As I mentioned yesterday, Jonathan Fitzgarrald (Bad for the Brand) and I have pulled together a collection of our favorite blogs that help us do our jobs better. Yesterday we prepared for you a collection of the legal press that we follow. Today, it’s all about the legal industry: marketing, business, PR, gossip, etc.

This is not mean to be a 100% compilation of all the blogs out there, but the must subscribe to for anyone’s reader. If you have a favorite blog to add to the list, please do so in the comments below. Next up, General Business and Management, followed by Marketing and Social Media.

Jonathan Fitzgarrald (Bad for the Brand) and I spoke on a webinar today for the Legal Marketing Association – Capital Chapter on Best of the Web for Professional Development.

One of the things we did was comb through our Google Readers, email folders and the like, and made a list of all of our “must read” blogs, electronic newsletters, etc.

To round out the lists, I asked Tim Corcoran (Corcoran’s Business of the Law) and Jayne Navarre (Virtual marketing Officer) to add their favorite blogs as well, and thanks to Catherine MacDonagh (Legal Lean Sigma) for making sure I hadn’t missed anything (which I had).

The point of these lists is to not be 100% inclusive, but to share our “go-to” blogs so that we can fully informed on the subjects of Legal News; the Legal Industry; General Business; Marketing & Social Media; and, Technology.

Legal Press

Blog Aggregators

Not to go without mentioning:

  • Local legal journals
  • Firm blogs (yours and competitors)ma
  • Clients

I know there are more blogs out there, so if you have some to add or share, please do so in the comments section.

Check back for more Favorite Blogs:

Jonathan Fitzgerrald, CMO, Greenberg Glusker (Bad for the Brand and so much more) and I sat down yesterday to discuss our upcoming Webinar Best of the Web for Professional Development. Of course, a Vente iced-coffee propelled us off topic now and again, and at one point we started ranting about legal marketers (none of whom are reading this, so we were not talking about you, in general or specifically) who REFUSE to learn or participate in social media, and are clueless about legal (business) technology in general:

  • I don’t get it.
  • I don’t have time.
  • I’m too private.
  • That doesn’t apply to me.
  • I like to keep my work and private life separate.

Get over it. You don’t have the luxury of remaining clueless much longer. If the lawyers need to know and understand this “stuff,” so do we. An article in today’s Law.com, Are Proposed Changes to ABA Ethics Rules Too Little, Too Late? (free subscription),  includes a whole nifty section on how lawyers “must be technologically competent.”

The commission has proposed that “Comment 6” be revised to read: “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.” (Changes noted with italics.) These additional words are a game changer. In a surprising statement, the commission stated that “this obligation is not new. Rather, the proposed amendment emphasizes that a lawyer should remain aware of technology, including the benefits and risks associated with it, as part of a lawyer’s general ethical duty to remain competent in a digital age.” (emphasis added)

There you go folks. The pre-season for social media and technology is over and game is on. If lawyers are operating in a cloud, using Dropbox on their iPads, opererating in a virtual environment, communciating and blogging digitally and remotely, than you must understand how this works. Period. You don’t need to be fluent in tech and social media, but you need to be conversant and knowledgeable. This is not something you can downsource to a recent college grad sitting in a cubicle. And it’s not just about doing a good job at your firm right now. It’s about your next job and your career in general. Just like you need to know and understand how to use Word and Excel as a basic tool, you need to understand and know how to use Twitter and LinkedIn, at least in their simplest forms. Not to mention how groups, lists, and hashtags really make these applications soar. How are blogs being used? And what is an RSS feed? And why do people care so much about keywords, tagging and hyperlinks? I could go on and on, but I’m just preaching to the choir here.

So, here’s my take on the whole Chick-fil-A debacle going on in our country:

And that’s what it should be for those reading this.

Why? Because we are service providers. We provide something to someone else, based on our personal reputations, and they pay us for doing it.

We get hired because people know, like and trust us.

And, judging from the lines around the blocks, looks like this is a hot-button issue, and you just never know where someone’s take (client, boss) might fall.

In regards to this whole debacle, I can have an opinion, you can have an opinion, and so can all the “theys” out there.

