I have a lot to be grateful and thankful for this year. In addition to the usual friends and family, I have to go ‘Cooler style and thank the following people who have been so instrumental in my legal marketing career:

And last, but really first, always – Jayne Navarre. She encouraged me one morning to start a blog. The Legal Watercooler was up and running by the end of that day. She continues to encourage, inspire and teach me!

Have a wonderful, healthy and happy Thanksgiving.

Well, nothing like a bout of the IRS to make you thankful for …. um, well, actually that’s not quite right.

It’s more like, nothing like The Muppets doing Bohemian Rhapsody to make you forget your bout with the IRS.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbNymZ7vqY&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

From time-to-time I pull together a reading list of business books and share with my peers. Here’s the last list from May 2008. Since so much has changed in the business world, from the recession to the advent of social media, it’s time to update the list. So, what are your 5 favorite business books?? They can be recent publications (Outliers, Socialnomics) or classics (Good to Great, Selling the Invisible). They can be autobiographies, sales books, productivity, marketing, PR, etc. I’ll pull the lists together, and will post the Top 20 over at the Legal Watercooler. To get you started, here are mine: 1. Trust Agents – Brogan 2. Selling the Invisible – Beckwith 3. Getting Things Done – Allen 4. Outliers – Gladwell 5. Talking 9 to 5 – Tannen

Post your selections in the comments section, or email me directly at legalwatercooler@gmail.com. Oh, and don’t worry about listing a book someone else has recommended … that’s how the Top 20 list is determined!

Google Scholar launched last night. Wow. I know the sales reps at LexisNexis and Westlaw are not having a good morning.

What is Google Scholar? Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts and articles, from academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories, universities and other scholarly organizations. Google Scholar helps you identify the most relevant research across the world of scholarly research. Features of Google Scholar

  • Search diverse sources from one convenient place
  • Find papers, abstracts and citations
  • Locate the complete paper through your library or on the web
  • Learn about key papers in any area of research

I’ve just started playing around, and will be sending the links over to my attorneys to get their impressions, but, well, WOW!! You can search by case, by topic, by legal issue. You can get Federal and/or state results. You can get articles and journal entries, and I am hoping blogs and other conversations will come in time. I know that Google Scholar is still in Beta, but … WOW!! Legal Research has entered a whole new millennium.

I was watching Akeelah and the Bee with my daughter last weekend when Laurence Fishbourne’s Dr. Larabee challenged Akeelah’s grammar when she used the word “dissing” (only words found in the dictionary were acceptable during their lessons). To paraphrase the scene, Akeelah rushes over to the dictionary, looks up the word “diss,” reads the definition, and proceeds to lecture Dr. Larabee that new words are added to the dictionary every year. Well, coolerites and grammar bees, from The Oxford American Dictionary, here are some new words for you to embrace as grammaticaly correct and available for polite discourse: 2009 Word of the Year:

unfriend – verb – To remove someone as a ‘friend’ on a social networking site such as Facebook

Word of the Year Finalists (who knew there were finalists, lol):

Technology

  • hashtag – a # [hash] sign added to a word or phrase that enables Twitter users to search for tweets (postings on the Twitter site) that contain similarly tagged items and view thematic sets
  • intexticated – distracted because texting on a cellphone while driving a vehicle
  • netbook – a small, very portable laptop computer with limited memory
  • paywall – a way of blocking access to a part of a website which is only available to paying subscribers
  • sexting – the sending of sexually explicit texts and pictures by cellphone

And notable word clusters include some Twitter favorites:

  • Tweeps
  • Twibe
  • Tweetup
  • Tweeple
  • Twitt
  • Tweepish
  • Twitterati
  • Tweetaholic
  • Twitterature
  • Twittermob
  • Twitterverse/sphere
  • Twitterhea
  • Retweet

It was only yesterday that I was blogging on how law firms should consider lowering billing rates as part of their marketing mix. And this morning I see that Reed Smith has cut billing rates by 20 percent. Yes, they are cutting associate salaries, but they are also cutting the billable hour requirements to allow for, gasp, more training:

Reed Smith Global Managing Partner Gregory B. Jordan said the moves were in response to a very clear message from clients and the marketplace. “As part of the reset that’s going on in the business world, clients are expecting their law firms to drive their costs down,” Jordan said. One of the biggest areas of friction was starting salaries for entry-level associates, he said. And it’s really the rates that most directly affect cost, so the firm decided to take a swing at both, he said. As part of the reduction in salary and billing rates, first-year associates will also see a reduction in their billable hour targets from 1,900 to 1,700 hours. That was done in part, Jordan said, to ensure they could take advantage of the new training programs that go along with the competency-based advancement model.

