Search martindale

After reading Heather’s posting about trying to sell the benefits of reinventing a firm’s web site to embrace Web 2.0 technology, I imagined all of the law firms that might stick their neck out to champion such a move.

Then, I imagined all the ones here on Planet Earth.

Most lawyers I run into are more cautious than a scuba diver wearing a fish head suit in a shark cage. I think it is going to be hard for the conservative bastions of the legal industry to embrace the change before Silicon Valley is gabbing about Web 3.0 and how 2.0 is SO 2008…

Instead of investing in Web 2.0 technology, perhaps we should invest in training lawyers to exhibit Web 2.0 behavior: eliciting feedback, encouraging interactive discussions, collaboration and developing fluid, organic content.

OK, the old web site could use a tweak or two. The columns and the guy running up the courthouse steps with a briefcase have got to go. It would also be nice to see news and alerts that included client achievements instead of "Firm XYZ purchase 12 new desks for NYC Office" on the home page accompanied by a managing partner quote.

When it comes to Web 2.0, we should admit that we are not even going to go halfway with the investment it would take to truly transform a web site. Posting podcasts and having a couple blog links isn’t going to make Marc Andreessen nervous.  I think I would rather have my lawyers creating and utilizing groups in Facebook or Martindale-Hubbell Connected than creating a duplicate version of it on my own firm’s site.

In fact, that is the biggest problem the industry has when it comes to marketing and business development: an insular view of the world of the client where the law firm tries to dictate a one-sided conversation centered around the preeminence and history of the firm. Creating a Web 2.0 version of that alternate universe does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. In fact, it sounds like a very lonely place.

Call upon your lawyers to blog, network, join professional networks, discuss and contribute. They should even try to get people to learn more by coming back to your web site. I am just not sure the web site is where the conversation should start.

This seems to be the message of an article in this week’s National Law Journal, which was called to our attention by Ann Lee Gibson in her new Law Firm Competitive Intelligence blog.

Noting an increase in the reliance of law firm marketing efforts on competitive intelligence research, the author, marketing partner of the Texas law firm Winstead, frets about the extent to which fact-finding on the internet through diverse sources such as Facebook and personal Web sites may constitute unethical intrusion into the lives and activities of firm marketing prospects.

Ann dispenses with most of these concerns in an extensive post.

Frankly, I was never worried if some law firm or other firm CI manager was going to use my musical Web site or Linked In profile to gain questionable information about my firm’s marketing tactics or business development prospects. However, I have begun to recognize that promoting the use of social networking and other self-informational sites for business development has its downside.

The partnership of Martindale.com and Linked In has a persuasive effect on the use factor of these tools. For one thing, it enables Martindale.com to claim a social network function without having to build their own, and may cause lawyers and law firms to expand their “Martindale footprint” by participating in Linked In.

It also may cause lawyers who have been substituting social networking for a Martindale.com profile to reconsider exiting entirely. After all, why give up the credibility of a Martindale appearance if you can “double dip” the trust factor by going modern on Linked In and also being old school on Martindale.

Our partners Jayne Navarre and Heather Milligan have opined more extensively and more authoritatively on Linked In and Martindale here and here. And, like Ann Gibson, I find it silly to suppose that lawyers or their CI staff will slip over some moral or ethical line just to get an inside track on the possible legal services buys of a particular business or individual. (No cracks about PI lawyers, now, people.)

Still, when there are so many sites where we and our lawyers can “let it all hang out”, we certainly need to be wary of the same proprieties that we would need to recognize in a face-to-face networking venue. Be polite, be interesting, but keep the secret or strange stuff to yourself. ‘Nuff said.

An article, posted on Law.com in the legal technology section, written by Shannon Sankstone, “LinkedIn a Competitive Intelligence Tool,” was brought to my attention this morning by fellow watercoolerite Russell Lawson who also blogs at progmark.blogspot.com.

As someone who focuses their marketing practice on social media in all forms, the article left me wondering: “what am I missing here?” So, I am turning to the watercooler in hopes that you can help me out.

The author’s claim:

“…more than anything, the wealth of information available on LinkedIn to CI [competitive intelligence] professionals is a result of the law of unintended consequences. Attorneys and firms, possessing the good intention of raising their credibility and visibility, have given out more information than was, in hindsight, wise. CI pros are using the information freely given on these sites to better position their own firms and to better understand their competitor firms.”

