Legal community its own worst enemy when comes to teaching innovative client development

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.

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

Martindale-Hubbell doesn't get it

Martindale-Hubbell, dealing with a crisis to a core element of their product offerings (lawyer ratings), showed the legal industry they are ill equipped to participate in social media.

Martindale-Hubbell did respond to Internet discussion (blogs and twitter) that the company may be eliminating its long standing lawyer ratings. Despite laying off all of the commpany's ratings specialists, Martindale says it has Big Plans for Martindale-Hubbell Ratings.

Problem is that Martindale-Hubbell responded with a blog post that is little more than marketing spin and refused to participate in Internet discussions with its customers. From the language in a National Law Journal article reporting on the subject, Martindale issued the same response as a 'written statement' to the media.

Look at some of the language in the Martindale blog post. Could you imagine someone who understood blogging and social media using puffery like this?

  • Industry's most complete, objective and reliable ratings.
  • Broad and ongoing transformation of [company] offerings.
  • We are very excited about this new, robust ratings...
  • [I]nformation only Martindale-Hubbell is uniquely equipped to provide.
  • [M]oved to a team support structure for more effective and efficient ratings services to clients.
  • To provide even more focus, we will name a new VP/ Product Champion of Ratings...
  • We are adding a product marketing team for a more consistent flow of information and wider communication and we have expanded the current responsibilities of our inside Ratings Support team.
  • [R]est assured we are still committed to our rich ratings tradition...
  • [W]e still consider our ratings to be the gold standard in the industry...
  • We've got big plans for Martindale-Hubbell Ratings - stay tuned.

And then for Martindale to say:

...[W]e continue to communicate with clients about all of the changes at Martindale-Hubbell, and as recently as last week we communicated our new ratings support strategy.

Doesn't look like Martindale communicated news of the changes to Heather Milligan, director of marketing at Los Angeles-based Barger & Wolen, whose blog post first reported the lawyer ratings specialists layoffs. Milligan received an email directly from one of the fired ratings specialists, a group she described for the National Law Journal as 'long-term lifers with Martindale-Hubbell.'

In addition to blogs, Twitter discussion on Martindale's possible elimination of ratings, and Martindale's value in general, was rampant.

The only Twitter response came from Jon Lin, Director of Product Management at Martindale-Hubbell.

I don't represent Martindale here, just myself, so you won't hear too many MH views. Sorry to disappoint.

The response to Martindale's traditional PR response has not been kind.

The National Law Journal, responding to Martindale's statement, acknowledged 'Martindale-Hubbell ratings have been highly regarded in the past,' but reported 'These days, though, general counsel can check out attorneys a lot more easily than in the past via Google, the Internet and blogs.'

New York Attorney Scott Greenfield, whose blog is one of the most widely read on the net, says it's anyone's guess what Martindale-Hubbell means in saying it's 'fully committed to continuing the ratings, plus a whole lot of other new initiatives that will bring transparency by practice area, narrative feedback and validated data from third parties that provides examples of an attorney's experience.'

After cutting through the rhetoric, I believe that this means they fired all the ratings people and replaced them with marketing people, who will now spread out across the country to bring us transparency through marketing. After all, there is no better way to "meet client needs" then sell them stuff.

There's a dozen or more negative blog comments about Martindale and its ratings by lawyers at Greenfield's and my blog posts on the subject.

And the response to Martindale's statement from lawyer influencers on Twitter has been equally unkind to Martindale.

  • Big Plans for Martindale-Hubbell Ratings? Nice if they could speak English, not 'corporate talk.'
  • I, too, have pulled my ad from Martindale-Hubbell. An entire year, NO clients and only a handful of visitors.
  • I pulled my Martindale-Hubbell subscription last year. They've become as relevant as a paper map in a car with GPS.
  • Who cares @ Martindale-Hubbell? Doubt any client of mine has ever heard of it or seen it.
  • Martindale-Hubble's AV rating for me has never done a bit of good. Results for clients counts!!

After Martindale's response do I expect them to continue ratings? Sure.

But what we've seen here is a total failure of a company that wants the legal profession to believe Martindale is a leader in client development for law firms.

