Earlier this week I got an e-mail from Jaffe Associates reminding me that although the 2008 Chambers USA Guide just came out, it’s time to start gearing up for 2009. Reminds me of all the back to school sales, in the middle of July. Didn’t summer vacation just start??

I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear this, but I hate directories and guides. Most are out there to cater to egos and sell advertising. But I respect Chambers & Partners and will take the time and prod my partners along to fill out their questionnaires. Why? Because Chambers actually solicits input about my partners and my firm from our clients, from your clients, along with our peers in the legal community. While there are things we can do to position ourselves for notice by Chambers, it’s pretty hard to manipulate the process.

It is the reputation of Chambers and the validity of their process that allows marketers to justify devoting so much of our time and efforts. In fact, there are several firms out there with full-time positions dedicated to Chambers and the like.

Ed Poll blogged on lawyer ratings this week and it reminded me of one of my great “ideas” for when I win the MegaMillions jackpot.

Last year I read that Zagat (the restaurant guide) has teamed with WellPoint (the health insurer) to create a ratings system for their doctors. How brilliant. Let the patients comment on trust, communication, availability and environment.

One of the nation’s largest health insurers, WellPoint, has teamed with Zagat Survey to let patients rate their doctors, just as diners rate restaurants in Zagat’s burgundy-colored guides.

Instead of Zagat’s four categories for restaurants — food, décor, service and cost — the ratings guide will consider trust, communication, availability and office environment. In addition to giving doctors a numerical score based on a 30-point scale, the site will include comments from patients.

I would love to see a brand like Zagat enter the legal services marketplace. Their brand alone would bring instant credibility and provide us (legal marketers, lawyers, law firms, etc) a wise alternative to Who’s Who, Best Lawyers, Super Lawyers, or Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious lawyers. And while newcomer AVVO is promoting their new ratings service for lawyers, from what I have seen, it is primarily consumer-based law, and not corporate, leaving a void to be filled.

An attorney guide by Zagat; now, that’s a guide I could get behind.

I might be kicking myself for this post later on in my career, but here it is: I am so offended by this panel at ALM Event’s CMO conference:

League Table Recognition: How to jump 10 spots on the AmLaw 100
One thing that brings out the competitive nature of CMOs and marketers everywhere is the desire to score high on the numerous law firm rankings that are published. Being named No. 1 as a corporate dealmaker or litigation firm is a huge marketing coup. On the other hand, marketers must grind through the laborious chore of compiling information for directories, some of which are created simply to sell advertising. Our panelists will identify which league tables really count and how to score high.

I have good friends and colleagues for whom I have the utmost respect speaking at this conference. They are the best of the best. I am just offended that, in my opinion, this panel 1) reduces my role as a thought leader at my firm to a competition to see who can be “named No. 1;” 2) minimizes the role of a senior member of the firm’s executive team as a task oriented position, and not a strategic one; and, 3) supports an activity that we all know will not increase the firm’s revenue.

I admit it. A ranking has the potential to enhance a firm’s reputation (amongst it’s peers anyway), but let’s also admit that they aren’t going to bring in new work (and I know top notch clients are “on to it.” They ignore it or see it as an ego trip – which it really is.).

And where is the “huge marketing coup” in league tables? Most league tables are based on number of deals or dollars. You’re just tracking and filling out paperwork. I have had colleagues who are paid good 6-figure salaries to spend their days tracking and filling out these forms. How relevant do you think those jobs are in a down economy?

But, most of all, I am offended by the sub-header: “How to jump 10 spots on the AmLaw 100.” Uggghhhh. I’ll save you the money. Merge. There you go. The AmLaw 100 rankings are based on revenue. That’s it. Mystery solved. Merge.

I liken the AmLaw 100 to crack for lawyers. I hang the posters on my office wall to entice unsuspecting attorneys into my office where I can then ensnarl them long enough to discuss some business development activity. It’s like a candy jar but without the calories.

The AmLaw 100 is also great fodder for gossip and innuendo. Have you ever been at a firm which has dropped in the rankings? I have. Lots of chatter behind closed doors going on in the office that day. And, can you imagine what would happen if Skadden lost their No. 1 position? The blogosphere would have a field day.

Unfortunately most lawyers don’t balance the AmLaw 100 rankings with the reality of getting there. This is especially true for 1st years. They just look at the numbers. Maybe that’s why “The larger law firms are reported to be losing 30, 40, 50 percent of associates after three to four years.”

