A lot of lawyers, and I’m sorry to say, legal marketers, continue to ignore or poo-poo social media and social networking. Take in mind that many of these people also resisted e-mail, websites, Blackberries, bright white letterhead and colored logos.

Well, the numbers have been rolling in this month, and I don’t see how anyone can continue to ignore social media and social networking.

Individual stats like Facebook passing the 400 million user mark, Twitter hitting 50 million tweets per day, and YouTube viewers watching 1 billion videos per day are impressive on their own, but what if we looked at Internet-related stats collectively? Jesse Thomas did just that in his video State of the Internet.

JESS3 / The State of The Internet from Jesse Thomas on Vimeo.

I was chatting recently with an attorney who is preparing for a hearing on an issue that could have industry-wide implications. The issues have already received media attention, so the question was “what should he do?” Here’s the advice I gave to the attorney — Get out in front of the story:

  • Identify the reporters who have already written on this specific case or issue. Include both those who have been favorable to the issue, and even those who have not been.
  • Contact the reporters the day prior to your hearing. In advance of the conversation, let them know that the information is embargoed until the next day, but that you have a hearing coming up on an important issue to the case. Provide them enough details to peak their interest, and get the story started, but not to reveal any confidentialities, or information that might damage your argument if they are leaked. Make certain to note their deadlines.
  • As soon as the hearing has concluded, make certain to email over to the reporters copies of any court documents. If a reporters deadline is approaching, reach out and make certain they have everything they need.
  • Have a client statement prepared for, or client representative available to speak to, the reporter to fill in the details.
  • Have extra hard copies of your briefs, press releases, back up documentation, etc. available with you.
  • Have a blog post prepared and ready to go immediately once court is adjourned. You can always go back and update the blog post later in the day. Make certain to have PDFs of all relevant court documents, press statements, back up documentation, etc. uploaded.

I don’t know about the reporters at your local papers, but the LA Times has seen more layoffs than, well, most papers I know. With reporters under tighter constraints and operating with fewer resources, help them out. Give them a head’s up when a “story” is about to break. Become that trusted resource. If the issue is being argued in open court, has industry-wide implications, is note- or gossip-worthy, than it will be written about with or without your assistance in major news publications, legal and industry journals, and blogs. And there are so many legal blogs out there now, from “news” publications, such as JD Journal to “gossip” blogs, such as Above the Law, not to mention the plaintiff firms’, which are very popular and can be quite damaging, as well as strong “influencers” to the “hard” news So, why not get out in front and control the message and the distribution of the information as best you can? If the story is negative to your client or issue, you might be able to mitigate some of the potential damage by being a friendly resource. It’s been said that there is no such thing as bad press. I will argue that there is, and that’s seeing “no comment” or “the representative/attorney did not return our call.”

DISCLAIMER: Make certain that anything you do in regards to speaking with the press is done with the express knowledge, agreement and consent of your client. A client might want to “sit” on the story, or they might have specific roles they would like you, their lawyer, to take when it comes to handling the press. A press release on a matter should be approved and signed off (in writing) before posting or distribution. In other words, WORK WITH YOUR CLIENT on any and all message points.

Yesterday I wrote how some BigLaw firms are showing flat/down revenue, but an increase in profits. I don’t begrudge anyone making a profit, but let’s show some transparency about it all.

Today I came across JD Journal‘s reporting on my new #1 Favorite! Blank Rome Posts Across-the-Board Increases:

Blank Rome reports having a very solid 2009 as annual revenue was up 3 percent and profits per equity partner (PPP) jumped 13 percent. Gross revenue came in at $322 million, up from $312 million in 2008; and PPP rose from $588,000 to $667,000. Revenue per lawyer was also up 8 percent from $609,000 to $657,000. Co-chairman Alan Hoffman told the Philadelphia Business Journal that the firm had strong years from its offices in Los Angeles, Hong Kong and Princeton. He also added that PPP could have actually been increased by 26 percent, but the firm elected to take $12.5 million in profits to pre-pay some 2010 expenses. The number of full-time lawyers at Blank Rome actually declined from 512 to 490 and equity partners fell from 160 to 156. Blank Rome has eight offices in the United States and Hong Kong.