If LexBlog was the brunt of negative Internet discussion it would have been a four alarm fire for us. I would have been actively posting on my blog, commenting on other blogs and using Twitter to get the truth out. I would never have considered sending a 'written statement' filled with PR spin to the National Law Journal and also allowing that to served as a blog post. And after doing so, I would not have considered ignoring ensuing Internet discussion.

Informed client development companies today know you can't have someone who is at the core of the company's offerings (Director of Product Management), respond to Twitter discussion about your company's products with a 'you won't hear company views from me.'

Sure it's hard for large companies to adapt to social media and the transparency the Internet demands today. But strong corporate leadership requires staying abreast of changes and developing new policies. It requires a realization that marketing today requires participating in a conversation with your customers. Martindale-Hubbell has failed here.

Upon seeing Martindale's response, I was originally going to just update my original post. But I feel an obligation to comment on a company's failures when the company wants American lawyers to see them as a leader in Web 2.0 and to charge accordingly.

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

Is Martindale-Hubbell's lawyer rating system officially dead?

Martindale-Hubbell lawyer ratingsThat's the question asked by Heather Milligan on word of Martindale-Hubbell's elimination of their Rating Specialists.

Milligan, Director of Marketing at Barger & Wolen LLP and leading contributor to the Legal Marketing Association received an e-mail on Friday from a peer at LexisNexis’ Martindale-Hubbell division notifying her that not only was she let go, so was her entire department.

I want to let you know that I will be leaving Martindale-Hubbell at the end of the month. The Rating Specialist positions for Martindale-Hubbell have been eliminated, so that means that I will not be coming to visit you to review your firm’s ratings initiatives. I am told that some of the other people who visit your firm from Martindale or LexisNexis may add the ratings items to their meetings with you.

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings Specialists (MH pdf) work closely with larger law firm clients to educate, engage and assist their lawyers in the peer review process.

It's possible Martindale-Hubbell can continue with lawyer ratings, a lynchpin of the company's lawyer offerings, without ratings specialists. The elimination of their positions may just be an effort to trim costs in the face of large law firms eliminating their Martindale-Hubbell subscriptions.

But Milligan, a widely respected legal marketing professional, views the elimination of the ratings specialists as the end of the line for Martindale-Hubbell ratings.

I don’t know if this is a case of chicken or the egg, but by eliminating the Rating Specialist positions, LexisNexis has shown what their commitment to the Martindale-Hubbell Ratings System product is. Or, was it our lack of support for the Ratings product what prompted LexisNexis to abandon it?

Either way, it appears that the Martindale-Hubbell AV Ratings System is officially dead, or, at the least, on 'dissolution watch.

25 years ago when I started practicing a Martindale-Hubbelll AV rating was seen as a big deal. However, the lawyers I've talked with over the last few years found the ratings of little value.

Sure, all things being equal, lawyers like having an AV rating. But with the advent of the Internet, lawyers know there's much more meaningful information available to look at when selecting a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell the next General Motors?

I've been asked that question twice in the last few days. Once on Twitter and then again in a call with a large law firm based in the Midwest.

I'd hate to see a legacy legal directory like Martindale-Hubbell become a relic, but you have to wonder if the company's business model of heavy charges for lawyer directory listings can last in the days of Web 2.0 and entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship generating upstarts like LinkedIn, AVVO, and LexBlog. And lawyers and law firms becoming entrepreneurs in growing their businesses via cost effective client development tools.

I'll never forget the young lawyer I met in Wisconsin this fall who, while telling a group what he had done to get business clients, sheepishly apologized for not having even heard of Martindale-Hubbell until after having been out practicing law. He got his first business clients via a combination of Craigslist, AVVO, and a blog. He followed it up with getting five business clients in six weeks via Twitter.

I can hear Martindale's response. That's for low level lawyers, not for the likes of large law firms buying Martindale listings for tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. And those aren't trusted environments where good lawyers can afford to be.

Well, some of those business clients he got associates and junior partners at large downtown Milwaukee law firms would love to have gotten. And for trusted environments? As that young lawyer told me, growing businesses are participating in online environments like Twitter and LinkedIn and are reading blogs. Business owners of those companies are looking for innovative 'go getting' lawyers who act like them and go where they go.

Martindale is going to reach a tipping point with the launch of Martindale-Hubbell Connected. Billed as a social networking community, it's intended to connect corporate counsel with law firms. The price for participation is continuing to pay for your firm's Martindale subscription.