I say, kudos to Reed Smith. You’re listening to your clients, adjusting your business model, and you are doing so in a transparent manner.

For those not in the know, the “Marketing Mix” is also known as the 4 Ps of Marketing, which are: Product, Price, Place (distribution) and Promotion. There is chatter about a 5th P – Participation, but that’s not what this post is about.

We’re going to talk a little bit about Price today.

Price is what you charge for your services. In the legal industry, this is more commonly known as the “billable hour” and is charged to the client in 6/10ths of an hour increments.

Price is also reflective of the VALUE of your services. What can you get people to pay you to do X?

I don’t know if you’ve read the paper recently, but U.S. unemployment rates have hit 10.2%, the highest in 26 years, with the legal sector losing 5800 jobs in October alone. More banks have been taken over by the government, nine on October 30th alone, bringing the total to 115 (and growing). California has raised the withholding tax on personal incomes, raised sales taxes, and while property values went down in the state, everyone’s property taxes seemed to go up this year. And, law firm layoffs and deferrals continue.

In fact, according to The National Law Journal (subscription required), it hasn’t been pretty for the nation’s top 250 firms:

This year, headcount dived by nearly 4% — or, as Associate Editor Leigh Jones notes in her overview on this year’s results, enough to fill a couple of huge law firms.

Actually, the numbers are even more stark. For 20 years, the average annual growth rate for the NLJ 250 has been close to 4%. So this year’s decline, when coupled with the usual growth rate, is more like 8%. In rough terms, that’s 10,000 lawyers.

All year, we’ve heard how different in scope this recession has been. And this year’s NLJ 250 shows exactly how tough the legal business has become.

In addition to the layoffs, deferrals, salary & bonus freezes, I have seen stories here and here of BigLaw lawyers leaving to set up shop, specifically to lower their rates.

So let’s bring this post around to the point: PRICING.

I was trained on the adage of: If a client comes to your firm on price, they will leave your firm on price.

As a free-market capitalist, I never really got that one. Shouldn’t the market drive the value of, and the pricing of, the rates? In reality, are rates not arbitrarily decided upon by a committee in some firm’s main office? How else do you account for rates automatically rising x% year after year? My favorite is how in some big firms, partners of equal experience charge different rates, and associates are paid differently, based on their location (New York v. Houston, for instance).

With all of this swirling around in my head, I became so perplexed by the following advice I read on What About Clients:

Don’t lower rates to get business. Don’t change anything. If a new client–especially via an in-house lawyer (but we doubt you’ll see this happen)–demands a “discount” these days, it is likely both unsophisticated and a pain in the ass. Refer it to that firm down the street you just never liked.

Ouch. Makes me wonder: what about the client?? Many corporate legal departments are being hit hard, because their companies are being hit hard. Legal departments, similar to the marketing department, are seen as cost centers whose budgets are always on the line. Corporate legal departments are laying off staff, dealing with cutbacks, lower corporate profits. General counsel jobs are on the line, and their budgets are being cut.

So, what about the client? In a down economy, when budgets are cut, when law firms don’t have enough work to cover the costs of doing business, and are laying off staff, why is idea of lowering rates automatically off the table? Should the advice not be: Don’t say “no” to reducing your rates too fast?

I’m not saying lose money on any work that you are doing. If it costs you $250,000 to get the job done, don’t charge $150,000. But, if it costs you $150,000 to get the job done, don’t charge $250,000 either.

Clients, like law firms, are not cash cows. The economy has changed. The Product of legal services has changed. The value of legal services has been readjusted. And, in many cases, so too must the Pricing.

For those of you on my Facebook, or who follow me on Twitter, you know how proud I am that my DD1 (darling daughter #1) was elected vice president of her student body at the local elementary school. What astounds me, however, is the speech that my 4th grader wrote, without my assistance, and how it aligns so well with what I’m trying to accomplish as a legal marketer, and as the author/editor of The Legal Watercooler.

Good afternoon fellow students of ____________ School. I am ______ Milligan from Room 15 and today I am running for vice president. Here are some reason you should vote for me over my worthy opponents. First, I am friendly. I have many friends that are usually ready to help me.

1. Differentiate yourself without tearing down your opponent. 2. Be friendly. People like to hire and work with people who are friendly. Yes, there is always a need for the bull-dog litigator, but be the guy or gal that your client would enjoy having a beer with, taking in a game, or hanging out until 3:00 a.m. in trial preparation.

