Wired GC TV: Law Firm Mergers
August 29, 2008 | Filed Under Video - Wired GC TV, Law Firm Trends
Instead of one of my occasional rants on law firm mergers, here’s something different to close out the dog days of summer. After reading the latest speculation on the WSJ Law Blog, something just magically appeared from the media skunkworks at Lexvista.
(Update 26 Sept 08: I’m taking the video down for a while; if you saw it, you know why…)
Hating the Rating
August 20, 2008 | Filed Under The Client Speaks, Legal Resources
A recent dust-up involving anonymous online feedback may give some insight into future ratings for lawyers.
The website involved, TheFunded, purports to offer information on VC firms and deal terms from anonymous entrepreneurs, allegedly with experience. One recent feedback posting involved EDF Ventures. Rather than repeating it, there’s more on it here.
EDF didn’t like the posting and somehow thought it was advisable to subpoena TheFunded to discover the identity of the poster. One of EDF’s founders was quoted in this week’s Crain’s Detroit Business (scroll down) as saying:
With anonymous postings, you can either let something patently untrue just sit there, or you can try to find out who it is. We want to talk to them and set the record straight.
You can probably guess how this turned out. EDF has succeeded in one sense: putting a rather large exclamation point on the matter.
When we move from the VC shpere to the legal space, the case of TheFunded shows that online ratings and feedback have pitfalls for the raters and the rated.
The problem isn’t just that the feedback’s anonymous–that’s actually a cornerstone of most client surveys. It can be honest and constructive or vindictive and brutal.
Any feedback about lawyers that’s not anonymous will almost always be favorable, when you think about it. The queue to give a signed low public rating to a bellicose litigator will likely be a short one.
Lawyer rating site Avvo drew some fire when it started out; it has now emerged from beta and is scaling well, targeted more at consumers than the corporate counsel crowd. That latter market will do what it’s always done: rely on personal referrals when possible. Increasingly, however, the search may start by looking at a rating in a gated legal community or a recommendation in a lawyer-only network.
The other lesson: if you have the urge to “go after” something published online about your company, consult two lawyers: (a) one about how to do it, and (b) another about whether you should. And first make it clear to lawyer (b) that she won’t handle the matter.
Seems like overkill; probably cheap in the long run.
Law Firm Marketing and Web 2.0 - Jay Jaffe Interview
August 15, 2008 | Filed Under Law Firm Marketing, Law 2.0, Unplugged - Audio
After Wednesday’s preview, today an interview with Jay Jaffe of Jaffe Associates as the Wired GC goes:
Jay Jaffe
CEO, Jaffe Associates
Just press on the far left arrow to listen:
Time: 14:59
The white paper referred to in the interview is here.
I enjoyed Jay’s short course on trends in legal marketing and his unvarnished views on the roadblocks and opportunities. I will offer a few thoughts on Web 2.0 and the modern law firm later this month.
Law Firm Marketing and Web 2.0
August 13, 2008 | Filed Under Law Firm Marketing, Law 2.0, Selling the GC
As summer vacation winds up, and the beach chairs are thrown into the back of the Family Truckster, it’s time for the long drive home. In between stops for road food on the turnpike, a lawyer’s mind inevitably turns to thoughts of business. As in new business.
The kids were complaining about being off-the-grid from Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. But what does this “kid stuff” have to do with my prestigious law firm?
Potentially, quite a lot.
There’s a decline in the use of traditional print media and when you hit “send” on that press release you may just be throwing a polished needle into a large haystack called Google.
So a few intrepid tech-savvy partners start to contemplate dipping a toe in the icy waters of Web 2.0: using social media like blogs, podcasts, video, networks, and wikis as part of their overall marketing plans.
Inevitably, questions arise:
- What does web 2.0 mean for the law firm?
- Why are many firms so slow to act?
- Why do plaintiffs’ firms sometimes act sooner?
- What is the GC really looking for?
Get answers to these questions (and more) right here, on Friday, when the Wired GC again goes “Unplugged,” and talks with Jay Jaffe, CEO of Jaffe Associates.
Martindale Hits “Refresh”
August 5, 2008 | Filed Under Law 2.0, Selling the GC
Martinale-Hubbell is getting an extreme makeover, according to the American Lawyer. It’s about time, as Wikipedia notes that the directory traces its origins back to 1868. This is rather amazing:
By the 1896 edition, the Directory included the basic information that still appears in the standard Practice Profile listings, as well as ratings and a section on foreign lawyers and firms.
Two of the ideas, according to TAL:
1) Martindale is in the process of completely revamping its peer review ratings system by introducing client reviews, corporate counsel reviews of outside counsel and third-party objective data to create a more “holistic” ratings standard.
Could be interesting; I don’t see many in-house counsel doing this for attribution, except for the “great firm; good lawyer” sort of feedback.
2) Martindale has also recently unveiled its new “visibility rankings,” which are based strictly on the number of page views an individual lawyer’s profile receives.
More explanation is needed to show why this isn’t irrelevant or misleading.
This issue was initially addressed by yours truly in late 2005; I give Reed Elsevier credit for trying to re-position Martindale as other legal networks grow and fragment. Their recent press release on the subject is intriguing; one line is epic in understatement:
The legal profession is traditionally slow to adopt new technologies, so attorneys’ readiness to use online networking tools represents a significant shift in behavior.
My network colleagues at law.com apparently are using their archival set as a backdrop for new legal video offerings. Perhaps licensing the image could be a new revenue stream?
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