I had a partner at a prior firm who would come into my office to check the rankings on a regular basis. He’d get off the phone with an old law school buddy who went to Kirkland & Ellis, or Simpson Thatcher, or darn it, that big-bad daddy, Skadden. He’d come in, check the numbers, and then compare them to what our firm’s numbers were that year.

I’d have to talk him down from the ledge:

“Yes, I know, but how many hours did you bill last year? My friend over at AmLaw 12 told me that his PARTNERS billed 2400 hours last year.”

“Yes, I know, but did your buddy get to go to Africa for two weeks this summer, with no cell-phone or BlackBerry?”

“Yes, I know, but what marriage is your buddy on??”

“I know, but when was the last time your buddy actually knew the client he was working for?”

So, call me Pollyanish, but I really believe that there has to be more value in being a lawyer. I truly believe that it can and should be about the quality of professional life and the work done for clients vs. being just a number.

I am intrigued by “tweeting.” You can do it, too, on Twitter.


Twitter is a free service that lets you keep in touch with people using the web, your phone, or IM. In Twitter, you can be a Follower of others, for whom you would receive updates, and you can be Followed, where others sign on to receive your updates. Messages are short (140 characters) and can be sent to Followers by these various distribution methods. Plus, you can update through Twitter from your phone, email or online at Twitter.com.

Twitter is another brainchild of Evan Williams. You’re reading this on one of his earlier platforms: Blogspot.

I’m imagining a law firm’s use of Twitter for marketing. My first thought is of the lawyer, who tweets her activities to a group of lawyer followers (practice/indutry group) or marketing/biz dev staff, instantly informing them when she’s entering court, visiting a client, taking a contact to dinner, meeting a new prospect. On the service side, I can think of another lawyer, whose client followers get a message as he files a brief, meets the opposing counsel, deposes a witness, hears a ruling.

I’m sure there are more creative uses that can be dreamed up. There’s a video that explains Twitter on commoncraft.com. If you’re interested, I found Paul Colligan‘s free Webinar (password=Webinars) extremely helpful.

My email is rlawson@sandsanderson.com. Send me an invite and I’ll follow you everywhere.
Thanks to my friends at Martindale for allowing me to preview the beta site for Martindale Connected. I was asked to do this to provide candor and feedback.
Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t think it is appropriate for me to share the specifics of what I saw and what I said, right now. In the end, that would not benefit the legal marketing community. My intentions are not to scoop any other blog as to the features of the new product, because Martindale isn’t finished and who knows where they’ll end up.
I hope that the comments I shared with them will be taken in the spirit given; I just want the best products out there that will help my attorneys do the best job they can for their clients. Contrary to others’ opinions, I am anything but Pollyanish.
(Sidebar – I tried to find the blog comment that accused
me of being Pollyanish when it came to the MH brand.
If anyone can send me the link, I’ll buy you a cup of coffee).
PRODUCT: Martindale Connected combines the best of what LexisNexis has to offer, in what could be a very cool social networking environment. Let me make myself clear: COULD BE.
But we all know that marketing is about four Ps and not only one. Martindale has the product, now they need to work on the pricing and promotion and placement.
PRICING: Web 2.0 is about sharing information in an open environment. We are now accustomed to, and expect, social networking to be open to all and free to the users. I am all for everyone making a buck, and making lots of them, but as Profnet v. HARO shows, a corporate giant cannot survive on a pricing model originally developed in the 80s, 90s or pre-Web 2.0. It’s time to get creative.
Jaffe Associates just released a White Paper, Web 2.0 and PR 2.0—The Way Jaffe Looks At The Present, that sums it up well:

Web 2.0 is all about sharing content—and lawyers and law firms generate a lot of useful content in the course of doing business. It is an ideal medium. Some popular examples:

