Marketing Attorney Blog

American Bar Association (ABA) incoming President James R. Silkenat has reappointed attorney Micah Buchdahl to a three year term on the Standing Committee of Continuing Legal Education (SCOCLE). The committee is a driving force behind all aspects of lawyer professional development and continuing legal education programming.

Buchdahl is President of Moorestown, New Jersey-based HTMLawyers, a law marketing consultancy, where he works with law firms around the globe on business development initiatives and strategies. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania.

The ABA Center for Professional Development (formerly Center for CLE) is guided by the SCOCLE, working closely with experts from ABA Sections and other entities and from the profession at large in developing programs and products. It serves as the central resource for the ABA and the profession for up-to-the-minute, quality CLE distributed through a variety of convenient formats.

Buchdahl served one year on an appointment by ABA President Laurel Bellows before his reappointment by Silkenat. During this time, he served on the SCOCLE's marketing committee. He also developed programming for the ABA Premier Speaker series, where he will lead an ethics CLE program on attorney ratings & rankings in October 2013. In addition, Buchdahl is Editor in Chief of the ABA's Law Practice Today, the most widely disseminated online resource on law practice management in the legal profession.

A past chair of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA, Buchdahl developed the ABA Law Firm Marketing Strategies Conference, a standalone business development workshop. He is a longtime faculty member of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, teaching ethics annually for more than a decade.

The SCOCLE is chaired by Vincent Polley. The Director of the ABA Center for Professional Development is Jill Eckert McCall.

When creating the "Internet Marketing Attorney" moniker in 1997, I would scour the web for the most innovative law firm websites, eventually rating and ranking them in five categories--design, content, usability, interactivity and intangibles. If you were listed among the 250 largest U.S. law firms, you were then ranked accordingly. Many small and midsize firms from around the world submitted themselves for consideration as well, and while I did not review all of them, I also had the annual Nifty Fifty list of innovative legal website components. But times changed and just like technology, I had to adapt.

There were three key factors that led me to stop presenting the IMAs--as they are known throughout the legal industry. First, the large law firm sites become homogenized. There were so few substantive differences to the sites that it made finding those differentiators quite difficult. I would write the same notes and comments over and over again. Second, my "for-profit" business (HTMLawyers, my law marketing consultancy) did not provide enough free time to properly conduct these evaluations. Because I never solicited those law firms I reviewed, it was a great branding tool but not necessarily a revenue generator. My time was always "sold out", but it was tough to equate new business with the time needed for the IMAs. Finally, any free time or "down time" is now owned by my children--who do not find law firm websites all that fascinating. Luckily, my monthly contributions to Web Marketing Today allow me to continually monitor and teach best practices for law firm internet marketing.

Which is a long-winded way of introducing this month's WMT column, Law Firm Websites: A Developer's Review, where in essence I turn the tables slightly by asking the web site developers to tell me what site they like best and why (obviously, their own handiwork). I invited some of the more prominent names in law firm website development to participate--just give me a site and what makes it special. The end result is a handy tutorial for any law firm looking to identify key components for their next website.

The cited sites offer a nice mix of law firm geography and size. Included in this column are websites developed for McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, Freeborn & Peters, Sideman & Bancroft, Nixon Peabody, and Jeffer Mangels.

Thanks to Inherent, Saturno Design, Duo Consulting, Bothwell Marketing and Justia for taking part. Each provided me with a website, some background and key features. In my 17 years of working on law firm website projects, I've had the opportunity to work with hundreds of developers throughout the world. In many cases, I've reviewed their RFP responses to law firms in helping select the right provider. In others, dozens of law firm website developers keep me informed of their newer launches and products--helping me pass that information along to my IMA and WMT readership. This month's column is a map of the newer online features that merit consideration in building or upgrading a law firm website.

For lawyers, there is so much more to LinkedIn than creating a profile, getting some connections and joining a few groups. The real value of participation is from the other products and services they offer. In this month's Web Marketing Today column, I try to address some of the components that go "beyond the basics."

Personally, I probably don't use LinkedIn the same way as many other marketing professionals or attorneys. I find the tool extremely valuable--but more as a super-powered directory of contacts for lead generation, competitive intelligence and a better source of data about people and companies. I find it very useful when following up with someone, learning more about a business card picked up at a networking function or refining a list of prospective clients. Others, however, spend hours on end building a network and doing a slightly more sophisticated method of cold calling.