That’s all fine and dandy! I especially like hearing the part where the firm pre-paid 2010 expenses to keep the PPP down. They’re only recognizing an 8% increase in PPP, rather than a 26% increase. Wow! I bet some laterals are scrambling to get their CVs over to them as I type this. But how soon we forget these numbers, via Law Shucks:

  • 1/16/2009 – 12 attorneys laid off
  • 3/12/2009 – 79 people laid off – 27 attorneys/52 staff

Here’s the March 2009 statement made by Blank Rome, via Above the Law,

Global economic conditions continue to affect businesses in all sectors of the economy. As we face these unprecedented challenges, Blank Rome remains focused on new and innovative ways to provide value and excellent service to our clients. As a result, our core business is, and remains, strong. The Firm’s leadership recently engaged in a comprehensive review of our staffing levels. This review led us to conclude, regrettably, that further adjustments to our associate and staff complements were necessary. Specifically, we have reduced our complement of associates by 27 people and our staff complement by 52 people. In addition, the Firm has also determined that our Summer Associate program for 2009 should be reduced from ten to six weeks, and that the starting date for our Fall associates should be deferred until at least January 2010. We recognize the effect these actions will have on the individuals and their families, as well as our Firm. Although these types of decisions are difficult, we are confident that our actions this week were prudent, and have been made in the best interest of Blank Rome, our lawyers and staff, and our clients.

I’m sorry to call out Blank Rome. I’m sure they’re a nice firm. I’ve had friends who have worked there. But I didn’t realize laying off 91 people in the worst recession the country has faced since the Great Depression is considered one of the “new and innovative ways to provide value and excellent service” to your clients. If you’re all about making a buck, then go for it. Just be honest and transparent about it. Don’t use the recession and “client value” as cover for getting rid of staff and attorneys.

Oh, it’s gonna be a good AmLaw 100 issue this year if these new numbers are an indication of what we’ll be seeing across the board.

Before I jump into my rant, I have to clarify that I’m a capitalist pig. I believe that one of the things that makes our country so great is the opportunity to make a damn fine living and buy really neat stuff. I don’t begrudge anyone, or any business, that opportunity. I believe in personal responsibility and will always shy away from corporate or government “welfare” programs. So, bring on the rant: As the readers of this blog know, starting in late 2008 we saw the beginning of a Tsunami of layoffs in the legal industry that resulted in more than 14,000 legal industry jobs lost (so far). A larger percentage overall compared to layoffs in other industries. The country is still in a deep recession from which we’re just beginning to recover (depending on who you ask). And I haven’t even mentioned the condition of our clients’ companies and their industries. And through it all I supported many of the law firm layoffs. It’s like pruning a rose bush. Sometimes you have to trim those things bare before they can grow. However, I did warn you that there were firms cutting staff and younger attorneys to protect the Profits Per Equity Partner (PPEP).

My take is that we will continue to see “right-sizing” throughout the year. Many of these decisions will be necessary to the health and future of a firm, others will be made to preserve the Profits Per Equity Partner (PPEP). Time will tell, especially in May when the new AmLaw 100 ranks are released.

Did I call it or what???? I hope every general counsel out there is following these stories and tracking to see if their “Go-To” law firm is amongst the ranks of “revenue down/profits up.” I don’t get it. Personally, I would have reinvested the money into the firm to show a flat year. But, hey, these are most likely the same firms that are raising their hourly rates. UPDATE: Here are more revenue down/profits up for Paul Hastings and Sidley.

I will be co-presenting at the Legal Marketing Association‘s annual conference (March 10-12 | Denver, CO), along with the esteemed Jayne Navarre and Russell Lawson on Social Media Strategies for Small to Mid-sized Law Firms (Thursday, 4:00 – 4:45). Each of us jumped into social media and social networking with both feet and we haven’t looked back. We’ve blogged on the topics here, here and here. We’re regulars on Twitter, LinkedIn, MH Connected, and Legal OnRamp. We’re checking out the Wave and the Buzz to discern the applicability to the legal industry. We’ve spoken at different conferences, radio programs, webinars and seminars for different audiences across the country. And while we’re all three great friends, and forward thinking, we don’t always agree. Which makes this all so interesting. So, we’re ready to move the conversation to the next level. No more “you really should be doing social and this is why.” No more “what is Twitter” or “why should I have a blog.” This program is designed for the senior marketer who is already engaged in social media and social networking. As moderator (and participant) of the session, Jayne has posted her outline on her Virtual Marketing Officer blog. Take a look. What are we missing? What would you like to hear from us? Now’s your chance to speak up … your ideas are welcome! I’m looking forward to seeing you in Denver. And, if you can’t make it, not to worry, you can follow the conference at #lma10.