  • The founders of Wikipedia built a site on wiki software, primed it with information that was already in the public domain, and then opened it up to the entire world.
  • The founders of LinkedIn, Facebook and MySpace put up social networking sites, and then opened them up to anyone who wants to post a profile and create a network.
  • YouTube did this for audio and video podcasts, and Flickr and Photobucket did it for photographs.
Martindale is in the position to do the same for lawyers. To quote Field of Dreams: “If you build it they will come.”
I believe that the right pricing model has the potential to get most of us to take a second look at Martindale, and open the doors to new customers. After seeing what I have seen, I would be the first to line up (and you know I would). The flip side is, without the right pricing model you are susceptible to other Web 2.0 products happy to fill a need you are not fulfilling, which can then over overtake your market share in a matter of months.
PROMOTION: LexisNexis and Martindale will have to go a long way to woo back clients and legal marketers. I have a list of law firms, including many from the AmLaw 100, who have discontinued Martindale listings.
I look forward to seeing how Martindale will work with the legal marketing community to embrace their new product. Because, let’s face it, we’re the ones who will be promoting the product in our firms, the costs will come out of our budgets, and, in most cases, we’ll be the ones managing the use.
PLACEMENT: Web 2.0 has shaken up the placement of products. There was a time when the only authoritative guide to lawyers was Martindale’s AV rating. That is no longer so. In Web 2.0 anyone with an idea, and basic knowledge of how the Internet works, can take an old idea and turn it into a multi-billion dollar company. Facebook and Google come to mind.
Right now LinkedIn and Legal OnRamp are connecting lawyers and purchasers of legal services. The Association of Corporate Counsel has a mission to reconnect the value of legal services to the cost of legal services. They want to connect counsel to regional lawyers, minority owned firms and boutiques. Did I mention that they want to CONNECT these people. Can’t wait to hear how they plan to do that.

I am one of the 16,600 people on Peter Shankman’s HARO (Help a Reporter Out) e-mail distribution. I joined on April 30th when there were about 800 members. Peter has obviously touched a nerve and has met a need that wasn’t being met, or wasn’t being met to its potential. It is amazing that someone with an e-mail distribution list can take on an established industry leader like ProfNet (with 14,000 members), overtaking it in a matter of months. ProfNet’s business model, to say the least, will now have to be revamped. Did I mention that HARO is free?

From Peter’s morning query today:

As I’m sure you’ve seen this morning, the next round of shots have been fired in the (As Media Bistro is calling it) “Profnet vs. HARO” war. I never started HARO to take on Profnet, but that’s what happens when something becomes successful, I guess. I started it because I thought reporters and sources needed a better way to connect, one that didn’t require paying a ton of cash, or wading through hundreds of off-topic or SPAM emails. As we blow past 16,600 members this afternoon, it would seem that I was right.

Check out the Industry Standard article for more details:

When skydiving PR guy Peter Shankman started the “Help a Reporter” group on Facebook last November, he thought his project could connect a few reporters up with sources for their articles. He didn’t expect his idea would garner clients like The New York Times, and challenge a long standing industry giant’s spot on top.

Help a Reporter Out, or HARO for short, is a mailing list with more than 16,000 members and dozens of source requests being sent out daily. It’s also a significant threat to the only other major source-finding game in town, PR Newswire’s ProfNet.

ProfNet, which reportedly costs upwards of $3,000 per year for potential sources, has a looming threat in HARO’s free model.

The threat began to materialize in March, when Shankman turned his project from a 684-person Facebook group into a full fledged three-times-per-day mailing list that was dead-simple to sign up for — and more importantly, free for both reporters and sources.

This brings me back to Martindale v. LinkedIn. I am excited that later today I get to see a sneak peek at Martindale Connected (scheduled to launch “in coming months”). But, is it too late? Has the “free” of LinkedIn replaced anything that Martindale can offer? I guess I’ll find out around 3:00 pm (Pacific) today.

But really, how come I never get these great ideas?

We (attorneys and legal marketers) are so ready to pounce and make the kill. Bring in that new client, new matter, or new case. Yes! We won the beauty contest. We got picked over Skadden. They like us, they really, really like us.
But it’s not really about us. It’s about the client. I loved Cheryl Bame’s comment to my post yesterday:

It’s about being a trusted and respected advisor with the skills and knowledge to get the job done. … It’s about excellent client service and remembering the other golden rule: The customer or client is always right.

I know this. It’s about the client. It’s about relationships. It’s about investing time and effort. It’s about providing a valuable service. And, I am as guilty as the next in forgetting it.
As a legal marketer, it’s about my attorneys. How do I make them look good? How do I help them become “known, liked and trusted” in their profession? How do I make their jobs easier today?
So, for today I’m bringing it back home (emphasis mine):
“Numerous surveys and studies tell us that clients hire lawyers (not law firms) and they hire lawyers they know, like and trust. Well, there it is! Marketing legal services is all about being known, liked and trusted by people in the position to hire or refer you. But relationships don’t happen by accident. They must be grown and cultivated over time.”
John Remsen, The Remsen Group

I don’t think a legal marketing conference should ever get away without a general counsel panel. I have never walked away without helpful new information or confirmation of theories I have.

