Category: Law Office Management

“The #1 Client-Generation Tool:” The Web-Based Art of Legal Marketing

The business of law has always been important but today it is far more complicated due to the web which has allowed the channels of advertising and business development to grow exponentially. From product placement in movies to handrails featuring advertisements, commercial culture serves as an omnipotent force and has yielded two great premises:  that we as a people respond to advertisements and that the Internet is a powerful tool for advertising.

Mark Britton, founder, CEO and president of Avvo, teaches attorneys and marketing professionals to have no legal fear when it comes to the business of law. In his upcoming address at Lawyernomics 2013 entitled “Issue Spotting: Turning 10 Legal Marketing Challenges Into Opportunity,” he seeks to instruct attorneys how to establish a marketing protocol in order to expand their practices. Mr. Britton sat down with me recently to further school the legal community on web-based legal marketing and how to “sell” one’s self in the modern legal landscape.

Attorneys historically self-promoted by attending large gatherings at rotary clubs but now there are multiple outlets for them to sell their services, such as LinkedIn, YouTube and blogging. According to Mr. Britton, a practitioner can utilize any “set of variables” for advertising purposes and this is important, given the rising number of lawyers and the resulting competition. Therefore, in order to truly succeed in today’s legal marketplace, attorneys must remain strategic and learn how to manage their businesses effectively.

The Internet, which Mr. Britton characterized as “central to life” as the law, serves as the most influential avenue for legal marketing. Facebook alone hold 8 million registered users—a small nation of its own. Practitioners must therefore act defensively—while they frequently rely on word of mouth, they must transfer this technique to such Internet sources as Yelp, Reputation.com and the Yellow Pages. Mr. Britton advises that the attorney who is aware of her “Google status” is ahead of the game.

In addition, attorneys must act on the offensive by making use of the Internet to increase clientele. Mr. Britton relayed how in his interactions with thousands of lawyers on a yearly basis, the common complaint is that the less experienced attorneys obtain more business because they advertise more. Regardless of the level of experience and professionalism, practitioners must utilize the web as a “tremendous strategic tool” to attain a larger client base. For example, they can join blogging spheres and practice groups that exchange ideas, build networks and develop business. This sort of self-promotion might be considered “unseemly” by some lawyers, yet the Internet serves as the number one tool to generate clients.

Mr. Britton acknowledges the challenge of thinking in a technology-driven, business-geared mentality when one comes from a legal background. He stresses that the objective should be to take on the role of an opportunity-spotter rather than just an issue-spotter.  However, in law school, we were trained only to take fact patterns and analyze them and when we practice, we spot the issue and mitigate risks, all without placing any emphasis on the business aspects of practicing law. As a result, when it comes to a tool such as social media, nine out of ten attorneys will focus on its privacy issues, entirely missing the point of its social networking benefits.

For all the attorneys and legal marketing professionals who struggle with how to go about conforming to the marketing must’s, Mr. Britton offers his insights on five baselines of legal marketing with the ultimate intention of converting contacts into clients:

#1. Establish your target audience.

Who are you searching for? Future and existing clientele? Law firms invest significant resources into bringing in clients so figure out who you are trying to attract so you can tailor your marketing strategies accordingly. For example, after establishing that you want to attract clients, refrain from writing your blog posts in legalese.

#2. Target your time and money as it relates to your target audience.

This should be preplanned and reviewed on a quarterly basis and should be initiated with a goal in mind. For instance, if your aim is to acquire a higher number of lawyer referrals, find space in your budget and calendar to start an e-newsletter or present at a conference.

#3. Target channels that you think are valuable one at a time.

Be deliberate about your marketing tools. Learn if your channels’ ROI is worth the time and money and either maintain the channel or turn it off accordingly. After you start that e-newsletter, get Constant Contact or any other service that provides monthly reports to figure out how many people are reading them and whether it is a successful investment.

#4. Measure your targets by figuring out the benefits.

Hire a consultant to see if you are actually gaining benefits from your investments. Paying high fees to place an ad in the Yellow pages is pointless if you do not know how many clients you are actually attracting.