As noted in the column, there is no disputing the power of LinkedIn. It is the second search result when looking myself up on Google--behind only my own website. With 200 million-plus users, there is a pretty good chance that the professional I'm looking for is in the network. He or she may have a skeletal profile and three contacts--but they are there nonetheless.

Like many friends and colleagues, I'm on Facebook multiple times each day. But I'm there to show you what my kids are up to, talk Phillies, Eagles, or Temple Owls basketball. My wife--a master at the "check in"--makes it easier for me to get served with a subpoena, since you know what restaurant to find me in on Saturday night. While I do mix personal and professional contacts, it is clearly a social environment. Depending on your practice area, it might be fertile ground for marketing. And with recent changes in design, it is becoming a more viable advertising option for law practices as well. But it is not for everyone.

Twitter, the third major player in today's social media circles, skews a little younger. The audience is huge, and loyal followers are avid. But, once again, the interest in participating among law firms is not always there. Somebody has to be tweeting all the time, and that does not work everywhere.

You may or may not choose to engage in Facebook or Twitter, but any business professional should maintain a level of activity on LinkedIn.

On February 28th, the Virginia Supreme Court held that a disclaimer was required under the state's advertising rules when posting results on a website. This is the latest outcome in the seemingly never-ending battle between Horace Hunter and the Virginia State Bar. This has been a widely watched case among ethics attorneys like myself that follow the bouncing ball of state bar advertising restrictions and first amendment scholars looking at the "free speech" argument. Is the next stop the U.S. Supreme Court?

Last April (2012), I was part of an ABA CLE panel that discussed "Is Your Legal Blog Compliant? Ethical considerations in the wake of Hunter v. Virginia State Bar." The panel included Mr. Hunter, myself, employment law blogger Molly DiBianca and noted Virginia ethics attorney Tom Spahn. We discussed and debated the many issues in the case. It is effectively a case of first impression in the law blogosphere. That was prior to the case heading up the ladder to the state supreme court. Read more about the program in Your ABA's e-news--Blogs can be legal minefields.

Blogs have been around since the late 1990s, yet this cyberspace battle in Virginia is the first real challenge by a state bar to the often cloudy areas of interpretation. Is a blog advertising, marketing, editorial, personal, or business? Where does the First Amendment end and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct begin? Should a state bar look at a blog as marketing or something else?

I've found that heavy bloggers and those that sell blogs to law firms are often quite vocal in the opinion that the blog is somehow "media" and exempt from rules under "marketing." As a former journalist, I've always been disturbed by the concept that someone with a blog is suddenly a "reporter." Clearly, there are blogs that have become popular enough in the mainstream that they become influencers and sometimes garner "media" status for credentialing and access. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to credential bloggers for various conferences. Usually they are just too cheap to register. And in most cases, I've never heard of them. There are blogs that are clearly online media. But they are usually a standalone entity and not promotional in the sense that the goal is anything more than traffic generation. The goal of most lawyer blogs is to generate business as lawyers--whether it is direct or in many cases, helping with search engine optimization, increasing media inquiries or branding visibility. Any way you slice it, we are not doing it as a personal "dear diary."

The ethics attorney part of me clearly believes that a law firm or lawyer blog is advertising, marketing or a communication that falls under the respective RPC. It is simply ridiculous to differentiate between a law firm website and a law firm blog (with, of course, exceptions). When doing an ethics compliance review of a blog, I look at numerous factors--including disclaimers, links to the main site, bar states of contributors and various other criteria in making sure a law firm blog is compliant--based on advertising and solicitation rules, not based on the concept that the attorney is an objective journalist making a comment.

Of course, if you are reading this, you realize that this is a blog! I do it for all the aforementioned reasons. But if you think the underlying goal is anything less than business development...please. We blog to get attention--for our practice, for our business. Not that there is anything wrong with that. We give advice, opinions and provide news for our niche targets.

It will be interesting if Hunter gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because a ruling there would likely elevate or dilute the level of restriction and requirements accompanying the thousands of law firm blogs out there. A good blog offers expert opinion--but it is marketing. This is not The New York Times.