Second, I care. I want to hear your ideas! Just come to me with an idea you have thought over, and I’ll try to suggest it to the student council.

3. It’s about communication. Listen to your clients. Collaborate. Yes, you’re a great attorney, but others in your network have great ideas as well. Be open to the messages of others, whether your client, an associate, a paralegal, your assistant (your marketing professional).

Next, I try! I will really try to make this school better for you and everyone around you by getting a group of people together to clean up trash and leaves around the school. If we find any recyclables I would try to recycle them. I would love to keep our school clean.

4. Be a doer. Be proactive. Look for solutions to problems you clients might not realize they have yet. Use resources wisely. And, hey, recycle. It’s good for the environment!

Fourth, I’m funny. Last year we made yearbooks. Most people wrote that I was funny and that they could always count on me to cheer them up.

5. Don’t be a glum lot. There’s a reason there are so many lawyer jokes out there. People really don’t “look forward” to a call from their lawyer. It’s usually not good news. By inserting your personality into the relationship people will look forward to receiving a call from YOU!

Finally, I participate and I am willing. I am in extra curricular activities, like EcoStation. I am willing to help when you need help.

6. That’s right. Participate in what’s going on in your client’s world. Attend the conferences they attend. Be seen. Be present. And be authentic while doing all of this. 7. Be willing to do what you need to do. Be willing to help. Whatever it is. “Not my job” shouldn’t be part of your vocabulary, or your lifestyle. One thing I have learned is that I might not be the right person to handle the job tactically, but the attorneys I work with know that they can count on me to get the job done by finding the right resources. Be that person. Be the person that your clients can count on! 8. Don’t forget to participate in your own life. Round your life out! Have fun!!! Have something interesting to talk about!!! If all you do is work, all you have to talk about is work. And you don’t want to be “that guy” or “that girl.”

Thank you for your time. I hope these ideas help. Remember, to vote for me. KT 4 VP.

8. Don’t forget to toot your own horn and end things on a call to action. And, finally, from DD1’s proud mom: inspiration can be found anywhere. However, when we are so self-focused it is hard to see beyond our own noses. We need to learn how to put our egos aside, be of service, and share our accomplishments with those around us. Life is tough right now out there. Clients have needs that you might not be aware of. Take off your blinders. It’s not about how many new matters they open with you; the amount of hours you can bill. It’s about relationships. Learn how to be a person that people like and with whom people want to do business. Be collaborative, and don’t forget to have fun! And recycle.

Ever go to a cocktail party or conference reception and there’s “that guy” or “that girl” who monopolizes the conversation talking about work? You’re standing there, stuck. Drink in hand, you scan the room looking for an excuse to make a graceful escape.

I’m friends with “that guy” on Facebook. In fact, I’m friends with a few people like that on Facebook.

After a long day of meetings, formatting brochures, uploading blog posts, and being a legal marketer/therapist, I want to go to my Facebook page for a diversion. See what my friends are up to. Maybe catch an interesting article or two that I might have missed.

What am I finding these days?? My Wall is filled with posts from a few of these “friends.” The majority of posts are links to articles that I had already read through my Google Reader. Good articles, but no original content. I don’t want my Facebook Wall to become a legal marketing Reader. I have the Legal Marketing Reader for that.

Life is not always about work. And neither should social networking. It’s about getting to know you, my dear work colleagues, better.

Now, these are work colleagues I’m ranting about, so I can’t just “unfriend” them. That would be rude.

But Facebook has a solution!! Woo hoo! I’m just hiding all of their posts. I’m also ignoring their suggestions for other groups to join, people to friend, etc. Their credibility with me is gone. I’m blowing these people off and the worst part is: they don’t even know it.

Ok. So why the mini-rant here???

Don’t be “that guy” or “that girl.”

I’m not saying don’t post a lot to Twitter or Facebook. Just don’t be so work serious all the time. Be fun. Be friendly. Be helpful. Share a great blog post you wrote. Share a great article that is a MUST read. Hey, share some pictures from Halloween, or links to a concert you’re attending. Do be AUTHENTIC. Who are you?? Why should I get to know you better?? Why should I like you? Why should I trust you, your suggestions and links?? We’re talking about SOCIAL media and SOCIAL networking. If all you do is throw out links to articles, and requests to attend paid seminars, I’m not going to get to know, like or trust you. Worse yet, I’m going to ignore you by hiding you and your posts. I’ll also avoid you at that next cocktail party or reception.

