'Evolve or die', and other puff about law firms and social media

Corporate Law Firms

It is fair to point out that there is some excessive hype going around about the benefits of social media for law firms and that this can tend to undermine the credibility of this proposition.

But it is hard to see how you draw a particular distinction for corporate law firms. If you look closely, their corporate clients do in fact comprise real human beings, many of whom would be interested - when not busy being corporate - in quick, easy and free access to their choice of professionally relevant expertise and insight. Such information might impress them enough to encourage them to look more closely at its provider, which in turn might lead to them choosing to engage in a professional capacity.

A corporate law firm could reach out to many such human beings simultaneously via social media with very little outlay in terms of resources.

Simples. To quote a well-known corporate meerkat.

Jeremy Hopkins -01 Sep 2011 | 20:38

Fast track to disillusionment

Excellent and on the money post as always Alex. Have read and been infuriated by some of the posts I think you're referring to. It strikes me that many of the posters of such articles have little experience of actually being lawyers, never mind running a law firm and are peddling the trends and out-of-context quotes as business insights in the absence of actual substantive knowledge of how lawyer-client relationships are actually developed and maintained.

As someone who embraces the use of technology in the law I equally agree with your comment on over-selling the virtues; I've gone from someone who thinks that social media may be useful to someone who is turned off by the vacuity of what I read about law firms and social media. To borrow from Gartner, lawyers tend to wait until technology is on the slope of enlightment or even the plateau or productivity before adopting it within the organisation. Social media will get there and law firms will adopt it, but enough with the oversell.

Midlands Lawyer -01 Sep 2011 | 21:39

Social Media Compared to What?

I largely agree with this analysis but am not sure it answers the right question. The implicit question is "must a law firm do social media?" I think a better question is "if a law firm spends money and time on marketing and business development, what are the best 'channels' to do so?"

Most large firms spend quite handsomely on marketing and BD. And many do not measure the effectiveness of that spend. If the goal is BD, whether a lawyer should write a book, article, or blog is an empirical question. Four years ago I presented at the Association of Legal Administrators (ALA) on the question of blogging and set forth a framework for thinking about where to spend marketing dollars. (My presentation is at http://www.prismlegal.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=123&Itemid=58)

Lawyers too easily dismiss ideas without comparing them to the next best alternative. That is not a mindset anyone should encourage. Social media may well be inappropriate, but that the answer needs to be, "compared to what?"

Ron Friedmann -01 Sep 2011 | 22:52

Not so revolutionary

Excellent article and comments.

I think it's useful to compare the current hype about social media with similar hype about websites from 15 years or so ago.

Have web sites revolutionised the way law firms attract business? With a very few exceptions, no. Have they provided a competitive advantage? Well, maybe. Is it possible to provide clear ROI? Hardly ever. Are they now well established as one of a number of channels for promoting the firm that no firm would want to be without? Absolutely yes.

Social media is not so very different.

Simon Ellison-Bunce -02 Sep 2011 | 11:21

Web 2.0 does not = Web 1.0

I enjoyed the article, but I disagree with Simon regarding the comparison of websites (1.0) to social media (2.0)

There is a magnitude of difference between the two. Websites could only be changed and maintained by IT people. The process was slow and it wasn't very dynamic. It was really all about broadcasting.

Social media is VERY different in that it allows lawyers to listen and communicate in a dynamic way. Instead of one messenger you can have hundreds of engaged participants from a single firm.

Social media won't live up to the hype as websites didn't live up to the hype only as we try to centralize their use and use it as a broadcast tool.

One of the issues I have with the article is this idea that existing alerts, articles and newsletters can just be slapped on the blogs. Those with experience blogging know that doesn't work.

Why? Few like reading those materials because they are too dense, filled with legalese and aren't written for the consumer. Social media changes that way lawyers write because they get more immediate and measurable reactions from their audience.

My two cents.

Adrian Dayton -02 Sep 2011 | 14:58

AND not OR

Hi Alex

An excellent article to elicit reaction. An interesting view and debate.

I'm a great believer in the AND and not the OR. Any 'reasonable' lawyer would look at both the ROI from SEO and SSO and particularly WHY and HOW to embark on both, strategically and positively with ROI in mind. IMHO If you miss one, you miss a route to market and a potential income stream (in my experience as a lawyer and a client of lawyers).

Adrian said it for me so I shall not repeat the same. Social media and social networking when used correctly and authentically in building relationships delivers extraordinary results.

Rather than repeat myself (again) my views have already been covered off in the blog post entitled "Social Media: From PR Dross To Winning Business" and in The Naked Lawyer eBook. Feel free to check it out on the EntrepreneurLawyer website. You can choose to ignore it, disagree with it, bin it, it's your choice, you are in control, you can change if you want...

Adrian & Jez - spot on!

Warmest and best intentions as ever

Chrissie Lightfoot
The Entrepreneur Lawyer
(of the naked kind)

Chrissie Lightfoot -02 Sep 2011 | 15:18

All sizzle and no steak?