But the rhetoric has gotten out of hand, the passions are out of control, and just like abortion and politics, looks like we shouldn’t talk about crappy fried chicken sandwiches (which aren’t good for you anyway) in polite company any longer.

Here is all I have shared about this whole thing:

Mr. Cathy has his First Amendment right to say what he wants to say, believe what he wants to believe, just as long as the government doesn’t get involved, I’m fine with it.

Make no mistake, I might not like what he says, but I support his right to think and say it.

I’m also fine with withholding my dollars from his establishment (which I was anyway, so it won’t make a difference, see comment about crappy food above).

I’m also for having a dialog on why people were lined up for hours to buy a crappy chicken sandwich and why that is causing pain to people I love.

However, as partners of law firms, executives and employees of said firms, we are visible representatives of the entire firm.

Speaking out in an unprofessional way, publicly, even if limited to our “private” Facebook walls, can hurt our businesses and reputations.

It can hurt the business of your partners. And it can hurt the business of the folks who pay you to do your job.

Unless you poll every single client, employee, and employer about ever nuance of their politics, you are walking a fine line when these issues come into focus.

And the elections are still months off. Oy vey.

Unless you have chosen to draw a line in the sand and not do business, ever, with companies you do not philosophically believe in 100%, 100% of the time, you need to STFU, and tone down the rhetoric.

Just ask the (former) CFO of Vante, a medical device company. He decided to post a video of himself harassing a Chick-fil-A employee (Vante CFO Adam Smith fired for rude behavior at Chick-fil-A).

Was it worth it to Mr. Smith? I don’t know. Perhaps in the moment he found great satisfaction. In the short term he is out of a job.

Perhaps it will lead to a bigger and better job with a company more welcoming of his style. Only time will tell.

Will this video follow him forever when companies do their due diligence during the hiring process? Yup.

Either way, it is living proof that the First Amendment protects your speech from government intrusion, but not your boss’ wrath.

At a former firm it was pounded into our heads, for good reason, that we are agents of the firm.

As an agent of my firm, I can have my opinions, but if my opinions negatively impact on my employer’s reputation, then I need to self-censor myself.

Notice: I said self-censor.

Once again, not saying to not share your beliefs. Just saying, tone down the rhetoric.

Now, who’s up for Tito’s Tacos??

Going through my e-mails this morning and guess what?? I’ve been selected to join the newest and greatest online legal directory, ever.

Seriously, people. Stop with the new legal directories. I don’t care if it’s online. Made for the global world today. Will bring me all the clients my firm will ever need. Or that it is free.

Whatever.

What latent needs is your new directory going to satisfy that any of the dozens currently on the market are not?

Please, I beg of you. Why do we need a new legal directory? The lawyers are not, for the most part, using the ones that are out there. Why? Because that’s not how people purchase legal services, and the attorneys see no inherent benefit to them to spend the time and effort to join, yet another, online legal directory.

For the most part, we are still in a referral model. Or we’re Googling by issue or business problem. Which is why it is important to have a footprint on the Internet. But being listed in a “new” legal directory will not do much.

A sophisticated purchaser of legal services “might” got to Martindale.com, but not many these days (check your Web site stats).  Some might do a Google search. But, for the most part, they will pick up the phone and place a call, or tap out an e-mail, to their colleagues, or current counsel, and get a referral.

Then they will do their due diligence, which is what having an Internet footprint is all about.

Rant over.

Going back to do real work that actually has the probability of bringing in new business.

Photo via The Onion

Joe Paterno’s statue is coming down today.

I am not a Penn State alumni, so I don’t have a personal or emotional stake in this, but I do have opinions.

My opinions are coming to focus in on where our fiduciary duties as leaders in our businesses, as departmental heads, as board members, conflict with our moral responsibilities.

When I think of the Penn State scandal, I see Joe Paterno’s dedication to the football program as being so profound, that he allowed that fiduciary duty to the football program to supersede his moral (and legal) responsibility to protect the children involved.

And there is no defense.

Penn State made this man the center of their identity, and for good reason. They erected a statue to his honor. And he failed them.