The author, then illustrates this point with a few examples.

“A quick search for a well-known law firm listed one of their attorneys as the top result. Although Mr. Lawyer made his connections private, he did not shy away from requesting recommendations. He lists over 40 recommendations, 26 of which are from clients. Some of these clients are (names have been withheld, but are available on Mr. Lawyer’s profile):

• A publicly listed hotel and resort corporation;
• A large biotech company; and
• A private equity firm.

At first glance, the CI pro now knows at least 20 of Mr. Lawyer’s clients (some clients had more than one person recommending Mr. Lawyer). Were a firm considering approaching Mr. Lawyer as a lateral hire, they would include this information, and an analysis of the clients, to determine if Mr. Lawyer’s client base was in line with the firm’s business development goals.

If, on the other hand, a firm was competing with Mr. Lawyer’s firm for work from a company in the hotel industry, then Mr. Lawyer’s recommendations might be leveraged to the CI pro’s firm’s advantage. While Mr. Lawyer may point to his recommendations as proof that he has delighted clients in this industry, the competing firm may highlight this as Mr. Lawyer having a better relationship with a competitor company.”

Is this really what CI pros do with their time? And I thought marketers were being undervalued….(snicker)

But seriously, what is the big downside to your competition knowing that you have satisfied clients and that you are working your contacts on LinkedIn?Aren’t the actions of public companies public anyway? Don’t most attorneys reveal their clients or case types on their law firm bios? Frankly, the information you can pull from LexisNexis about cases, clients, and jurisdictional penetration are more reliable, complete and possibly more efficient than time spent lurking on LinkedIn.

The author’s next illustration of the cautions of LinkedIn to unsuspecting law firms:

A certain Am Law 100 firm, AMLF, is an excellent example of a great company profile. 56 percent of users are male, and the median age is 35 years old. However, 30 percent of all of this firm’s representation on LinkedIn are partners. This suggests that: 1) the partnership is young; and 2) the “Related Companies” may provide reliable data as to clients and hiring trends.

Martindale Hubbell still lists birthdays, I believe. And partners.

The author goes on to demonstrate how the “related companies” section is a mine of information for the CI pro.

In the “Related Companies” section of the company profile, LinkedIn has mined its data and determined where companies hire from and where personnel go. In this case, LinkedIn has noted two boutique Am Law listed firms have kindly trained many of AMLF’s attorneys. Interestingly, one firm is a boutique IP firm, the other a commercial litigation firm. This suggests that AMLF is making a concentrated effort to expand specific practice groups. Furthermore, LinkedIn shows that AMLF, in turn, has provided two smaller Am Law 200 firms with quite a few people. Additional research shows that these Am Law 200 firms are marketing themselves as “family friendly” and providing an excellent work/life balance to potential recruits. Definitely something for AMLF to consider …

I mean, if it’s really that important to know which AM Law firms are marketing themselves as family friendly, yeah, LinkedIn might be a place to quickly get some of that information, but it sure is no secret, just visit their web site or do a Google search on family friendly law firms. Voila! And why is family friendly valuable intelligence anyway? We all know it isn’t true if you’re talking about an AMLAW firm. (snicker)

And finally, although this was at the top of the article I’ve moved it to the finale because I find it so fascinating….

Although Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace do provide value to business development programs, each firm must strive to balance the need for visibility and networking with safeguarding their firm’s competitive advantage. [Emphasis added]

Okay, this one really worries me. I’ve been in marketing a long time. Not only in law firms, but also in other industries. And, while I hate to disappoint those who think they do, does any law firm really have a competitive advantage that’s worth safeguarding? When I think of safeguarding competitive advantage I think of the one and only super secret recipe for coca cola without which would not make coca cola a leading brand.

Am I missing something? Law firms seem pretty much the same to me – baring a few differences of size or practice focus. Differentiation, (competitive advantage) for the most part, if you can dig up something, is generally exploited in marketing materials, not hidden in a secret place. IMHO, if any firm has competitive advantage it’s because they deliver the basic category benefits simply better than anyone else. Competitive advantage in law firms can’t possibly be as nuanced as; family friendly, who is your recruiting firm of record, or how young is your partnership, can it? What am I missing here? Help, I’m having a CI crisis!