It is rare that I make a trip to Chicago or Toronto without spending an evening at Second City. There is nothing more entertaining (to me) than great improvisational comedy. Growing up, I was a Second City TV groupie of sorts, now possessing the entire DVD collection of SCTV. I love the creativity, thinking on your feet and ability to laugh at oneself (and others). So it was easy to talk about Drexel University Law School's "Improv for Lawyers" class in an article written this week by Associated Press reporter Kathy Matheson.

Matheson was writing about the uniqueness of such a law school elective, taught by actress/comedian Sharon Geller, who has also provided improv training as a CLE to lawyers in various settings. While this all coincidentally took place in my home base of Philadelphia, it was my role in the American Bar Association--as a past chair of the Law Practice Management Section and a current member of the ABA's Standing Committee on CLE that led her to ask about my experience and views on the subject. I was asked about the uniqueness of the program and the value to a new or seasoned attorney.

In many law firm retreats where I've participated in some manner--either in organization, as a speaker, or in conjunction with a business development project--an improv session taught by one of many skilled troupes in the United States (including Second City traveling casts) is used to develop skills including team building, public speaking, "thinking on your feet" and training for improved client and prospective client interactions. Improv has also been used by a number of law firms I work with for associate and partner professional development training programs in-house. Whether or not they qualify as "substantive legal training" as a CLE is a state-by-state matter--but that is a subject for another post. Whether or not it is CLE accredited, the program provides a useful training ground that incorporates numerous elements of law practice.

The Drexel class is a huge hit. The school has always been known for providing some out-of-the-box "real world" training. In a short time, the law school has done a nice job carving out space and a good reputation in an excellent Philadelphia area law school market (led, of course, by my undergrad and law school alma mater Temple).

In the AP article, Matheson quotes a former course participant and present Ballard Spahr associate about being prepared for responding to difficult things or difficult people. Yes, those are not wasted skills for a new attorney to possess. And at a time where law firms are becoming increasingly more focused on PD and business development, an ability to be creative, think outside the box and challenge conventions is not a bad thing to include in the workplace curriculum. Many law firms should take note of the interest that a course such as this one has generated. It takes some guts and personality to succeed on the improv stage. There is no question that the skill set translates to the practice of law.

Recent rulings and advisories by the National Labor Relations Board regarding social media policies in the workplace impact law firms in a variety of ways. Today's New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reviews how the NLRB is basically telling employers to scale back limitations as it relates to many social media policies that might be seen as illegal blanket restrictions.

Can you really stop Facebook and Twitter from happening in today's workplace? Nope.

The NLRB says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether you are in the employee cafeteria or on Facebook. Although Facebook might have better food options (I said that. It is not in the article).

The bottom line--many companies are rewriting social media rules. If you want to read about social media in the workplace from an employment law perspective, you are better off going to Molly DiBianca on The Delaware Employment Law Blog. I'm here to discuss the potential impact on the law firm from an ethics compliance and business development perspective.

Having taught social media courses at many law firms, written a few of the policies myself, and conducted ethics compliance reviews for a number of the AMLAW 200, I can tell you that some of the policies--both written, unwritten and suggested--are somewhat out of whack with recent developments. I often remind some firms that they might "suggest" or "guide" employees (lawyers and staff alike), but some of the policies I've seen have been overbroad and overreaching. The Rules of Professional Conduct take care of many of the ethics issues for the lawyers. However, there are plenty of gray areas as they relate to LinkedIn profiles, Facebook posts and tweets.

Be sure your law firm's approach to social media is appropriate. Because it is one thing to read about a corporation coming out on the short end of these rulings; it is another for a client to see you listed as one of the offending parties.

In today's Law360, reporter Bibeka Shrestha writes on Insurance agents taking Jacoby & Meyers LLP to task over advertising relating to Hurricane Sandy. In her article, she interviews me about my take on the complaint filed with the state court disciplinary committee by the Professional Insurance Agents of New York.

The PIA's complaint stems from an ad that says, "If your business lost business due to the storm your insurance policy should cover it. If it doesn't, your agent made an error. We'll work to correct it." The complaint cites 7.1(a)(2) of the NY RPC...the all-purpose "false, deceptive or misleading"...in regard to the advertisement's content and message.