Paterno’s moral and legal failures were so profound that they continue to receive round-the-clock coverage in the 24-hour news cycle.

But Paterno is not alone. He is just the most well-known.

As leaders, we are all confronted with moments when our fiduciary, ethical, moral and legal responsibilities collide.

I have a fiduciary duty at work in my department. If someone confides in me, I am an agent of the firm and I am duty bound to report it.

As an agent of the firm, I can become privy to information that can be harmful to the firm, and which some might want to sweep under that rug in the lobby, but there is a moral responsibility to make certain it does not.

As a member of a board of directors, it is my responsibility to raise my hand and ask questions if I am not comfortable. I cannot blindly vote on a recommendation.

I am not perfect, and do not think myself above another, but I have resigned from positions when I was unable to resolve my moral and fiduciary responsibilities.

Joe Patereno’s legacy, to me, is that when confronted with that profound a conflict between moral and fiduciary duties, we need to rise above and do the right thing whether it costs us our jobs, our positions, our reputations. Sometimes the wrong is so great that we cannot allow our ego and pride to stand in the way of that right action.

When your name is on a company, a building, or is immortalize in a statue, you have a greater responsibility as well: Legacy.

My family name is on several buildings, is associated closely to an industry. I have family members immortalized in statue.

When they did the wrong things, when they chose self-interest and self-preservation as the easier way, they tarnished that name and destroyed legacies.

There is no easy way out here. I suppose we can look to history for quotes and answers:

The price of greatness is responsibility.

– Winston Churchill

And, we need to reintroduce humility as a concept to live by: We need to stop building statues to living people; Politicians need to stop naming buildings for themselves.

It was said so perfectly on Meet the Press this morning:

“We should not put up statues of living people. You are going to make yourself a hostage to fortune.”

Law firms will always be named after lawyers, which means that there is a greater responsibility on those named on the door and on the letterhead to do the right thing.

A personal scandal might harm the firm, but it can recover.

A public scandal can destroy the firm, causing it to close within months, tarnishing the reputations of all involved, and causing financial hardships to many.

While I do believe that to move forward Paterno’s statue needs to come down, I just hope that we never forget his true legacy.

I know you won’t believe this, but I was a shy kid. Painfully shy. One of my clearest memories is when I was around six-years old, at my brother’s Eagle Scout ceremony, and hiding under my mom’s poncho (it was the 70s).

I remember in junior high standing around and physically gagging, not being able to speak in a group of girls.

It started to turn around, just a little bit, when I discovered theatre arts in high school.

While I enjoyed performing on a stage, I also enjoyed the divide between me and the audience. I liked being seen, but from afar. No social interactions for me, thank you very much.

That carried through into my college years, and manifested itself in many ways.

I thought all of thise made me an introvert, by nature.

Turns out, my definitions of extrovert (outgoing, gregarious person) and introvert (a shy person) were too narrow.

Earlier this week, my buddy Mike O’Horo threw out the psychological definition of extrovert, which included the gem below, on my Facebook wall, and it made me go “Hmmmm.”

They tend to be energized when around other people …

Yeah, that sounds like me.

It had me go in search of a deeper understanding of what it means to be an extrovert.

I have clung to this old idea that an extrovert is an outgoing person. Which, I still have a hard time seeing as being me, as the memories of that shy girl are still so vivid in my mind.

But this idea that an extrovert gets their energy from external interactions, I GET that. It makes sense. Click. Click. Click. The connections started to come together.

Early in my career I went through the Myers-Brigg exercise. I was an  ENTJ. But I always had a problem with that E. Extrovert. It didn’t fit that girl hiding under her mom’s poncho, paralyzed by fear to speak in a group, or be seen.

From the ENTJ definition above:

ENTJs love to interact with people. As Extroverts, they’re energized and stimulated primarily externally. There’s nothing more enjoyable and satisfying to the ENTJ than having a lively, challenging conversation. They especially respect people who are able to stand up to the ENTJ, and argue persuasively for their point of view. There aren’t too many people who will do so, however, because the ENTJ is a very forceful and dynamic presence who has a tremendous amount of self-confidence and excellent verbal communication skills. Even the most confident individuals may experience moments of self-doubt when debating a point with an ENTJ. (emphasis added)

Yeah I’m down with that.

Turns out that the extrovert in me, and that shy girl, were one in the same, and lived in harmony for years.

I get my energy from you. From external interactions. Shy and extrovert, it turns out, were not mutually exclusive.

I left that shy girl behind many years ago, and found my confident voice, but, for some reason, I have not been able to let go of this old idea that I was (don’t laugh) still that shy girl. I jokingly “confess” to people that I am, by nature, anti-social.

I really cannot say that any more.

So, please, let me introduce myself:

Hi, I’m Heather, and I am an extrovert.

I know I’ve covered this topic before, but I had another reminder this week about how you should be living your passion. And, if you don’t know what your passion is, you need to find it.

What do I mean by that?

When you love what you do, or who you do it for, it shows. People notice. It differentiates you.

If you hate your job, or are just going through the motions, people notice. It’s a turn off. Rather than exude energy, you suck it out of the room.

My friend Nancy Myrland exemplifies living her passion. As do Jayne Navarre, and Tim Corcoran. You can say the same about Catherine MacDonough, and Keith Wewe. The list can go on and on.

And all these people have something in common. The Legal Marketing Association (LMA). We are all passionate about what we do for a living, we enjoy what we do. And, we do it well.

It’s what differentiates LMA from any other professional association that I know of.

But, if stuck in an elevator, if I told a group of people that my passion was working with lawyers, they’d wonder if they’d walked into a scene out of Devil.

I get it.

A little over five years ago I worked for an AmLaw 100 law firm and I was MISERABLE. It had nothing to do with my firm; I had lost my passion.

My solution was to took some time off through that summer to try and recapture my passion and my enthusiasm.

By mid-summer I realized I loved what I did for a living. I loved the people I get to work with, especially my close friends who I have met through my professional association (LMA).

I didn’t want to leave my industry, but I needed to find a balance between my passion for legal marketing, and the passion I had for the rest of my life.

The passion I live is not limited to legal marketing.

I am passionate about being a mom, and a Girl Scout Leader.

I am passionate about music, sports, and my family.

I am passionate about the Sports Dude and still am amazed that the boy I fell in love with when I was just 16 is the man I am married to today.

My life has its ups and downs. Whose doesn’t. But without that passion to guide me through to the next day, well, I’d be sucking the life out of the world around me as well.

Congratulations, you are now a Tier One, Preeminent, Super, Bestest, wonder-var lawyer … wanna buy a plaque?

Yes, Hollywood has their award season, and lawyers seem to have their blowing smoke season as well. According to how many plaque companies are contacting me right now, I’d say we’re in the thick of things.

Meryl Streep got an Oscar; lawyers get to purchase a plaque for $199.

Oscar Award Winning Actress

I must admit, I do buy a plaque here and there.

They’re on display in the lobby. They look nice. Like the floral bouquet, or the morning paper.

It gives those in the lobby, waiting, something to look at, besides the view.

But what is really irking me today are the letters my lawyers are getting from ALM. You know, the folks who send me seven copies of everything.

Yet, for once, I get nothing. I actually had to send an e-mail to the sales person and ask: “To whom in my office have you sent this?”

Come on, ALM (who will never read this, because they never do), do a better job at communicating with us legal marketers.

You want our ad dollars.

You want us to buy your products.

You want us to make our lawyers available to your reporters.

And, yet, you will circumvent us for a plaque.

I’m at the Hildebrandt/West LegalEdcenter “Social and Digital Media for Law Firms 2012” conference. Lots of great content.

But the BEST thing I have heard today came from my buddy Amy Knapp, Knapp Marketing (@knappmarketing).

We’re talking about the ol’ hub & spoke. Website (for me the blogs) in the center, with Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, etc. pointing towards that.

Amy challenged us that the model is old and outdated.

CONTENT is the center of the hub, with everything pointing to it, especially JD Supra and Lexology.

I’ll give Amy credit three times, then the idea will just morph into one of mine. So far, two down, Amy.