#5. Establish a strong web presence.

Your website is the modern-day calling card so certify that it is in fact well-developed. To exemplify, if someone were to raise a point on Twitter and you respond by saying you wrote about this topic on your blog, the potential client may go to your website and develop her first impression of you through your website. This is often how social networking works—it all goes back to the website where people first connect with you. Make sure you also have strong seo controls in place so you can zero in on the demographics of your website visitors.

Article By:

 of

Warning to in-house Counsel: Be Careful When Responding to Demand Letters

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP‘s Jerrold J. Wohlgemuth recently had an article, Warning to in-house Counsel: Be Careful When Responding to Demand Letters, featured in The National Law Review:

DrinkerBiddle

 

It’s a common occurrence: counsel sends a demand letter to an employer explaining the basis for his/her client’s claim of discrimination or wrongful discharge, and threatening to sue, but offering to discuss settlement in advance of filing a complaint.  In-house counsel responds by explaining why the claim has no merit, but expressing a willingness to discuss settlement, with the understanding that in the event of litigation the correspondence would be inadmissible under Evidence Rule 408 as a communication concerning settlement.  It says so right in the Rule:  “a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim” is inadmissible “to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.”  But the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has reminded us that is not always the case.

In its recent decision in Bourhill v. Sprint Nextel Corp., the District Court affirmed the decision of the magistrate judge allowing the plaintiff in his cross-motion for summary judgment to rely on a portion of in-house counsel’s response to a demand letter.  In that case, the demand letter first described the factual basis for the contention that the employee’s discharge was unlawful under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and then set forth counsel’s position that while he believed the case had merit, his client was willing to avoid litigation if the matter could be resolved by means of an “adequate compensatory settlement.”  In-house counsel wrote a two paragraph response under the subject line caption “Confidential/For Settlement Purposes Only.”  In the first paragraph in-house counsel denied that the discharge was unlawful and explained in factual detail that it had been made for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.  The second paragraph expressed an interest in discussing an amicable resolution and requested a specific demand.  In the ensuing litigation, plaintiff’s counsel relied on the letter as an exhibit in his cross-motion for summary judgment, and defense counsel moved to strike.

Before moving on to discuss the decision of the magistrate judge it is important to recognize that in-house counsel responded in the normal, customary fashion when responding to a demand letter of this type.  It is the magistrate judge’s decision, and the subsequent decision of the District Court discussed in the next part, that should give every in-house counsel pause when responding to any demand letter.

The magistrate judge granted the defendant’s motion to strike with respect to the second paragraph inasmuch as it clearly invited plaintiff’s counsel to make an offer to settle, but denied it as to the first.  In this regard, the magistrate judge determined that the two parts of the letter were not “logically connected” and could therefore be evaluated separately because the first was addressed to the merits of the claim articulated in the demand letter while the second concerned the offer to compromise.  The magistrate judge then found that the first paragraph did not implicate Rule 408 because it did not “contain an actual compromise or a suggestion of a genuine willingness to resolve the dispute.”

On appeal, defense counsel argued that the letter should be read in its entirety as a response to the settlement inquiry, that the first paragraph was designed to make clear that the company did not place a high monetary value on the claim, and that public policy requires that the parties be free to express their positions in settlement communications without fear they will be used to prove liability.  The District Court did not disagree, but affirmed the decision of the magistrate judge based on the conclusion that he had simply made a finding of fact – that the paragraphs were not “logically connected” – which could not be overturned on appeal.

This is not the first time a court has determined that a portion of a communication otherwise covered by Rule 408 may be admitted into evidence because it did not directly address the subject of settlement.  But the decision should serve as a reminder to in-house counsel to be extremely careful when responding to demand letters, to avoid including any facts, statements or admissions that could be difficult to explain in litigation and to make clear in each paragraph that it has been written in response to the demand letter for the limited purpose of exploring the possibility of settlement.