While I'm far from an expert on insurance law, I have trouble believing that every policy covers business interruption. I can see where agents might take offense to the suggestion that they are at fault, acting improperly or erroneous in every instance where a claim for such coverage is denied. I suggest in the article that a slight tweak from "your agent made an error" to "your agent might have made an error" would likely rectify the situation and not dilute the ad's impact. Of course, I've had my fair share of fights over the years with insurance agents over what is and is not covered in a policy--so I'm not going to be a staunch defender of the industry. I'm talking to you buddy--the guy that claimed I could continue to sleep on a mattress in which a squirrel died and decomposed. "You don't need a new one. We can just get it steam cleaned." Yes, I got a new mattress. And, yes, I utilized my law degree in doing so. I totally get retaining counsel if you feel provisions of a policy are not being carried out.

My perspective comes from that of an ethics attorney that looks at (and creates) lawyer marketing for a living. In the Law360 piece, Marc Mayerson of Orrick Herrington is an insurance attorney and did not see this ad as a serious legal advertising violation. Now, his Orrick biography says he "specializes" in complex insurance-coverage disputes. And the use of "specializes" is a violation of the rules in many states. A "serious" violation? No. Luckily for Orrick, they don't have offices in the sticky states that are vigilant about the "bad" words (specialize, expertise, leaders in, etc.) or a state might have brought it to their attention already.

As many law firms know, some state bars are not particularly interested in whether the violation is serious or not--simply that it is a violation. You know--the whole slippery slope and parade of horribles sort of stuff. What makes this particular situation unique for me is that it is not a state bar bringing the complaint, or a consumer client. It is a third party outside the usual scope of examination. It will be interesting to see how New York's disciplinary committee chooses to address this complaint.

Now I see ads that are far more potentially egregious than this Jacoby & Meyers one--as a resident of Southern New Jersey, I have seen a ton of law firm ads seeking Sandy "victims"--some of which make me wince. Sandy was not a bad guy or gal, but a product of Mother Nature--who may be subject to litigation herself. Shame on you Mother Nature. I hope you have good counsel.

The ABA Section of Family Law has dedicated its entire winter 2013 issue of the Family Advocate to the topic of marketing your practice in the digital age. The feature that the publication asked me to author, Finding the Magical Mix for Your Digital Marketing Plan, presents a wide range of options for the family law practitioner--including websites, blogs, use of video, search engine optimization, mobile sites, social media, directories and ratings. In other words, there are a lot of options and a lot to think about.

Among other features in the issue is an article on Common Ethical Pitfalls of Digital Marketing, authored by my ABA LPM colleagues Sharon Nelson and John Simek. While ethics rules should not discourage or hamper an attorney's involvement on social media and lawyer referral websites, compliance is critical. As an ethics attorney myself, I've worked to get a few attorneys out of digital "jams", not to mention implementing lots of preventive medicine.

Simply noting that the ABA Family Law Section has dedicated an entire one of its quarterly issues to this subject should be enough to wake up any family lawyer not paying attention to the World Wide Web. The bottom line is that like many consumer-oriented practices, competition is fierce and ever-increasing. Family law is such an interesting animal. Perhaps no other area of practice is likely to impinge on life more than divorce--if not directly on your household, indirectly through a relative or friend. In regard to advertising, you are often targeting a more sophisticated client base than might be the case for a plaintiffs' practice. Visibility is a necessity. No other area of practice is represented more in many of the lifestyle and regionally-based print publications I peruse from the mailbox. The radio and billboards tout family law practices (not so much on television). Facebook is both a contributing cause and effect of many divorces--meaning that a target audience is right there for the taking. The use of mediation and forms of alternative dispute resolution bring in other competitive marketplace issues. A few years ago, I presented a marketing ethics CLE program at the ABA Annual Meeting for the ADR section, with many of the examples coming from issues relating to family law attorneys competing with huge, non-law firm divorce mediation services.

Personally, I enjoy marketing family law practices. There is a mix of general law practice marketing principles with non-law firm specific avenues of consumer marketing targets. The challenge is often to out-"visible" the other guy or gal, while being in the right places at the right times. Like it or not, the prospective client is highly likely to utilize the Internet as a source of information, referral and attorney selection. Failure to appear is simply a lost opportunity.

For examples of some solid online efforts by family law attorneys (all noted in the ABA feature, and a reverse disclaimer - none are clients and I've never met any of them), see the links below:

Blogs - www.sandiegodivorceattorneyblog.com and www.fortlauderdaledivorcelawyerblog.com
Video - genxsmartie.blogspot.com and thelaw.tv/Kansas/Divorce+Law
Social Media inclusion - www.sblumenthallaw.com
Niche - Cordell & Cordell

What is it our parents always told us? If your friend jumped off a bridge, does that mean you should do the same? In this case, it is more like "Match Game 2012" than it is about "follow the leader." So the question becomes, how necessary is it for a law firm to match another's year-end bonus? And in my business, what are the marketing implications for a law firm that does or does not choose to follow suit?

As reported by Peter Lattman in The New York Times this week, "Cravath sets the tone for law firm bonuses." Law firms don't have NFL salary caps or MLB luxury taxes to help keep things competitive. In many ways, Cravath is like the New York Yankees of law firms--old, venerable and wealthy. They generate a lot of revenue that others can't, and can spend accordingly. But most other teams simply don't generate the same revenue and can't pay out the same amounts. Spending more does not mean you always win, but you are usually in the game.

If the process holds true that Cravath sets the scale, then you could argue they could do it to squeeze others as much as it might be to reward the associates that spend the year billing the night away. If you think about it, if they force less profitable firms to profit less, are they not creating an even stronger market advantage for themselves?

And what does this say about all the surveys and reports we keep reading? Corporate counsel cutting spending. A soft economy. Revenue is down. Are those reports really not accurate barometers? (I've often felt that a significant amount of that data does not accurately reflect reality.) In many cases, the answer is reflected in the fact that most firms are simply not in the same boat. Those that had already chosen to match by week's end--Paul Weiss, Proskauer, Simpson Thacher, Skadden, among them--are playing in the same pond. The reality is that those firms are in a position to match without concern. The problem is that the same conversation goes on in a hundred firms that are not.

I often cringe in having the "match" conversation with law firm management. Will we remain competitive? Will we be seen as second tier? Can we afford not to match? Will the short term pain outweigh what is perceived as long term gain? What will others think? Will we lose out in associate retention and recruiting wars? Many of those questions lead a firm to just say "yes" regardless of whether the feared impact is true. I don't believe in almost every instance that matching is necessary. It comes down to semantics. In a working world where the bottom line dollar is less and less important to those that are living large either way, there are so many other determining factors that can make your law firm the place to be. After all, didn't the St. Louis Cardinals and San Francisco Giants just win the last three World Series? And did Dewey & LeBoeuf match last year? I'd ask, but nobody is answering the phone.

It is not Henny Youngman, but Stoll Berne managing partner Scott Shorr.

With the tagline -- Take your conflicts. Not your clients. -- the Portland, Oregon law firm of Stoll Berne got some nice play in the Portland Business Journal for its advertising campaign focused on getting lawyers to send them conflict work. When Journal reporter Andy Giegerich called me to get my take on the uniqueness of the campaign, it highlighted once again some greater lengths law firms are going to these days to find additional revenue streams.

Advertising in legal publications for conflict work is certainly not new. I've worked with law firms on such ads in the past--albeit with minimal success. As an attorney with a small niche practice, I end up with referral situations practically every week. It would never occur to me to send the work to anyone that I did not personally know. But, again, not every lawyer has a go-to person for every practice and jurisdiction. But I also know that the nature of conflicts in my business development business takes on much the same take as a legal matter. Because I won't work with competing firms in a market (sometimes geographic, sometimes practice-driven), I often need to send work elsewhere. I'm looking at the same issues--will this person or company steal my client, and/or am I putting them in a better position to compete against me. And, oh yeah, I almost forgot--they need to be good lawyers who will represent the client well. It comes down to relationships, one hand washing the other, and trust. And the old adage, "burn me once," certainly fits in the world of conflict work.

I'm not sure that ads in two Oregon law publications will really produce any direct benefits. It might prove to be beneficial awareness branding for colleagues that already have a relationship with Stoll Berne. In many similar style ads, the target would be non-Oregon law firms needing in-state counsel. However, I do not see this campaign as a negative, and it already produced some ancillary publicity in town--simply by virtue of the Journal doing a piece about it. To be honest, going with the "conflicts" theme in some image ads is probably a more effective measure than the typical ineffective tagline banter. What I wonder in branding is how many people might confuse one Stoel with another, in the same marketplace. Perhaps another subliminal marketing message.