Truth is, at least from my point of view, the cultural shift that read, write, web is forcing upon uptight personalities (and those that work with them) will take a while, but those who get a head start will find it very rich – in many regards. I’m not an evangelist I’m a pragmatist. It’s here, it’s a tool, let’s try it. Furthermore, social media is not a one trick pony. It is not only good for exposure and introductions (the awareness stage) -but where social media really works best is in the middle of the marketing funnel where people are gathering knowledge and making considerations that lead to selection, loyalty and a client! As long as I’ve been around I’ve never seen a tool that enables those types of conversations across geographic boundaries better. But like any tool, it’s only as good as the hand that holds it. A tool does not lead. It does what it is told to do. Strategy and planning are important.

Now, that being said, there really ARE some red flags about what you share on the Web while networking, blogging or even playing around in the safe haven of LinkedIn. Private investigators do get pertinent information online that can be used against you or your clients in litigation. Without going into detail, it’s a great source to put together 2+2, for example in family law cases, divorce, fraud, employment litigation, etc. (but the company email during discovery will get you that information too!)

However, for your basic social-networking-lawyer with some common sense, a little street smarts, and ethical behavior, there’s just too much to like and too many good reasons to be networking on line.

So, what am I missing? If this type of information is so very meaningful to the CI community within law firms -even so much as to put the brakes on something as valuable as networking for new business, is it really possible to “throw off” the competition with a little more or less information on your LinkedIn profile? Should you remove all the content from your Web site too?

One final note, the author does point out, wisely, that it may not be to your advantage to make your LinkedIn connections public. I know a financial adviser that keeps his private because he doesn’t want others poaching his list. Practical pointer: before posting a profile on any social space, always go to the privacy options. Turn them all private and then one by one click on those that make sense for your strategy.

Directory post….warning….It’s been on my mind, and Heather’s twisted post on a Zagat Guide to Lawyers opened the door, at least enough for me to step in and post this lurking question. The door may knock me in the butt on my way out, but well, here goes… Another legal directory has launched – BuscAbogados.com. (Find Lawyers)

“It was developed to meet the necessity of more than 44M Spanish speaking individuals that live in the United States today, and more than 460M around the World.”

¿Hablas español? In the spirit of disclosure; I am living in Northern Latin America. My post may be irrelevant to many Coolerites, or maybe not. That is the question. Gringo law firms, are you paying attention to the growing Hispanic market in the U.S.? What say you?

Three Miami residents launched BuscAbogados.com, a directory aimed at helping Spanish speakers find lawyers in Florida. They have a strong business case and a plan to expand their presence to other U.S. regions. They charge $19.95 – $299 for expanded listings. There are already 7,000 complimentary basic listings for South Florida attorneys – about 5000 of them in Miami-Dade. Sounds like a revenue generator. Since someone has already vetted the idea, is, should or could Martindale or Best Lawyers find this market attractive? Findlaw? Are they going to chase down a copyright?

According to the HISPANIC Fact Pack, 2008 Edition, Annual Guide to Hispanic Marketing and Media, that I received today with my Advertising Age; Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are within 1 or 2 percentage points of one another in Spanish-language preferred Web properties. There must be a business case because they seem to be chasing one another in the data. Did you know that the business to business social networking site LinkedIn has a Spanish version?

1. Log into LinkedIn with your existing id.

https://www.linkedin.com/

2. Go here and switch the language field.

There’s always a lot of debate here in South Florida — is the official language Spangelish? The courts and government say not. But, in the business world of South Florida, Spangelish is the first language. The influx of Spanish speaking residents is not limited to South Florida.

What do you think? Is there a market for gringo law firms in the business law firm space?

In Miami we have Abogados on every corner – primarily consumer focused – immigration stuff. But most larger national and international firms in Miami have International practices that cater to the businesses of the “Gateway to Latin America.” As for the rest of the U.S., would you pay for a listing in buscabogados.com? Is anyone looking at the Hispanic market? Just curious. If so, how serious are you and do you see a revenue stream? In what areas of practice?

(Disclaimer: I am not fluent in Spanish. I do, however, own Rosetta Stone Spanish language CD’s. Unfortunately you have to actively use them, not just put them under your pillow and hope the language will seep into your brain over night:-).

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?

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.”

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?