Social media is a great way to interact with, and so become known to, more people and different kinds of people. That's great. It allows more interactions and thought sharing and, yes, publicity. So it's useful for showing the world that you exist.

But that's nothing new. It's just a new way of hobnobbing, networking and advertising. A new method, not a new "thing."

More importantly, it does not replace the underlying need to actually be good at the job. If you have a stellar online presence, but lack the real-life skills & wisdom clients need, it's going to show.

Think of any number of consumer products that had awesome advertising, great public awareness, fueled by brilliant consulting, but which tanked in the marketplace because the product itself wasn't what the consumer wanted.

NEB -02 Sep 2011 | 15:24

Examples?

Chrissie, I'd be interested in examples of the income streams or extraordinary results you're referring to. Are you talking actual or potential?

I'm not aware of social media delivering either to any law firm at present.

Midlands Lawyer -02 Sep 2011 | 16:50

Are we still having this debate?

For over two years I have been watching lawyers debate the ROI of social media et al and am still surprised that you're still debating it. There is no evolve or die, should I or shouldn't I. There's no definitive yes or no answer, it's all grey and it's going to get greyer for you. It's not the same as the website debate or the email debate or probably the mobile telephone debate - there is no debate. Do what you're comfortable with. Trust me, there are far more complicated marketing and comms scenarios on the horizon for you to contemplate ad infinitum. I've said it before, but it's like listening to record company execs debating downloadable music circa 1999. Before you know it the debate has gone, world moved on.

Jon Harman -02 Sep 2011 | 16:56

The best you can hope for as a law firm on twitter is a benign indifference, like a drunken uncle slumped in a dark corner of a wedding marquee after attempting to dance with the young pretty girls.

The worst is the same drunk uncle slumped in the middle of the dancefloor in full view of the entire wedding party.

Both ways it's just not appropriate and embarrassing.

Twit -02 Sep 2011 | 17:11

Killer App or Lawyers' Indulgence

Social media as a powerful communication tool is evolving. I would put it at the same evolutionary stage as the Beta Max video format is( was?) to Blu-ray. So there is a long way to go. Small law firms certainly are the early adopters but I would not play down how the big corporate firms can (and are ) beginning to make it work. I blogged my reasons last week if anyone would like to see why.

http://newsofthelaw.tumblr.com/post/9386443083/twitter-and-lawyers-indulgence-or-killer-app

David Mandell -02 Sep 2011 | 17:35

Don't just think about clients

A law firm - as with any business, has a multitude of stakeholders it needs to communicate with. In my view if you consider only clients in a debate about the benefits of investing in social media as a communications channel then you are missing the potential force of social media.

For example a lot of your employees will be active social media users and this could be another way of communicating with them. A lot of your potential employees - graduates (usually Facebook) and laterals (usually Linkedin) use social media actively. A lot of your suppliers will be on social media and there's an awful lot of journalists and industry commentators on social media. All of these stakeholders influence and help define your brand - it's not just your clients - obviously important though they are...

That's a lot of audience you have the potential to reach in a manner that many of them now prefer to communicate, for a (relatively) modest investment.

I'm absolutely convinced that a communications strategy for law firms today needs to embrace social media - but not purely in relation to clients and certainly not solely as a broadcast mechanism.

Tom Kingsley -04 Sep 2011 | 14:43

Social media - more than one subject for law firms

There are a lot of valid point in the post and comments, however there are a number of areas which law firms should be looking at and also thinking about and it is not about using social as a marketing and communication mechanism.

Law firms are advisors to a range of companies on a range of business areas, from small companies to large multi-national companies and the key here is that their customers are all starting to use social business tools and strategies, so if law firms are not in a position to be able to advise their clients in this new business world then, new law firms will start to pop up who do working this area.

Take any large company, they will be testing and trialing social tools in various parts of their business, marketing, PR, customer support, new product development, customer insight etc

Which ever team you look at their will be three different employees,

- the people using the tools each day on behalf of their company or area of business; they need to have guidelines which they operate under, these guidelines need to give them the flexibility to engage through these channels

- the managers of the people doing the day to day communications - they need to understand the tools, the challenges their team is facing and be able to support them in their role and also be able to handle crisis situations around comments, products services etc from a more senior perspective

- then we have senior executives, they have teams of managers some of whom manage teams, others who don't, they need to be aware of this channel and if and how it could affect the business overall

Each of these roles require advice and guidance both from a business perspective but also from a legal perspective as well as potential amendments to employment contracts and internal guidelines (neither of which should be onerous inclusions but provide the guidance and flexibility to participate and use these channels effectively)

So, if law firms do not start to understand what social media and the underlying tools and areas of the business using them, they will start to fall down in a very large area of providing their clients with a full legal service.

It is not so much about how law firms use them to promote their firms but about how they can help and advise their clients who do.

Julie Walker -05 Sep 2011 | 09:12

My Tuppence

Law firms should adopt an approach of a hierarchy of information. Ideally that means:

1. You have partners doing the interesting tweets about stuff going on in their areas
2. You have a corporate or press office account that retweets all the partners' stuff and tweets "corporate" and press info on top as applicable. The corporate account must identify who is operating it and can thank people for retweets/engage in basic conversation but not get drawn overly into debates.