As an in-house legal marketer I am always challenged by the partner who is “too busy to market.” Her plate might be too full (at the moment). He has family obligations outside the office (always my personal excuse). However, one day they’re going to wake up and wonder “where have all my clients gone?”

I learned early on in my career that marketing and business development are not about today, they are about tomorrow. It’s about keeping that pipeline filled. It’s about knowing that when your big class-action, that you’ve been billing 95% of your time to for the past three years, suddenly settles, you’re not left in the lurch. Ask yourself, what would you do if you #1 client is acquired, or your key-client contact is promoted or retires?

Yes, you’re too busy to market. I’m too busy to market. We’re all too busy to market. But, we need to do it EVERY DAY nonetheless.

I’ve asked some of my colleagues to offer their suggestions as to how they encourage their “too busy to market” partners to market.And, SHOCK, I’m not even going to bring up social networking. We’re going Old Skool today!

Here are a few suggestions from me to kick things off:

Offer to collaborate with your key contacts.
If you are writing an article, presenting at a conference, get your key clients’ input and advice on your outlines, themes, etc. This automatically elevates your client into your inner-circle. This blog post is a prime example of this. Continue Reading Too Busy to Market? We Don’t Think So

There have been a lot of stories out “there” recently, you know, in corporate America and beyond, that can be reflected upon by lawyers and legal marketers as to their applicability for our legal marketing, advertising, reputation management and PR efforts.

There’s Apple‘s apparent lack of women (diversity) when naming and rolling out the iPad. They keep thinking it’s going to blow over, but, from the posts I continue to read, I’m not seeing the women out there being too forgiving. There’s the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad and how the opponents to the ad over-reacted, thereby giving Pam Tebow and Focus on the Family the PR “win.” And, while the Toyota brake recall will never find a true comparison in the legal world, there are lessons in crisis management that we can all look at. Caroline McDonald wrote in her article, Toyota, Tylenol Recalls ‘Worlds Apart,’ Crisis Mgt. Expert Says,

[Chris] Gidez [director of risk management and crisis communications at Hill & Knowlton] explained that while there are several phases to this type of crisis—Toyota is currently in the “acute phase,” which will recede as the next sensational story moves in. “The good news for companies is that the amount of time of these stories is compressed,” he said.
After Toyota closes the “acute” chapter, “There will be many, many months or years of the ‘chronic’ phase, where they will deal with the fallout—the litigation, the issues of product repair and the issue of having to invest in winning back consumer confidence.”
He added, “But this is a company that didn’t get to where they are for lack of smarts. They are a smart bunch of people. They’ll pull through, but it will be a new normal.”
What are the lessons for reputation risk managers?
• Try to regain control of the agenda as quickly as possible. While this is easier said than done, as long as others are driving the conversation, companies will be in a reactive mode.
• Understand the speed at which information now moves and adjust to it. The time allowed to make decisions is now measured in minutes, not hours or days.
• Anticipate the course of the situation and plan for it.

• Connect with your audience emotionally. Fear and anxiety are far more powerful than reason. You won’t get very far in connecting with people rationally until you can address peoples’ emotions.

In 2007 John Henry Browne, a criminal defense attorney, claimed that his Avvo.com rating of 3.7 was damaging his practice. He filed a lawsuit against Avvo, but it was dismissed on pre-trial motion.

In 2008 attorney Charles Krugel wanted to cancel his membership and un-claim his Avvo profile, on the grounds that Avvo was biased against small firms and solos. Avvo responded to his request by saying, “Now that you have claimed your profile it cannot be un-claimed.”

A recent post by Jay Fleischman says that many attorneys live in fear of a bad review on Avvo.

In my opinion the hoopla over Avvo is unwarranted.

There is a more popular review system that is being overlooked, and that is the Google Local Business review.

Sure Avvo received 600,000 unique visitors in December 2009. But 600,000 pales in comparison to Google’s stats. According to Google’s keyword tool, the December 2009 search volume for the word lawyer was 11,100,000. And when people run a Google search query on the word “lawyer” combined with a geographic region like “Chicago” they come face to face with Google local business results. The results include a map, firm names, and firm reviews.

It takes 10 minutes for a firm to set up a free profile in the Google Local Business Center. It takes even less time for a satisfied customer to post a review on Google. Your satisfied client just has to click on “write a review.” They don’t even have to set up an account, as they do on Avvo, to submit a review.