Yesterday’s panel at LMA-LA’s Annual CME Conference, moderated by Peter Zeughauser, was no different. “Bridging the Gulf” Conversations with In-House Counsel” featured John Dent, VP and Senior Counsel, Hilton Hotels, Stuart L. Pardau, Associated General Counsel, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. and Ellen Rosenberg, Senior Counsel, Guitar Center.

One thing was made clear: As far as the generals counsel on this panel, the attorney/client relationship comes down to it’s their reputation on the line.

Here are a few highlights:

Client service: Mr. Pardau wants you to “deliver the goods. Good sound legal advice that is actionable.” He wants his attorneys to “be there” and “show up.” Snickers of the 30 page memo came up. Manage expectations; don’t over promise and under deliver. Mr. Dent doesn’t necessarily want it quick; he “wants it on time.” He is accountable to his internal clients, and by not meeting deadlines you put his reputation on the line.

Responsiveness: Everyone agreed that responsiveness remains a priority, and also one of their biggest pet peeves when it comes to their relationships with outside counsel. In this day and age, everyone is expected to have a cell-phone and BlackBerry. Ms. Rosenberg’s noted “if someone goes into a black-hole their credibility is lost.” They are not asking that you drop everything, every time, but acknowledge that you received the call/e-mail and when you’ll get back to them.

The Bills: According to Mr. Dent, “Cost is less important if you get what you pay for.” Just don’t argue about the bills, you’re not going to win. Ms. Rosenberg reminded the audience that they were all outside counsel at some point in their careers. They can read a billing statement. She acknowledges that “it’s always awkward to talk about money.” And, when a client has an issue with a bill, there is only one answer: Fix it. It’s not worth losing the trust of the client over a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. Mr. Dent added that “there is no lower value work than reviewing invoices. No better valued relationship than an attorney you can trust.” Get the bills right the first time.

Understand the client’s business: Do your homework. For publicly traded companies, the 10K has more information on the business than you’ll ever need to know. Sign up for press releases and news articles, either through the company website, or an online service like Google Alerts. Don’t limit your education while wooing the client, but remain on top of the clients’ business happenings throughout the relationship.

Directories: Greenberg Glusker CMO Jonathon Fitzgarrald’s question on directories the GC’s consult received a round of applause. All agreed that there are too many directories out there and that they look to see who is issuing the list before weighing the information. Chambers and Martindale AV ratings were the only two deemed respectable. The GCs understand that most directories are “pay-to-play” and give the others little to no weight. When the other directories arrive in the mail, Ms. Rosenberg admitted to “flipping through them to see who I might know, but not for reference.”

Take Away: For Mr. Dent it is about dialogue. “Pitching is a two-way conversation,” and that you should “learn their needs and service them.” He mentioned that no one has ever asked him how he selects outside counsel. Mr. Pardau reminded the audience that “there are no short cuts. It takes time to cultivate relationships.” Don’t just take him to lunch, talk at him for an hour and expect him to send you business. Ask questions and be patient. Follow up. And for Ms. Rosenberg, she wanted to stress that she expects her attorneys to “learn what the client needs and what is most important to them.” The key is “responsiveness.”

Off to LMA-LA’s annual CME today. While the whole program looks great, I’m really looking forward to Ross Fishman presenting on differentiating your firm & website, Jeffrey Henderson’s SEO presentation, and the GC panel moderated by Peter Zeughauser. Enjoy the video.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAIEYiK4Clc&hl=en&fs=1]

Oh, my phone is working again so call me!

I’ve said before that I’m a 2.0 kinda gal. Let some tech geek with no life be the guinea pig and work the kinks out of whatever new product. I can wait.

Should have waited for the 3.0 iPhone.

I have to admit that since I was FINALLY activated on Saturday, in an experience brought to you by the folks at AT&T who didn’t upload my NEW SIM card number into the system, I’ve been having fun (this was after waiting in line on Friday, only to be told the system was crashed and I would have to activate my phone at home later that afternoon, but couldn’t get it done until Saturday morning). All my e-mail accounts are there. Love the Internet capabilities. Traffic reports. I miss having my Outlook Tasks sync, but I can figure that one out.