©2013 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Locked Out of LinkedIn: A Federal Court Opens the Door To Employer Liability

Recently an article by Jessica A. Burt of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP regarding LinkedIn was featured in The National Law Review:

DrinkerBiddle

 

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania determined this week inEagle v. Morgan, et al., that a terminated employee who was locked out of her LinkedIn account by her employer suffered no legal damages despite successfully proving claims for unauthorized use of her name, invasion of privacy by misappropriation of identity, and misappropriation of publicity.  The district court previously dismissed Dr. Eagle’s federal claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Lanham Act, and retained jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Dr. Linda Eagle, a former founder and executive of Edcomm, Inc., a banking education company that provides services to the banking community, created her LinkedIn account using her Edcomm e-mail address.  Edcomm did not require its employees to create LinkedIn accounts, nor did it pay for accounts if employees created them.  At the time of Eagle’s termination, Edcomm had no policy in place informing its employees that LinkedIn accounts were the property of the employer.  Eagle shared her LinkedIn password with several Edcomm employees to update her account and respond to invitations.  Following her termination, Edcomm employees accessed Eagle’s LinkedIn account, changed her password, and updated the account with her successor, Sandi Morgan’s picture and personal information.  However, Edcomm failed to change the homepage’s URL to remove Eagle’s name and likewise failed to remove Eagle’s honors and awards section.  Edcomm had full control of the account for approximately 16 days.  LinkedIn subsequently took over the account, and Eagle regained access approximately one month after Edcomm changed her password.  Eagle filed suit against Edcomm and several employees shortly thereafter alleging illegal use of her LinkedIn account.

With respect to Eagle’s claim for unauthorized use of her name, the Court stated that when Edcomm had control of Eagle’s account, an individual conducting a search on Google or LinkedIn for Dr. Eagle would be directed to a URL for a LinkedIn web page showing Sandi Morgan’s name, profile, and employment with Edcomm.  Specifically, the Court noted that when an individual searched for Eagle, he or she would unknowingly be put in contact with Edcomm despite the fact that Eagle didn’t work there anymore.  The name “Dr. Linda Eagle” had commercial value due to Eagle’s efforts to develop her reputation, and Edcomm therefore received the commercial benefit of using her name to promote the service of its business.

The Court similarly found that Eagle successfully proved her claim against Edcomm for invasion of privacy by misappropriation of identity because Edcomm maintained the LinkedIn homepage under a URL that contained Eagle’s name.  Despite the fact that Edcomm updated the LinkedIn homepage with Sandi Morgan’s profile information, the URL still contained Eagle’s name and the Court held that her name had the benefit of her reputation and commercial value.

Additionally, the Court entered judgment in Eagle’s favor on her claim for misappropriation of publicity because she maintained an exclusive right to control the commercial value of her name and to prevent others from exploiting it without permission.  The Court held that Edcomm deprived Eagle of the commercial benefit of her name when it entered her LinkedIn account, changed her password to prevent her from accessing it, and altered the account to display Sandi Morgan’s information.  The Court noted that Edcomm took these actions instead of creating a new account for Sandi Morgan.

Despite her success on three causes of action, the Court determined that Eagle was not entitled to any compensatory or punitive damages.  The Court was not persuaded that Eagle established with reasonable certainty she had lost any sales, contracts, deals, or clients during the period she could not access her LinkedIn account.  Eagle offered the testimony of Clifford Brody, the co-founder of Edcomm, to provide an analysis of her damages.  His calculation was based on Eagle’s average sales per year divided by the number of contacts she maintained on LinkedIn to arrive at a dollar figure per contact, per year.  The Court referred to this method as “creative guesswork” and highlighted the fact that there is a chance that even with full access to her LinkedIn account, she would not have made any deals or signed any contracts with her LinkedIn contacts.  In denying her claim for punitive damages, the Court stated that Eagle failed to call a single witness to offer evidence regarding Defendants’ state of mind or the circumstances surrounding these events.

The Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant Edcomm, Inc. with respect to Eagle’s claims for identity theft, conversion, tortious interference with her LinkedIn contract, civil conspiracy, and civil aiding and abetting.  Judgment was entered in favor of the individual defendants with respect to all of Eagle’s claims, including the claims mentioned above that she successfully proved against Edcomm.  In October 2012, the District Court dismissed Eagle’s federal claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Lanham Act as to all defendants.

This case presents another stepping stone in the continuously changing world of social media law.  While employers do have legitimate  concerns about LinkedIn accounts with information that identifies clients’ key decision makers and a company’s strategic business relationships, preventing former employees from accessing their accounts without their consent exposes employers to damages if a former employee can proffer evidence of a lost or misdirected sale or deal. However, there is nothing in the Eagle v. Morgan opinion that restricts an employer’s ability to have employees remove customer names from their LinkedIn accounts before departing from the company.  In fact, courts have recognized that employers do have protectable rights in this information.  For example, in TEKsystems Inc. v. Hammernick, et al., the plaintiff alleged that its former employee’s use of LinkedIn to connect with former colleagues and clients violated the parties’ noncompete/nonsolicitation agreement. In that case, the Court entered a Consent Order for Permanent Injunction prohibiting the former employee from soliciting or contacting the company’s customers for a period of 12 months.  Also, in Coface Collections North America, Inc. v. Newton, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction against the company’s former owner who, among other things, used LinkedIn to compete with his former company in violation of a restrictive covenant.   

©2013 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Advancement of Women Lawyers In Private Practice: Learning From Their Sisters in Corporate Legal Departments and from Senior Lawyers In Private Practice

The National Law Review recently published an article, Advancement of Women Lawyers In Private Practice: Learning From Their Sisters in Corporate Legal Departments and from Senior Lawyers In Private Practice, written by Beth L. Kaufman of the National Association of Women Lawyers:

National Association of Women Lawyers

 

As the voice of women in the law, National Association of Women Lawyers (“NAWL”) in 2006, challenged corporations and law firms to double their number of women general counsel and equity partners from 15% to 30% by 2015.  Recent statistics indicate that the “NAWL Challenge” for corporate legal departments in Fortune 500 corporations already has been met.

Women today comprise 30% of General Counsels, when only a few years ago they comprised only 15% of the General Counsels in the same companies.   This achievement is in sharp contrast to the fate of women lawyers in the 200 largest U.S. law firms (“AmLaw 200”), where women have stagnated at 17% or less of those law firms’ equity partners since NAWL’s annual survey of the advancement of women lawyers began.

Ask anyone in corporations –from mid-sized to the largest in the country — and they will tell you that they have embraced diversity and inclusion — their customers, their audience, their constituents are diverse– and their leadership, including their lawyers, must be diverse.    Many have overhauled their in-house legal departments and the way they deal with and select their outside counsel.  They have created comfortable and welcoming environments in which their dedicated and loyal women lawyers can thrive.

Apparently not so in the highest echelons of the largest law firms in this country (indeed, globally).   For the first time, this year, there has been a decrease in the number of first year women law students and the number of women in entering classes of associates at AmLaw 200 firms.   Is this an aberration or is this the result of the disillusionment of women with a legal profession that is viewed by many as inhospitable to women.?

To be sure, there are thousands of women lawyers in this country in many different practice settings who have advanced, are leaders, and love the practice of law.  I am one of them and have spent almost 35 years loving what I do as a professional each and every day.   Many of NAWL’s leaders and members have similar feelings. As an organization, NAWL brings those lawyers together whenever it can to share their experiences with younger lawyers and impart views as to how the practice of law can be a nurturing professional experience for women, and one in which they can achieve whatever success they desire.