I hope for Martindale's sake Martindale-Hubbell Connected works. But I don't see it shooting out of the blocks with a lot of momentum.

  • It's a gated community closed to businesses selected by Martindale and law firms who pay. The net today is all about being open. The more users one gets to participate, the more relevant and valuable you are to users. Martindale's view that it protects lawyers and corporate counsel from solicitation, perhaps partially true, has not prevented LinkedIn from attracting hundreds of thousands of practicing lawyers and corporate counsel. Every major law firm in the country has a LinkedIn profile providing detailed demographic information. Plus scaring law firms from Internet solutions that law firms are flocking to in droves is not a lasting marketing strategy.
  • MH Connected has been used by selected test law firms and touted by Martindale since last summer. LinkedIn has added about sixteen valuable features in that time. If Martindale does not get this thing launched soon, LinkedIn will have lapped it again.
  • In the days of open discussion and testing of new products on the net, Martindale will not permit new users to test Connected. Though I have been offered the opportunity for a demo, and will get one in another week, I filled out the form to get a test drive as the site offered a few months ago. Though a form response said I'd be hearing back right away, I heard nothing. Sure, I am a competitor (very, very small), but I am vocal commentator on Internet marketing solutions. Innovative companies, as is the way with Web 2.0, seek and welcome my commentary. Generating discussion with heavy Internet users results in product improvements. Feedback from law firms relying heavily on Martindale for client development seems the height of folly.
  • Charging law firms tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in MH Connected seems like a business model of olden days. I told a large law firm I was talking with today that MH Connected may prove to be pretty good for law firms. Their response? 'But Martindale-Hubbell costs so much and we're not sure it's worth it anymore, Martindale feels like a dinosaur.'
  • Martindale has not had an active presence in Web 2.0. None of their Execs nor product heads participate in Internet discussion via blogs or other social networking in any meaningful way. It's an open question whether company leadership understands innovative Internet based client development.
It's not that long ago that GM was churning out SUV's and big sedans 24 hours a day at plants in Midwestern states. But outmoded products, heavy costs, and an economy in crisis caught up with them.

Now Martindale is facing many law firms cutting bonuses, laying off staff, and trimming expenditures. And Martindale is doing so with services that cost a lot, with products and solutions law firms are questioning the value of, and with a business model that is contra to that being deployed by companies who get Web 2.0 and social networking.

Can Martindale make it in the long run? I hope so for the sake of the wonderful people who work there. But it's going to take some quick innovative thinking. I don't think survival based on a bailout from large law firms in the form of huge subscription rates is in the cards.

Your law blog posts get higher profile at Wall Street Journal

With the redesign of the Wall Street Journal, law blog posts from lawyers around the country are getting higher profile.

Practicing lawyers posting on their blog yesterday received equal billing this morning with stories from The New York Times and Chicago Tribune in the Wall Street Journal's 'Breaking Law Stories from Around the Web.'

Look at the lawyers whose blog posts are included in 'Breaking Law Stories' this morning. Special kudos to LexBlog clients Dan Schwartz of Pullman and Comley, Sean Wajert of Dechert, and John Day of Day & Blair for being included.

lawyer blogs on wall street journal

And with the Journal's redesign, the 'Breaking Law Stories from Around the Web' is getting higher profile in the Journal's Law section. Expect to see more traffic to your blogs as a result. A post of mine included the Journal's 'Breaking News' this week brought about 100 new visitors to my blog.

law blogs on Wall Street Journal

Remember when law firms paid LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell to take the law firm's articles so they would be included LexisNexis content available by search at Dow Jones?

You now control your content's own destiny via effective blogging.

FindLaw SEO misconduct : Suggested course of conduct

FindLaw SEOThere's little question in my mind that FindLaw's selling links to law firms in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines was a big mistake.

Not only may FindLaw be liable to law firms for the millions of dollars paid by law firms to FindLaw for these spam links, but FindLaw and its parent company, Thomson Reuters, has damaged its reputation and brand in the eyes of lawyers and the search community, including Google, for years to come.

Dad always said there's a right way and a wrong way to handle everything. FindLaw needs to do the right thing and to do it now.