Before I begin my take on the current incarnation of the Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings ™ system and its relationship to Martindale-Hubbell ® Connected, I’d like to make a few things clear:

  1. Anything I am about to say is nothing I haven’t said to Martindale-Hubbell and LexisNexis ® (the parent company) representatives directly, in private conversations, over the past several years.
  2. I have a lot of affection for the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings.
  3. I do not want to see this 140 year old brand die.
  4. These are my PERSONAL opinions and in no way shape or form reflect the opinions of my firm’s partnership and individual attorneys, or any guest bloggers of The Legal Watercooler.

In addition, it is NOT my intention, in this post, to address Martindale-Hubbell’s new Peer Review Ratings program, which I promise to address in a later post. Let’s just say that I think it’s a really, really, REALLY bad idea to start everyone off as an AV 5.0 and (potentially) re-review them DOWN over a 10-year period (according to Martindale-Hubbell’s Transformation Timetable).

For many years I have watched Martindale-Hubbell struggle with how to modernize and commoditize their 140-year old directory in a Web 1.0, and now a Web 2.0, world. The current incarnation seems to be based on the desire to have law firms subscribe to and fund Martindale-Hubbell Connected, a service whose end-users are in-house general counsel and private practice attorneys. Law firms will benefit as they will be part of Martindale-Hubbell’s Legal Network, which includes open directories such as www.martindale.com and www.lawyers.com.

From my vantage point, it is clear that Martindale-Hubbell is holding a lawyer’s AV Peer Review Rating hostage to drive “paid profiles in the Martindale-Hubbell directory,” which will give access to the “premium functions” within Martindale Connected, their answer to LinkedIn, Legal OnRamp, and other social networking sites. (Note: I cannot find a listing of what the “premium functions” are online. If someone has a link or a copy, please feel free to add to the comments section).

This is a pretty strong statement and here’s why I stand by it:

1. At the current time, more than half my firm’s partners are AV Peer Review Rated, with no input or effort by our firm.

2. Martindale.com, the directory of lawyers we have known to trust for the past 140 years, has a listing of over one million attorneys. According to their Web site:

Free access to the world’s leading network of legal contacts The centerpiece of the site is the Lawyer Locator, which provides instant access to the entire Martindale-Hubbell Legal Network. Users can search over one million lawyers and law firms in more than 160 countries by a variety of criteria — including name, geographic location, practice area, firm size, languages and more.

3. My lawyers are automatically included in this “leading network of legal contacts” whether or not they are Peer Review Rated. However, if my lawyer is Peer Review Rated I MUST PAY for their rating to show.

I want to make this really clear:

  1. Martindale’s network of lawyers includes hundreds of thousands of lawyers who are not subscribers to their services. I do not have the ratios of who is in the system v. licensed lawyers, but, for the most part, it appears that most corporate/business lawyers are included.
  2. Martindale rates attorneys of their own volition. In fact, Martindale will rate any lawyer; you just have to submit their contact information.
  3. An attorney does not have to be a subscriber to Martindale’s services, or any of the services provided by their parent company, to be rated by Martindale.
  4. However, when it comes to posting the rating information in their free on-line directories, where they are freely including my attorney’s contact information (and where I do not have the option to opt-out) Martindale WILL NOT disclose an attorney’s rating unless a firm pays 1) a full subscription fee to Martindale.com which can cost tens of thousands of dollars for the smallest of firms; or 2) a $59 “administrative fee” to add the AV Peer Review Rating to an individual attorney’s profile.

Oh, by the way, the $59 administrative fee, which has been available for the past two years, will be phased out as of 2010. Their beta test of charging $599 for an individual attorney to personally subscribe (in case their firm chooses not to) is also gone. So, my only option will be to pay for a full subscription to Martindale.com if I want my attorneys’ ratings to show.

In my opinion, this is the equivalent of either 1) pay-to-play; or 2) a ransom demand where my attorneys’ Peer Review Ratings are concerned.

Currently, I can include in my firm’s marketing materials and Web site that my attorneys are AV Peer Review Rated. However, this is a trademark owned by Martindale. For many, many years we were expressly FORBIDDEN to post the AV Peer Review Rating in any printed marketing collateral without a very long disclaimer, and on our Web sites. The ban on posting to Web sites has been lifted, but for how long??

I have about nine more months before I need to make my decision – do I subscribe to Martindale or not? However, I am preparing my 2010 budget right now. I can assure you one thing is certain: I will NOT be increasing my Martindale-Hubbell spend from $2500 to what will most likely be 10 times that amount or more.

And I have a special note to General Counsels or anyone using Martindale.com or Lawyers.com:

If you utilize the AV Peer Review Rating as part of your vetting process when hiring outside counsel, please know that your search results are incomplete, and, worse yet, misleading.