This year’s NAWL Mid-Year Meeting at Disney World in Orlando promises to make its own significant contribution to that effort.  STRETCHED & BALANCED:  A Holistic Approach to Law Practice for the Woman Lawyer, will be held at the Grand Floridian from February 14-16.  Highlighting the event will be programs for both in-house and outside counsel, including:

  • The Male Factor:  What Every Woman Lawyer needs to Know about How Men and Clients View Women Attorneys in the Workplace
  • Ethical Issues for Inside and Outside Counsel
  • Circuit Training:  10 Legal Issues Every Lawyer Should Understand
  • Do You Want to Make More Money?  Negotiating Your Compensation
  • From Daunting to Doable: How to Build Positive Client Relationships and Become a Rainmaker in the Process

The timeliness of the educational programs, the wisdom imparted by the speakers and the unparalleled networking opportunities will offer significant guidance and assistance to lawyers both in private practice and in-house, as they strive to achieve continued success for themselves, their law firms and their companies.   For more information on the Mid-Year Meeting, go to www.nawl.org.

Copyright ®, 2013 National Association of Women Lawyers

Building a Ready for Action Intellectual Property Portfolio Strategy for In-House Counsel

The National Law Review recently published an article by Marcus Evans Summits regarding Intellectual Property Portfolio Strategies:

Marcus Evans

 

In-house counsel and clients would have a better relationship if attorneys sent clients Intellectual Property (IP) reports on a more regular basis, according to Jeffrey Scott Leaning and Timothy B. Donaldson, Partners, at MH2 Technology Law Group. “This partnership makes for the ideal management of an IP portfolio,” they add.

Jeffrey Scott Leaning and Timothy B. Donaldson share their thoughts with  Maria Gregoriou on why the managed legal services approach is mutually beneficial for attorneys and clients.

How can legal department management increase operational efficiency?

Timothy B. Donaldson: Open communication between attorneys and clients is key to building a strong business partnership. One way to keep clients informed about ongoing IP prosecution is through the use of regular status reports. These reports can include budgetary information issues, upcoming due dates, a summary of actions performed, or a projection of future action items, and can be customized to a client’s specific needs. Fostering this business partnership through open communication and recognizing a client’s specific needs makes for the ideal management of an IP portfolio.

Under a flat or fixed-fee arrangement, a team of attorneys can be assembled to review and share expertise on individual cases. Each team member brings his or her own technical, legal, and professional experiences to the table, making IP analysis more efficient and productive. In addition, each team member becomes familiar with a client’s technology and can be ready to respond as needs arise.

In view of the American Invents Act, what patent filing strategies can you recommend?

Jeffrey Scott Leaning: Clients should approach patent filing as if the US was an absolute novel country in this area. The ideal situation is that people who receive a disclosure should be under a confidentiality agreement. If this is not possible, the client should know who is going to be in the audience during disclosure.

What should legal departments keep in mind when dealing with pharmaceutical patents?

Timothy B. Donaldson: Patent term adjustments (PTAs) must not be overlooked when it comes to the pharmaceutical field. Unlike other technologies, the term of a pharmaceutical patent, including any PTA accrued during prosecution, can be critical to the patent’s ultimate value. Thus, the practitioner must keep up with current case law, like the recent Exelixis cases, as well as changes in United States Patent and Trademark Office policy and rules, to maximize any potential PTA and avoid unnecessarily losing valuable patent term during the course of prosecution.

Do you have any final thoughts?

Jeffrey Scott Leaning: Managed legal services approaches are currently being preferred as the law firm is closer in style to an in-house attorney, where a partnership is formed between the client and the law firm. A certain number of hours that expert attorneys should be on call every month for a fixed fee, would be part of the agreement. A good relationship is vital here as more time may be put into legal matters than was originally thought. Having this partnership model in place would be mutually beneficial and ensure that the client’s expectations are met.

Copyright Marcus Evans Conferences

Driving a Business Development Culture

The National Law Review published an article by Marty Grego with the Legal Marketing Association (LMA) Midwest Chapter titled, Driving a Business Development Culture:

Legal Marketing Association (LMA) Midwest Chapter

The current legal landscape has led to increased pressure on law firms to grow their revenue and client networks, thus creating a heightened focus on the business development process. Firm leadership is looking to marketing departments to drive this culture, while simultaneously managing costs and demonstrating growth.

“Lawyers don’t understand the difference between marketing and business development,” said Nancy Mangan, senior consultant and client growth specialist with the Wicker Park Group. “Reassurance is key,” she said, when guiding an attorney through this process.