Here's the right thing to do:

  1. Acknowledge immediately to your lawyer customers who bought the spam links and the legal community as a whole that 'FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business,' acted wrongly and in violation of Google's webmaster rules.
  2. Apologize immediately to the law firms and the legal community for FindLaw's course of conduct.
  3. Announce immediately that FindLaw will refund within 30 days all the money paid by the law firms for these links.
  4. Perform an immediate accounting of all monies paid for the links by the respective law firms. (Appears to be in the hundreds, possibly thousands of law firms and for all I know could be $3 to $5 million).
  5. Report the results of the accounting publicly.
  6. Hold the FindLaw people who authorized the sale of links, who had to know it was improper, personally responsible. That includes senior management who very likely knew.
  7. Establish an in-house ethics review committee and ethical standards protocol to prevent future improper conduct.

Tuesday will be the 7th day since the news of FindLaw's selling links was reported on the net as well as 7 days from when Google's Matt Cutts became aware of the violation. And at least the 4th day since FindLaw was penalized by having its website PageRank dropped from a 7 to a 5.

FindLaw has chosen not to respond - to the public, to its customers, or to bloggers. This is rather surprising in these days of corporate damage control and where word spreads like wildfire on the net.

I worked as a VP of Business Development for LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell - lawyers.com, FindLaw's largest competitor, following the acquisition of my prior company. I may never have agreed with everything Martindale did, and God knows I am a vocal critic of Martindale here, but Martindale always looked at itself as having a reputation to uphold because of its history and its role in the legal community as a whole.

I can't believe Martindale senior management would have ever allowed this sort of thing, no matter the pressure for incremental revenue. But if Martindale did get itself in trouble, I have to believe it would have held itself accountable to its lawyer customers and the legal profession.

FindLaw needs to act accordingly if it wants to seriously compete with Martindale and lawyers.com, reduce the damage to the Thomson Reuters FindLaw name, and to attempt to reestablish itself as a respected member of our legal community.

The legal community looks forward to FindLaw's response in the next day or two.

Update: Based on an inquiry from a sales rep I want to make myself clear. In no way did I mean to imply that Martindale ever sold spam links - Martindale, to my knowledge, has not ever sold links like FindLaw did. My point was that the Martindale senior management I knew while serving as a VP of Martindale would never have even thought of doing something like FindLaw did.

Related posts:

Martindale-Hubbell: Should we all "just say no"?

Marrindale-HubbellThat's the question well respected lawyer, commentator, and blogger, Dan Hull asks about Martindale-Hubbell over at 'What About Clients?' Dan's question follows a number of legal marketing professionals working with leading law firms asking the same question on law marketing listervs.

...[I]n view of other and newer ways for law firms to have visibility and credibility, the price of listings at M-H is now officially a rip-off. Lots of fine lawyers seem to be complaining about it, at least in private, both in the U.S. and non-U.S. It's not that Martindale hasn't tried. See, for example, at Law.com the piece 'Martindale-Hubbell Gets a Makeover' (mentioning Avvo, LawLink and Legal OnRamp, as new alternatives for marketing, networking and lawyer ratings).

Our humble take: as other ways to locate lawyers emerged, M-H never saw the light fast enough, and didn't successfully change or expand its other services to preempt a backlash. It continued to charge big listing fees that everyone complained about for years. More recently (say, the last 3 years), M-H expenses managed to stay in law firm budgets--but exceeded just about everyone's irritation levels. M-H listings now makes no business sense to anyone sane.

Like me, Dan doesn't really question that Martindale has value. Martindale is a time honored tradition. During 17 years of practice, my law firms always listed in Martindale. We took pride in our rating. Associates and legal assistants were always instructed to limit their search for out of town counsel to those with an AV rating.

It was truly an honor when in 1998, Martindale's Executive VP and Publisher responded favorably to my idea of a virtual law community to connect lay people and lawyers on the net. When it came time to sell that company in 2001, as much as I would have liked to remain independent, knowing I built something a venerable and classy company like Martindale would buy and deploy was dam cool.

But it's the cost of Martindale compared to its ROI which is sticking in law firms' craws. One local Seattle lawyer lamented that his Martindale listing costs him as much as annual turnkey blog subscription with LexBlog. And that his blog has him ranked at the top of search engines and is enhancing his reputation as a leader in IP litigation, the result being regular prospective client contacts. The Martindale listing, though telling opposing counsel he's AV rated is generating no new work.

