble dismissed Amazon only 10 years ago.

What do you bet that in 5 or 6 years, we're discussing the monopoly LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell used to have on the lawyer ratings game? We'll also be discussing how much more value the new service has compared to the old.

Like Dave Winer says, users on the net will not wait for the large companies to give users what users know is a better product.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Amazon offers lawyer ratings

Sound off the wall that Amazon will be offering lawyer ratings alongside Martindale-Hubbell? It's been rumored around here in Seattle for years. Well, A9, an Amazon owned search engine, has launched in beta form its own yellow pages (Seattle search for optical) that, among a ton else, allows users to review and rate service providers.

Once you click on the results of your yellow pages search you can submit additional information about businesses displayed, including giving the business or service a review. Amazon user ratings will be a real value add compared to the yellow pages. I loved Amazon from the get go because I wanted to know what others like me thought of a book I was thinking of buying.

Martindale-Hubbell is working hard on its local search so as to provide greater value to its lawyers.com small and medium law firm customers. Expect them to improve their offering in that regard. At the same time, look for Amazon to give Martindale-Hubbell a run for their money in the ratings of lawyers for consumers and small business people.

Probably would have shocked leaders of Barnes & Noble and Borders if someone told them in 1995 that a stock broker named Jeff Bezos was going to sell books on the Internet and dwarf them in a few years. It should not shock anyone to think of Amazon being the source of ratings for small and medium sized law firms within a few years.