Mangan moderated the Legal Marketing Association Midwest Chicago Program Series “Driving a Business Development Culture” on July 25, which included a panel of Dave Bruns, director of client services for Farella Braun + Martel LLP and Susan Kurz, director of marketing, business development and client services for Keating, Muething & Klekamp PLL.

Order Fulfillment vs. Revenue Generation

Mangan urged that marketing departments cannot fall into a “Do you want fries with that?” culture. It is vital to show lawyers the difference between marketing and business development.

Mangan presented the following definitions to help clarify this contrast:

  • Marketing: “All about us.” Includes newsletters, most bar association activities, ads, brochures, website, etc.
  • Business development: “All about the client.” Includes client initiatives, short specific proposals, face-to-face business meetings, building business relationships, etc.

Bruns said the key is to know the difference between the two. While marketing departments can certainly do both marketing and business development, they have to know what drives the practice.

Kurz shared an analogy she uses when explaining the difference to her firm in Cincinnati. Marketing is used to raise recognition and awareness of the firm and is “targeting suspects.” Business development is an understanding of potential clients, or specific decision makers and specific companies, and therefore is “turning the suspect into a prospect.”

Targeted Business Development

Mangan also illustrated the keys to targeted business development. “Hit the right decision maker” and “know your rate schedule. It’s the work you want at the rate you want.” Kurz presents a plan to her attorneys and follows up quarterly in order to achieve great results. The plan calls for attorneys to identify two prospects from the following groups:

  • Current clients
  • New clients
  • Contacts from other practices

When sitting down with attorneys, Kurz advises them to work together and to involve secretaries in the process. She noted that it’s important to identify those attorneys who can do business development well.

Offering an additional perspective, Mangan stated that trust is integral. The most success is garnered when an attorney trusts the marketing professional. Bruns commented that the marketing team should “become a facilitator of information which increases value.”

Specific Techniques and Tools

Kurz and Bruns presented advice on dealing with hurdles to success and the immediate steps that can be taken to fuel the business development process. In her previous experience, Kurz believed that a big obstacle to success were silos, where the firm’s attorneys were competing with each other. She recommends holding small business development groups every four to six weeks to allow for moral support and brainstorming amongst the group. Bruns uses “organic pods” and secretaries as much as possible to drive success. Each panelist handed out action plan matrixes that they use at their respective firms to increase accountability and remain organized.

Wrapping up the session, the panel agreed that a huge part of growth in the business development process is a marketer’s relationship with an attorney, which can be built in workshops and one-on-one meetings. Bruns noted that “you cannot outsource the business development process. You have to be involved.”

© Copyright 2012 Legal Marketing Association (LMA) Midwest Chapter

Holiday Warning: Cut Sexual Harassment From Your Holiday Party Invitation List

The National Law Review recently published an article by Matthew J. Kreutzer of Armstrong Teasdale, Holiday Warning: Cut Sexual Harassment From Your Holiday Party Invitation List:

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

 

A recent federal judge’s decision allowing a sexual harassment case to proceed against an employer is a sobering reminder that the lighthearted, and sometimes drunken, atmosphere at office holiday parties does not equate to a free pass for your employees to engage in unwanted touching, lewd comments and other types of inappropriate behavior that otherwise would not be tolerated. Indeed, employers who fail to protect themselves can be held liable for workers’ conduct that might easily get out of hand at festive events particularly when there is drinking.

Just in time for the 2012 holiday party season, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York refused to dismiss a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against the State University of New York growing out of just such a party. (Shiner v. State University of New York, University at Buffalo, No. 11-CV-01024.)

The plaintiff, a clerk working at the University at Buffalo Dental School, alleged she had not wanted to attend the school’s annual holiday party because the conduct at previous events made her uncomfortable. However, a supervisor encouraged her to attend the party, which was held at a local bar. During the party, an associate dean, with supervisory authority over the plaintiff, allegedly made sexual advances toward her that included fondling her, putting his tongue in her ear and pulling her onto his lap. Another department official with supervisory authority allegedly cheered him on.