I'm not fool enough to think LexBlog is the only cost effective marketing tool available to law firms. The Internet has opened up countless doors for law firms' marketing dollars freed up from the high cost of traditional client development tools like Martindale.

Dan just may be, as says, starting a revolution with the following:

Our firm, Hull McGuire, has actively and earnestly participated in the M-H ratings processes for years; we are happy with the ratings our lawyers received. But, in good times or bad times, the current cost to list firm attorneys for any size firm, with or without multiple offices, is prohibitive and should be resisted on principle given other alternatives. It just isn't worth it. We predict that lawyers will bolt in droves in the next 2 years.

From the likes of the first comment to Dan's post, other firms are likely to follow. 'I completely agree. Despite our AV rating, we stopped paying MH long ago. I still use it for helping to pick a lawyer in a really small town, but that is it.'

If you can't beat'em, join them: Martindale-Hubbell uses LinkedIn technology and your networks for social networking at Martindale.com

I heard last week that LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, a traditional lawyer directory, had entered into an agreement with LinkedIn, the leading online professional networking site, whereby LinkedIn would provide Martindale a social networking function to the martindale.com website. May well have been what Martindale would only show folks the last 6 months if you signed an NDA (I refused).

Turns out it's true. LinkedIn is now powering a social networking function at martindale.com. Smart move on Martindale's part as the LinkedIn technology is far more advanced than anything than LexisNexis could think of or develop on its own. Also may give Martindale's web pages for law firm customers and lawyer customers better search engine performance, something Martindale has been struggling with.

I don't have time to review the arrangement in depth (caveat that I stand to be corrected), but here's a couple screen shot examples with a quick description of what I believe is taking place.

When you go to a law firm listing at Martindale, you'll see the LinkedIn icon to the right of the firm's name.

LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell LinkedIn

Click on the icon and you'll be prompted to see employees in the law firm who may be in your LinkedIn network. You'll also be prompted to share with LexisNexis the names and relationships of people within your professional network at LinkedIn, something LinkedIn could not share with LexisNexis contractually or without violating privacy laws without your permission. If LexisNexis collects the names and relationships in the network of its lawyer and law firm customers so as to include them in LexisNexis' data base, that'll be a coup.

LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell LinkedIn

More to come once I get a chance to look at more closely and hear some feedback from you guys.

Lawyers use of LinkedIn : It's becoming an avalanche

What started as a snowball has become an avalanche. That's lawyers using LinkedIn as their preferred directory and the evangelism of LinkedIn by marketing and PR professionals serving the legal profession.

The latest comes from Oliver Picher, president of Visible Influence, speaking about LinkedIn and social networking to the Delaware Valley Law Firm Marketing Group.

Jason Lisi and Julie Meyer highlighted Picher's presentation in an article in The Legal Intelligencer.

  • LinkedIn is for business connections much in the same way that Facebook creates personal connections.
  • Philadelphia firms, such as Fox Rothschild and Reed Smith, have as many as 45 percent of their attorneys and staff holding active LinkedIn accounts.
  • Legal professionals should import business contacts to identify those with LinkedIn accounts and invite them to connect.
  • LinkedIn allows you to connect with others with similar interests by connecting with users who are secondarily connected to an original LinkedIn connection.
  • LinkedIn's answer feature provides an additional tool for effective networking and marketing of practice areas. LinkedIn answers provide for LinkedIn members to tap -- or add to -- the knowledge of their professional network by answering questions posed by others or recommending another member as a source of information: a virtual referral.

The following point by Picher should also not be lost on Martindale-Hubbell.

Much like a free publication or commercial television, social media sites such as LinkedIn generate their own revenue from the number of users they attract as potential viewers for the advertisers who pay to market on the site. To that end, it is in the interest of the social media purveyors to provide increasingly effective tools to both retain current users and regularly attract additional new ones.

LinkedIn is adding feature after feature so as to facilitate networking between business professionals, hundreds of thousands of lawyers included. And while Martindale-Hubbell is charging thousands of dollars for directory listings and losing law firm customers as a result, LinkedIn has a growing revenue base through ads and premium listings for what is basically a free service.

LinkedIn may now be Martindale's most serious competition. Something none of us could have seen coming a year or two ago