Checked my e-mail this morning on my fully-charged phone; and it’s just another day in paradise. Took a shower and came back to a dead phone and this lovely picture:


After 3 calls to Apple and a very nice chat with Chad in Texas, it appears that I have one of those bad batteries my husband has been e-mailing me about.

And while statistics are based on over all populations, not individuals, I can tell you that my experience with my iPhone has sucked 100% (except when it’s working and I love it).

This afternoon I get to hang out at the Apple Store in Century City hoping someone is a no show for their scheduled appointment so I can get a replacement phone/new battery. Oh, joy. And it’s only day 6 (day 5 if you discount the day my phone didn’t work at all because of the SIM card fiasco).

So glad I’m not an attorney at a big firm who has been issued an iPhone in lieu of a pink slip. I can see it now: Sitting in the lobby of opposing counsel’s office wondering where everyone is for the big depo. Tapping on my newly charged iPhone not really knowing what that black & red warning light means. Hell, I just charged the damn phone so my battery really can’t be dead. Missing the e-mail from the senior partner that the depo location has changed. Pissing off the client, leading the firm to be fired and my ass thrown out on the street. All because of a bad battery.

Okay, that’s a bit dramatic, and I know I’m just venting my frustrations right now. But before law firms roll out iPhones to their attorneys, they’d better make sure the kinks are out of the system first. No use losing your IT credibility over a battery.

Having put in my dues at big law, I have to say I prefer the culture and work at small or mid-sized firms. With the rumors swirling about possible mega-firm mergers (Heller & Baker, Pillsbury & Nixon Peabody), I have to wonder what mergers like these are trying accomplish? Are they looking to save their firms, á la the Heller rumors? Or expand into new markets, as was leaked to Above the Law in regards to Nixon?

[A] few weeks ago there was a firm-wide videoconference with the new [Nixon Peabody] managing partner Dick Langan. He said the goal was to double the size of the firm within five years; we all left saying the only possible way to go from 700 attorneys to 1500 in that short amount of time was a merger. He talked a lot about increasing our international presence, and specifically mentioned Paris and also South America.

As any firm begins their strategic planning process, bigger (footprint, headcount, revenue, PPEP) is always on the table. Seth Godin’s blog post this morning, “Should small businesses whine?” got me thinking if smaller can be the better approach. He believes that “Small is a weapon, not an excuse.”

If your small company can’t deliver a better experience (in areas people care about) than a big one, why on Earth should someone do business with you? I’m not saying you must have faster service, a bigger website, lower prices and twenty-four hour a day phone support. I’m saying that for some of your customers, you have to be monstrously, demonstrably, better.

The web is a great equalizer. A tiny business can have a better website than a huge one. A tiny business can do better customer support than a big one. A tiny business can write a better newsletter than a big one. Maybe not for everyone, but everyone is for the big companies. The passionate minority is happy to embrace the small company. As long as they focus and don’t whine about it.

Getting back to mega-firm mergers:

Does bigger translate into better customer service? Usually not. In fact, chaos usually ensues for months after a merger. Accounting systems don’t mix. End-users have a difficult time adapting to the new systems. Lots of turnover of staff and attorneys as everyone tries to figure out their new place in the pecking order, if they have one. Moaning and groaning that “that’s not they way we always did it.” Clients are always well aware of the chaos, leaving them vulnerable to your competition.

Will a 1700 attorney law firm better serve their clients than a 700 attorney law firm? Not necessarily. One merger motivator is the allure of adding new practice experiences or greater depth to your current portfolio. My experience is that after a merger, and without intervention by the business development department, most attorneys continue to just work with the same attorneys with whom they always worked. There might be some cross-over, mavericks who get it, but it is a slow process to change habits and culture. Once the allure of the merger wears off, everyone reverts back to their status quo. This is true with lateral hires as well, whether individuals or groups.

Can an 80 attorney firm, or a virtual law firm, provide a better client experience? Absolutely. There is a rise of smaller firms offering better service, responding to client requests for “alternative billing arrangements,” all the while attracting great talent and maintaining a healthy profit. It might not be the $2 million we see at some mega firms, but the attorneys are still living the good life. In addition, there are new firms springing up every day, such as Virtual Law Firm, brought to us by Craig Johnson of Venture Law Group fame, that are thinking outside the lawyer box. These new firms are more in tune with current technology and trends, looking for ways to motivate the Gen-X partners and Gen-Y associates.