The plaintiff filed claims of sexual harassment under state and federal anti-discrimination laws, as well common law claims of assault and battery. The judge is allowing the case to proceed to trial, exposing (no pun intended) the employer to a potentially large monetary liability.

Employers can reduce the threat of misbehavior that gives rise to these kinds of allegations by, for example:

  • Reminding employees prior to the event that the company’s code of conduct remains in effect during the event
  • Establishing procedures in advance to handle any inappropriate behavior that might occur
  • Limiting the amount of drinking

If an employee does come to you with a sexual harassment complaint, please consider it seriously and take prompt action as necessary to investigate and stop the harassment.

© Copyright 2012 Armstrong Teasdale LLP

Why Social Media Matters to Lawyers – Reason #2: Out-of-Pocket Spending Efficiency

Womble Carlyle

In my previous post, I discussed how the use of social media makes sense for attorneys because it offers tremendous personal-effort efficiency. With one action – social media – lawyers can initiate and advance relationships…and they can enhance their digital footprint, making it easier for search engines to find them.

A second great reason that lawyers should care about social media is that, unless one subscribes to enhanced versions such as LinkedIn’s Sales Navigator, it’s a free medium.

In 2012, both the Harvard Business Review and the McKinsey Quarterly pointed out that because of the emergence of social media, sophisticated commercial companies are able to reduce advertising spend and, even for companies that still spend big, to dramatically leverage their advertising’s messages via social media.  One of the reasons that law firm advertising has been limited is because of the placement cost, which, in a professional services firm, is a direct hit on partners’ wallet. However, social media removes that barrier.

Next: How attorneys can use social media to leverage content.

Note: This post is the second blog entry based on a Nov. 17th presentation I made at the 2012 Lex Mundi Latin America/Caribbean Regional Conference in Santiago, Chile.

Read the rest of the series:

Why Social Media Matters to Lawyers – Reason #1: Personal-Effort Efficiency

Copyright © 2012 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

Why Social Media Matters to Lawyers – Reason #1: Personal-Effort Efficiency

The National Law Review recently published an article, Why Social Media Matters to Lawyers – Reason #1: Personal-Effort Efficiency, written by Steven Bell of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC:

Womble Carlyle

 

After all these years, I have concluded (as some, such as Mark Maraia have done long before me) thatrelationships are the foundation of client development at law firms.

Research by Hellerman Baretz Communications and BTI Consulting shows that, by far, personal referrals are the top driver for outside law firm engagements. Relationships with lawyers, existing clients, referral sources and other contacts are the lifeblood of any attorney’s practice, and I have been told that 70% of law firms’ new business derives from these relationships.

The same research shows that approximately 10 to 20 percent of a law firm’s business comes via online search engines such as such as Yahoo! and Google.

I know of only one activity that directly addresses both the initiation, advancement and monetization of relationships AND the enhancement of the digital footprint: social media. That alone is reason enough for attorneys to post, Tweet and comment. But there are other benefits for attorneys who engage in social media, including personal effort efficiency.

One of the real advantages of social media as a marketing exercise is that busy attorneys can fit it into their hectic schedules. Anyone with a little bit of technology education and a will to succeed in the information age can dash off a Tweet or a LinkedIn post, use it to initiate and/or advance a relationship, and create a ripple in the digital pond.  Thanks to mobile devices, one can even handle your social media activities while waiting for a meeting or sitting at the airport terminal.

Social media was tailor-made for the hectic, on-the-go lifestyle that most attorneys (and the professionals who support them) lead.

Next, Reason #2 – Out-of-Pocket-Spending Efficiency

Note: This post is the second blog entry based on a Nov. 17th presentation I made at the 2012 Lex MundiLatin America/Caribbean Regional Conference in Santiago, Chile.

Copyright © 2012 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

Sunday Funnies: Grammarian Goes Postal

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you another edition in the Sunday Funnies, submitted to us by Kendall Gray of Andrews Kurth: