Martindale Hubbell has been considered the “bible” of the legal industry for decades. Attorneys historically vie vying for the elusive AV rating, a rating demonstrating the highest ethical and intellectual standards, a rating is deeply tied to the attorney’s skill, knowledge, and ego.

But, unlike many ratings, the AV rating is not one that can be won through “horse-trading” deals, deals promising if an attorney from one firm votes for another attorney in another firm, the favor will be reciprocated. Martindale’s rating system is conducted on names submitted by the attorney seeking a rating and by other attorneys Martindale picks to eliminate the possibility of a fix.

Ratings are taking a backseat to the cost of listing in Martindale Hubbell—Lawyers are asking what are they getting in return for one of the most expensive items their marketing budget. Legal marketers are asking each other the same question.

Years ago while attending a Legal Marketing Association convention I remember hearing that one of the larger firms had pulled its Martindale listing. The disbelief on the fellow marketing professional’s faces around me seemed to affirm my thought of how crazy this move was.
Each year the attorneys look at the cost, grumble a bit, try to gauge an ROI (return on investment), and then pay it. After all, they always have. Today additional metrics are available through informal surveys and almost clandestine sharing of information, a list of who has dropped or scaled back their listing is being kept. Reportedly more than 20 firms varying in size from 16 to 3600 attorneys have dropped out and almost 20 more have scaled back.

Articles about the quiet movement have been noted by ALM’s Legal Intelligencer and on the Legal Marketing Portal and various blog sites.

Some firms are able to track referrals from Martindale Hubbell but can’t rectify the significant cost with the value afforded to the firm by listing. This is one of —if not the—most expensive line in many marketing budgets.

As I said, Martindale Hubbell has been considered the “go-to” source of information for decades and carries a credibility few other listings do. But as attorneys begin to look more at law as a business and not a service, the cost has to be justified.

Perhaps the increase Web presence of law firms is making Martindale less significant. Can Martindale adapt to these market changes quickly enough? Roughly forty firms are scaling back or dropping listings. Is this a growing trend?

Confused or still hesitant about the growing trend of online social networking, then check out this Law.com article Social Networking May Pay Off in the End. It appears that even the skeptics are being converted.

What the article doesn’t point out though is that online social networking is like letting people read your mind and thus a wonderful form of communication. When someone invites you into their network, it is the equivalent of being giving permission to get inside their heads (to the extent that they participate). By publishing and/or reading a person’s stream of activity, a lot is revealed and trust is exchanged.

If you already have a trusting relationship in the real world with somebody then you can easily transplant that relationship into the new environment of an online social networking site and watch it grow. If you don’t have trust or social capital with someone, then you can demonstrate trustworthiness through mind revealing actions (profile, Q&A, referrals, recommendations, & groups) on the site.

Different sites allow you to lead with different facets of yourself. If you express your relationship with someone only on LinkedIn, my guess is that you each reveal a 90-120 degree view of yourselves with a focus on your professional life. On Facebook, that same 90-120 degree view is usually focused on one’s personal life. What many fail to appreciate is that belonging to a combination of personal/professional sites with many of the same people increases not only the depth of the relationship but it increases the amount of insight into each other’s minds.

Do you help people read your mind?

Here’s a headline that makes you wonder, “What am I going to get Dad for Father’s Day?”

Tie Association, a Fashion Victim, Calls It Quits as Trends Change
According to a recent Gallup Poll, the number of men who wore ties every day to work last year dropped to a record low of 6%, down from 10% in 2002.

As far as I can tell, casual day might have killed off the tie and its feminine counterpart, the much dreaded pantyhose (much deserved, I might add), but think of the boom in the economy for high-end bowling shirts, non-iron khakis, pedicures, fake tans and waxing.

But, really, has casual day gone too far? I’m not calling for a return to the bowler hat and control tops … (okay, let’s face it, men look pretty darn smart in hats, and Spanx wouldn’t command $150 million in retail sales if there wasn’t a market). But, if the only people dressing up these days in a law firm are the litigators and consultants, how do we in-house professionals not stick out like sore thumbs when we dress professionally?

What I find disturbing in the whole “casual” trend is the attire we see on “really casual” Friday, which culminates a week of “business casual?” Why is that people are trying to out-casual casual? How come I was the only one to counsel a young associate (at a prior firm, of course) that flip-flops are not appropriate attire for the office. EVER! Little punk had the nerve to argue back.

In this brave new work world I have seen breasts whose cups runneth over, and shorts, with or without heels, trying to make it work 9-5 (Bermuda or Capri … not office attire). At the end of the work week, I don’t want to see your tan lines, 6-pack abs, or know about the concert you attended via your t-shirt. If you have to tug it or yank it when sitting down, it’s too short. And, while I’m all for saving the whales, I think there are better ways of supporting the cause than through your whale-tail.

