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?
SEC Recognizes Company Blogs re Reg FD
August 1, 2008 | Filed Under Law 2.0, Regulation
In a much-anticipated move, the SEC entered the web age this week. SEC special counsel Kim McManus outlined a commission guidance on using company web sites for Reg FD purposes. The full interpretive release has not yet been issued.
Some commentators are expecting that the guidance will give companies clear direction on how investor information can be disseminated and also some protection against liability for comments on company blogs or hyperlinks to third-party information.
Others wonder if this move is a precursor to the end of the press release; it seems more likely to be evolutionary than revolutionary from the start.
A more important part of this SEC action may be in encouraging companies to release more user-friendly and interactive information on their websites, rather than just pounding EDGAR with PDFs.
This move was supported by many companies, but was spearheaded by Sun, including its GC Mike Dillon and CEO Jonathan Schwartz. I covered their filing with the SEC here (Mike’s initial post is here; that of Mr. Schwartz, is here).
A tip of the corporate disclosure cap to Sun for bringing this issue before the SEC.
Virtual Law Partners - Initial Thoughts
July 29, 2008 | Filed Under Law Firm Trends, Law 2.0
A few thoughts on Virtual Law Partners after last week’s posting and interview with co-founder Craig Johnson:
1. The concept itself is not news; there have been a number of firms that have pursued this. Law Dragon has a list here. One that they missed is The General Counsel Ltd. in Minnesota. I interviewed the founder, Kent Larson, back in 2006.
2. What is news is the potential scale of VLP: a year of planning to get the technology right and the practices and processes workable. When you want to go to 1,000+ attorneys, internationally, there are no templates for this.
3. The level of attorney interest is striking. When you get 200 resumes in one week, you have struck a chord, and won’t need to be using recruiters for awhile. Photos of real attorneys with lives outside the practice beats a boring recruiting brochure any day of the week.
4. The business model is bracing for VLP lawyers and clients. The lawyers get to keep more of the revenue they generate. This lets them make more or work less, or a combination of both. And the clients get as good or better service, without paying more for things they don’t want (over-staffing) or need (expensive offices in high-rent cities).
5. VLP is wisely avoiding litigation. They will likely develop a network of litigation firms to whom they can refer cases and, who, in turn, can refer corporate work to VLP. No reason that VLP can’t refer litigation to BigLaw firms, either. They just shouldn’t wait around for the favor to be returned.
What is also notable, but not surprising, is how some commentators are reacting to VLP:
1. In this article, there’s the remark I mentioned last week from a law firm consultant that VLP is not the next “big idea.” Hmmm. How can you know yet, after only one week? And while we’re at it, exactly what is the current “big idea” for law firms? Mergers?
2. In another article, a different law firm consultant offers that VLP will have a real hurdle as a new market entrant “… to convince clients to take a significant risk with respect to the legal services they buy.” I have a news flash: VLP’s partners already have clients. What’s the risk? That an experienced lawyer is working from home, providing high-quality work, and passing some hourly savings along? That’s not a risk for VLP; it’s called competitive differentiation.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, but I’ll stop for now.
Lastly, there’s one thing that Craig Johnson said that really caught my attention. And just might be the real big idea behind VLP:
===> no compensation committee.
Virtual Law Partners - Craig Johnson Interview
July 25, 2008 | Filed Under Law Firm Trends, Law 2.0, Unplugged - Audio
After yesterday’s overview, today an interview with Craig Johnson of Virtual Law Partners as the Wired GC goes:
Craig Johnson
Virtual Law Partners
Just press on the arrow to listen:
Time: 14:17
There’s a lot here; listen for some interesting stats and a compelling vision. Legal headhunters may also want to click away and reflect on how a firm like VLP can tap into a large number of potential recruits within a week of going public.
I have a few thoughts, but I’ll save them for next week.
(I apologize for the static at a few points, it does clear up, and it’s not VLP, it’s my conference call provider. Or rather my ex conference call provider).
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
|
||||