The bottom line is that lay people are not likely to go straight to Avvo.com to find a lawyer, and it does not come up on the first page when you search with a phrase like “New York employment lawyer.” What does come up, when you search for “New York employment lawyer” is a map and some firm names. Try it for yourself and you will see that point B on the map is for the Blanch Law Firm, and they have 10 glowing reviews.

I’m not advocating that lawyers ditch Avvo.com. I am all for tools that allow consumers to rate products and services. I am simply suggesting that a free, extremely visible review tool should not be ignored.

By: Kelly Spradley, VP of Marketing and Sales at Impirus
www.impirus.com/

(To submit a guest post, please contact me at legalwatercooler@gmail.com. Remember, no hard sales for your company … just write about stuff that’s interesting for members of the legal industry … and don’t take yourself too seriously.)

A big buzz word these days is “transparency” and what it means. For me, transparency on a blog and in social media is the foundation for the trust we are attempting to build with our reader.

I like how Social Wayne describes transparency in social media:

Transparency in social media especially pertaining to blogging and covering a product, brand or service means that’s I’m giving you an honest non-biased opinion or truth when I write or cover a particular topic. Online this can mean that, I am who I say I am online and that my reason for posting or having a discussion about a product, brand or service does not have any hidden agendas. Or if I’m posting or having a discussion about a product, brand or service and was paid or hired to do so, you’ll know about it up front or it will be included in the conversations.

Which brings me to ghost-blogging and legal ethics, which popped up in Legal Blog Watch’s Ghostbusters of the Blawgosphere Take Aim at ‘Ghostblogging’:

It feels like a debate that has been going on for weeks, but it was just Thursday of last week when attorney/ghostbuster Mark Bennett wrote on his Social Media Tyro blog about “ghostblogging.” Bennett wrote that “[h]olding someone else’s resume, face, or results out as your own in marketing your practice is fraudulent. No ethical lawyer could possibly think that any of that would be okay. So how is it okay for a lawyer to hire a ghostwriter to write his blog?”

I’m not going to address the back story of this blog post, you can read that for yourselves. However, the idea of ghost-blogging does bring up legal ethics, as defined by our state bar associations. In a post yesterday, Use your blog to tell a story, I stated that in California it is not ethical for an attorney to use the term “expert” or “specialist.” Call me old school, but it’s a conservative interpretation of Section D of the California Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1-400 Advertising and Solicitation:

(D) A communication or a solicitation (as defined herein) shall not:
  1. Contain any untrue statement; or
  2. Contain any matter, or present or arrange any matter in a manner or format which is false, deceptive, or which tends to confuse, deceive, or mislead the public; or
  3. Omit to state any fact necessary to make the statements made, in the light of circumstances under which they are made, not misleading to the public; or
  4. Fail to indicate clearly, expressly, or by context, that it is a communication or solicitation, as the case may be; or
  5. Be transmitted in any manner which involves intrusion, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats, or vexatious or harassing conduct.
  6. State that a member is a “certified specialist” unless the member holds a current certificate as a specialist issued by the Board of Legal Specialization, or any other entity accredited by the State Bar to designate specialists pursuant to standards adopted by the Board of Governors, and states the complete name of the entity which granted certification.

I am not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one at the water cooler, but I would think ghost-blogging might be frowned upon via sections D-1 (you didn’t write it), D-2 (you didn’t write it), and, D-3 (you didn’t write it). Yes, there is the argument that associates write content for partners to slap their names on, but in our firm, and other firms I have worked at, the partners are usually involved in the writing process, if only serving as a senior editor, and the associates do get credit for their work product. The product, however, is collectively and solely produced by the firm. So I’ll ask the same questions posed by Bruce Carton:

  • Is it ethical to have a ghostblogger secretly write your blog?
  • If not, what if you disclose that fact somewhere on the blog?
  • Is there anything wrong with ghostbusters such as Bennett highlighting and linking to a page on the LGB Web site that publicly lists its clients?
  • If not, would it be appropriate for ghostbusters to “out” people who secretly use ghostbloggers?

So, Coolerites, what say you??

On Friday, January 29th, 2010, Bob Ambrogi, Jay Jaffe and Heather Morse-Milligan were guests on Maureen Kedes’ PR Insider discussing lawyers and PR; the move away from “traditional” public relations towards reputation management; oh, and how social media can play a part in all of this.

You can listen to “Yes, Lawyers need Publicists too,” or download the MP3 or via iTunes.