To quote my employee manual:

If you look like you are ready for the beach, a hike or to clean out the garage,
you are too casually dressed for the office.

Can I hear an Amen?

Oh, as for dear ol’ dad, considering he only wears a tie for weddings and funerals (the same tie, come to think of it), I’m going with the monogrammed steak brand from Williams-Sonoma. Perfect for a guy who still wears monogrammed shoes.

Interesting blog posting by Jason Mendelson, “Why Start-Up Lawyers Frustrate Me.” It is a must read on your next coffee-break.

I found it from the law.com article, VC Slams Attorneys on Salaries and Overlawyering which includes direct quotes from Jason and others in the Valley.

What really stuck out for me was this:

He said he’s been getting lots of feedback, mostly negative, from law firms and
mostly positive comments from entrepreneurs.

I think the only point agreed upon is that clients view the relationship in one light and attorneys in another.

This is a favorite conversation point that came out of a partner meeting at a prior firm, when annual rate increases were being discussed:

Partner A: I don’t know what the problem is. My clients never complain about my rates.

Partner B: Yeah, that’s because our clients aren’t going to jail.

We have to get the conversation back on track.

So, Coolerites, what are you doing to contribute to a positive resolution here?

Our firm is getting ready to kick-off our first-ever Client Service Interviews, thanks to the Wicker Park Group, Kent Zimmerman, Nat Slavin and Laura Meherg (had to give a shout-out).

One of the key issues I want to uncover is how the client perceive the value of our legal service provided for the dollar that they are paying. I don’t want to find out our clients are unhappy in a blog post.

For those of us who have ever put together a billing chart for a pitch letter or RFP response, were you really surprised by the Fees and Pricing Benchmark Report: Law Firms & Legal Services Industry 2008 report released by raintoday.com?

The Greatest American Lawyer (gotta love the name … perfect for a new survey if you ask me) published these key insights:

  • Discounting is common practice. 76% of all firms discount their fees versus published rates or rates they might have mentioned in an initial client conversation – with the average discount amounting to 9.9%.
  • Larger firms are more likely to discount. Nearly all (89%) firms with 10 or more professionals on staff discount, versus only 59% of smaller firms.
  • Service guarantees are widely used. Guarantees are offered by almost half (47%) of responding firms. The most popular guarantees allow clients to reduce their payment based on dissatisfaction with the value received.
  • Standard rates vs. the actual rates differ for top-level professionals. For those firms that use a standard set of hourly billable rates for their professionals – either published or for internal use only – the median average realized hourly rate for highest-level professionals is 6% less than the standard or published rate ($400 vs. $375), and for upper-level professionals the median actual rate is 9% less.

So, here we sit in June 2008, in the middle of a recession, which may or may not be happening depending on which blogs you read, and I’m wondering how law firms, in general, will adapt to the changing marketplace and economy?

I’m continue to see reports of staff and associate layoffs, as well as “performance review” departures; summer programs cut back and starting dates put off; partner tracks extended, as well as partners being deequitized. In contrast to the negatives, I’m also seeing record revenue and PPEP posted by the AmLaw 100, including two $2 billion law firms. Yet, has any member of the AmLaw 100 or 200 taken a look at their overall hourly billing rate structures? Are they in-line with today’s economy? Is the business model, as we currently know it, sturdy enough to handle what might or might not be coming?

From every survey I have ever read, if clients perceive value, they are less inclined to challenge their law firms on price. Yet, in my conversations with legal marketers, and attendance at numerous GC panels, it remains obvious that law firms continue to have difficulty articulating this value, “differentiating” themselves from their competition, so to speak. We’re hearing about push-back from corporate counsel on fees, associate salaries and billables, as well as their desire to work together on a common solution. No threats of throwing the baby out with the bath water, yet. But, are we responding fast enough to their challenge?

So, Coolerites? What’s your crystal ball showing for the remainder of 2008? What changes do you foretell for the 2009 AmLaw 100?

An interesting article in the latest Journal of Marketing is entitled The Curse of Competitiveness: How Advice from Experienced Colleagues and Training Can Hurt Marketing Profitability. You can read a copy of it here. To oversimplify, it cautions us against letting the spirit of competitiveness fuel our marketing messages, as too much may negatively affect ROI. To me, this is a key failing of many law firm marketing programs.

Lawyers, and their marketing staff, come by their competitiveness naturally enough. We all know lawyers are taught to “win” arguments and cases, and their “lone wolf” personalities fuel the drive to surpass their fellow pack members. Many successful attorneys exhibit a kind of functional neurosis by which their last victory only exacerbates their need for another.