Clients or those interested just in IP or FSR or whatever can follow the partner in question in that area, while journalists, would-be trainees and other interested parties can follow the corporate or press office account to get everything about the firm.

It's not particularly organised but it's organic, genuine and people-led, which suits law firms well and suits Twitter well. It may be that you get major areas where no partner is tweeting but so be it; if you force things here it guarantees failure. Twitter does not suit the application of corporate PR strategies except with some consumer-facing exceptions. But you still need some broad and sensible guidelines internally (so need HR and comms to work together on policies).

Comms man, top 20 firm -05 Sep 2011 | 13:36

Social Media DOES drive business to law firms

Our firm has WON new business as a result of our social media endeavours. We're not necessarily at the fore-front of social media but we have engaged with it and we have a number of examples, throughout the firm of new business:

1. From new clients via LinkedIn (by commenting on group discussions, by connecting to long lost colleagues etc.);

2. New business from RT's on twitter i.e. extending our reach beyond our natural audience;

3. TV & Radio interviews because we've commented on Google News & twitter... and new clients coming to us because of this (yes, they told us!)

4. Existing clients giving us more business and in a variety of work areas because they can see that we are 'notable experts' in the area (having used social media to spread the word).

It can and does work as a means to generate new income streams and new business.

Of course it shouldn't replace the other activities that lawyers are undertaking, but it can complement them very nicely!

LegalMarketingBod -05 Sep 2011 | 14:37

Social media - worth it soon, probably

I think Alex's rallying cry at the end of the article - "Social media - worth it soon. Probably" is a pretty good one.

When compared to many other areas where law firms waste huge resources, it is positively compelling. It certainly beats the alternatives partners in large firms happily spend small fortunes on, such as:
- "Wonderful CRM system everyone hates & no one uses";
- "Opulent brochures hidden in a cupboard with photos of partners who've left" or even
- "Big team hanging around in a marketing meeting for the partner to show"

As one commentator hinted above, when you compare time on social media to existing alternatives it sounds a lot more compelling.

Tim Prizeman - Kelso PR -05 Sep 2011 | 17:23

The influence and importance of social media, and Twitter in particular, are inflated by the media, due to their own addiction to its speed and volume of content, and hence this article's cautious realism is to be applauded.

Cynic -05 Sep 2011 | 22:24

Lack of practical suggestions

To me the biggest failing of these social media evangelists is that they fail to offer realistic, practical advice.

Instead, most of the time all you get is vague platitudes about engagement and intensely childish agonising over the trivial issues such as the politics of when and when not to retweet. (the way some grown adults slavishy adhere to the playground-style etiquette of Twitter is often hilarious)

And a quick glance at the Twitter account of most of these self-appointed experts can tell you that most of them spend WAY too much time on it. Most normal people just don't have that sort of time to commit to it (and don't want to).

Is the only path to success complete and utter immersion? Or can someone offer some useful advice as to how the demands of 24/7 'engagement' are married with a realistic working life?

Anonymous -05 Sep 2011 | 22:30

In my experience when people look at the future they both under and over-estimate the impact of ‘disruptive’ change. The over-estimate often comes from the speed at which the proponents of the new technologies (consultants and sellers) suggest their new bit of wizardry will sweep away the world as we know it.

New technologies are useful only if they fill a genuine ‘problem’ or provide genuine (and valued) USP. Which is where the under-estimate comes in… Genuinely disruptive industry changes such as a new route to market (the internet), the convergence of technology and telecoms (eg smart phones) or fundamental regulatory changes (such as Tesco Law) always have significant and far reaching intended and unintended consequences. Many established industry players only recognise this years after the event, when their business has stagnated.

We are all conditioned to disregarding 99% of messages otherwise we would not have time to do our day jobs. I work with businesses who look beyond the ‘white noise’ to take advantage of disruptive change.

Beth Hughes -08 Sep 2011 | 14:49

A different impact

I think the way firms need to think about social media is less as a tool to propagate messages, drive awareness etc though it does add a channel to do that.

But what social media means is you have less control and ability to manage messages about your firm than ever before.

Today, few FDs, in-house counsel or other buyers of legal services actively use social media as part of their decision on who to invite to tender (for example). But - and I think this is the under-estimated change referred to - this is very likely to change in the next five years. Today they use "real" word of mouth and that won't ever go away - but "virtual" word of mouth will become progressively more important.

So, what clients and others are saying about the firm - based largely on their experience of using it and the people they have come into contact with - will be far more widely broadcast.

So the implication is firms need to really sharpen up in terms of their ability to provide value for money, client service, and an outcome that (from all the perspectives that matter to the client) the client is happy with. Fee earners need to up their game in some instances. Otherwise, the risk is that instances of dissatisfaction will be broadcast more widely and the relevant firm will end up paying a greater financial and reputational penalty than it does today.

So the right choice is not to hire social media "whizzkids" but ensure you're more consistently delivering value based on what the client wants.

Robin Dicks -13 Sep 2011 | 08:26