Those firms that have developed or are developing a marketing culture may notice a rise in the “us against them” mentality among both attorneys and others, where opposing counsel and market competitors all become “the enemy.” The need to acquire more influential lawyers, secure more prominent clients and receive superior assignments becomes the “raison d’etre” of marketing communications and business development. Frankly, this begs the real question of what the law firm should be aiming towards by virtue of its current or desired service array and legacy of successful experience.

Recently, I again had the notable experience of hearing Norm Rubenstein of the Zeughauser Group, talk about marketing. His topic was ten tactical marketing areas that will be crucial for the law firms that intend to remain robust and successful in the years ahead. I won’t summarize his points here (that might be another post someday), but I could find nothing in what I heard that suggested that success would be based on sheer competitiveness, or what you could call “the cultural will to win.” However, fundamental to his points was the self-analysis necessary for a law firm to understand what its value proposition is and needs to be in order to support a distinct and discrete market identity.

This may be the defining element of successful marketing leadership. The willingness and ability to gain this knowledge characterizes all good marketing. The Shakespearean invective is “To thine own self be true.” I would maintain that no marketing program, and no CMO, can be effective without complete dedication to this principal.

What are you doing to assure that your marketing programs are a true reflection of your law firm’s identity?

In today’s rumor mill, Winston & Strawn and Heller are in merger talks. Substantiating the rumors, according to Legal Pad, is the supposed registration of WinstonHeller.com and HellerWinston.com.

While Heller is not on record of laying off attorneys, they have seen the departure of numerous partners these past few months. In addition, they are on record for staff layoffs last year.

Begs the questions, which comes first? Layoffs (or a reduction in headcount through “performance” reviews) or a Merger?

Having been in-house at three firms during merger negotiations (only one took), and through observations of other mergers through the years, it always seems that attorney headcount goes down during the courting period. Departures can be attributed to: 1) one firm cleaning house so as to make themselves more financially attractive to a merger partner; 2) conflicts, either clients or issues; or 3) productive attorneys leaving on their own accord who don’t want to be part of the merged firm; and, 4) an internal bleed that can only be stemmed by an acquisition.

For anyone looking in from the outside, the attorney departures might have been a tip-off that something was a comin’, no matter what the cause.

So, Coolerites, what are the external signs that point the way to a shotgun marriage between firms? Headcount reductions? AmLaw rankings drop? Departure of senior administrative staff (redundant positions??)? Registration of new domain names?

A colleague on LinkedIn recently asked what others have been thinking – why does she join so many groups? The answer is simple. I am a Joiner. It’s not as bad as it sounds and if there was a support group, I’d probably join. Since childhood, I have always belonged to more than one group (i.e. club, sport, activity, and/or organization) at any given time. My social tendencies stem from a genuine love of people and conversation. The good news is Joiners are natural connectors because they have access to an abundance of people and ideas. As social butterflies, we like spreading information. Therefore, we also like to include people because no one wants to feel like the last kid standing on the blacktop as teams are picked.

Joining groups on LinkedIn allows me to correspond with people whom I share a social common denominator while still maintaining the privacy of my first level connections. People in the groups I join are like pen pals. I can correspond when I have something to say but they remain just outside my daily life. Some groups are active with blogs, websites, and frequent conversation. Other groups are nothing more than a catalog of contacts.

Recently, I have been jumping into groups to monitor and observe them for my clients. Strategic uses of groups can be alumni, target audiences, brand loyalty, membership organizations, social/political causes, and industry groups. Groups can be inclusive or exclusive. If you start the actual group, you have the added benefit of owning the database of email addresses. A client retained me to start a group and the idea was sticky enough that it went viral. In six weeks, there were over 1,000 members in 26 countries. Apparently, there are a lot of other Joiners to be found on LinkedIn.

What are you opinions on groups on LinkedIn, do you join ’em, beat ‘em, or ignore ‘em?

Sonnenschein laid off 37 lawyers and 87 staff. “We will do everything we can to help the people we have separated, to give them as much support and compassion as we are able to provide,” said Mr. Portnoy. He added that the firm is working with headhunters and search firms, its alumni network, and its clients, to help the affected individuals find new opportunities.

Seems like a good time for law firms to organize their alumni contacts if they haven’t already. I am currently working with a firm of 250 attorneys, building a firm sponsored social network for their alumni. I know that there are several companies, such as Select Minds, that have been doing great work in this space for several years. Most alumni programs are behind the firm firewall so it’s not easy to see what is going on in this niche. Can anyone share creative approaches to alumni programs and if and how they are working? Is it marketing? Is it recruiting? Is it just nice to know information? Do you have both an online world and bricks and mortar events?

A couple weeks ago I e-mailed some of my closest contacts, and posted to Linkedin, a request for favorite business books. As promised, here are the top 20 (received at least 2 or more votes). For a full list of all 98 books, e-mail me. I also requested a summer reading list which I’ll post later in the week.

We also had a couple “anything by” requests, or several books by the same author recommended: