Marketing and Trust

Today, the ABA Journal reported the recently conducted annual Altman Weil study among Chief Legal Officers has turned up a lack of belief among corporate counsel about the sincerity of talk about transformation in the legal industry. And, the way I read it, this isn't just the typical cynicism that accompanies thoughts about lawyers.

The study is not perfect, mind you, as it has a respondent bias: the responses totalled about 15% of the total surveys sent and respondents were not quotaed or otherwise synchronized with a particular representative or target respondent distribution. However, it is clear that there is among the responders significant doubt as to the willingness and ability of law firms and their lawyer owners to make any profound changes in their business model or service mechanics.

Given the major effort that the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) has put into its Value Challenge, it's a curiosity that no law firm has had the wisdom and courage to proclaim its unqualified support. About the best I've seen, personally, is Womble Carlyle's statement of support, which -- while not a complete endorsement - does attempt to address some of the expressed objectives of the ACC.

The Altman news release quotes their spokesman as calling the study findings "a dramatic vote of no confidence" in the commitment of law firms to change. In fact, while 62% of respondents rated the pressure on law firms to change at 5 or above on a 10 point scale, fully 75% rated law firm's seriousness about change at 4 or less on the same scale.

I fear that Altman Weil's study suggests there is little hope that we will lift the veil of negativity and doubt from the relationship of general counsel and their outside lawyers. If we can't convince our clients that we hear what they want and are ready to conduct business according to their specifications, how happy will they ever be with our services? How willing a buyer?

Lawyers May Love This Little Black Book

One of my favorite business development books for years has been Jim Hassett's Legal Business Development. This simple and direct outline of a marketing process for lawyers is going to have some company on the bookshelf from now on.

I've just finished Paula Black's latest "The Little Black Book: A Lawyer's Guide to Creating a Marketing Habit in 21 Days." Paula has a couple of "Little Black Books" already in print and has gotten wide notice and some kudos for her earlier work. The new one is the ultimate quick read, perfect for busy lawyers who have plenty of reasons to say their lives are too packed to develop a marketing habit.

Spanning the stated 21 days are Paula's 21 steps into a regular personal marketing habit. Each day, starting with the first Monday of the first week of the period, has a single word to start the day, couple of sentences to direct the lawyer's thinking about the step, an action to take that specific day and a tip that anticipates the need for a couple of words that will increase the effectiveness of the action.

There's no magic knowledge here, just pragmatic direction and advice that breaks down resistance to developing the marketing habit by enabling the lawyer to make incremental yet speedy progress and keeps the workload manageable. Paula's contribution is to recognize that each day must build upon the previous steps and yet be an complete element unto itself.

I think this might just work for both lawyers who cannot get started because the work of personal marketing seems too overwhelming in the whole and lawyers who claim there is just not time to attend to the mechanics. Paula's book gives them both something to do (but not too much to do) in an attractive and readable format. For the next 48 hours, she's giving away almost 40 gifts with each book order, so check it out at her Web site.

Should Marketing Be Expected Of Young Attorneys?

For all of those among the law firm ranks who think that marketing needs to be the province of the experienced and that it takes more than just excellent legal work to win the attention of potential clients, I recommend this post yesterday by Carolyn Elefant at the Legal Blog Watch.

Even we, the long of tooth and true believers of bizdev, can be impressed by the genuine rewards being reaped from good works done well. No matter how much you might discuss the nature of the issue, the timing and character of the representation, the results speak for themselves.

Do any of us have any doubt about this young lawyer's bright future as a rainmaker?

One Blog Says Blogs Can't Be Trusted

I ran across a very interesting piece at Forrester Research last week, thanks to an article by Josh Bernoff in the American Marketing Association's Marketing News of May 15. He reported on research that found blogs were the least trusted source of information among consumers.

Guess I should sign off now. But, wait, there's more.

One out of six consumers say they trust company blogs. These same people are generally more trusting of all media. Making them what? Gullible? Prescient?

One should really read Berhoff's Groundswell blog for the full story, but the Reader's Digest version (did I just date myself?) is that blogs that are entirely company information-oriented to a self-serving level (the reasons our dishwasher pellets simply work better and are environmentally pure) provoke a cynical mistrust in most consumers. Maybe that's to be expected.

Berhoff does report that there are very good ways to make a blog more trustworthy:

1. Cover customer problems.
2. Reach and incite comments from fans.
3. Explore core community issues...the community of readers and consumers.
4. Tout your celebrity (that's why I blog!).
5. Showcase your employees (as authors and heros).
6. Expand your content and channel, if you're a medium.
7. Have a voice in the conversation that's already about you and your interests.

Why do you blog? What blogs do you trust?

Firms Require Guides To Conduct Online

Bob Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch calls our attention to a vital piece of legal marketing practice today, that of the need for law firms to take charge of their own online social destiny and protect their fragile reputations by giving thorough guidance to their lawyers and staff about using social utilities. His post last week Rules of Conduct for Social Networking steps off from a set of guidelines given out at the Wall Street Journal about social media.

Just today, I introduced Swati Agrawal of Firmseek at the Legal Marketing Association Virginias Chapter, and she hit this subject, too, in connection with a talk on law firm marketing technology in times when firms are cutting back budgets and leaning even more heavily on demonstrated ROI. Along with suggestions to make more of what firms already have in place and work their own networks for knowledge was her endorsement of free tools such as Facebook and Twitter. Her caution: don't do anything without first deciding what you want to get out of it and how it should be employed, and beware the user with a bone to pick. She had a few interesting real-life tales to make her points. (Hat tip to Swati, who taught me the term "social utility" today.)

It remains to be seen whether there is a positive business development path through these new areas, but there is most certainly a negative one: the loss of a law firm's good name through the misuse of the media by its own people, or those it offends. I have noted the potential loss of control of a firm's reputation pointed out in this telling post on Kara Smith's blog.

The first significant area of liability to address is state Bars. Our own firm's code of participation is largely informed by the Rules active in the states where we practice and I recommend that for every firm. If only that were sufficient.

The Bar may govern the behavior and ethics of a lawyer, but firms also will find their positive reputation depends on the good and ethical online behavior of their staff and that is not a Bar concern except to the extent it may affect client representation. That's why our code also suggests appropriate use for these new media by non-attorneys, too.

As a third leg to stabilize this social networking platform, we have retained a firm of online social networking specialists (http://crt-tanaka.com/ and @crttanaka) to help chart our course. Still, the reason to build this platform is singular: once upon a time, firms used to control their message, but the online social media world is a conversation and participation may give you influence, but you will never have complete control.

Yet, what does a firm possess of value to clients but reputation? This is akin to the business accounting concept of goodwill. Even Bars believe that lawyers have clients, firms do not. The Rules are built to govern the behavior of lawyers, not firms. The collection of lawyers that is a law firm possess only the record of representation that inur to these lawyers. Clients hire firms with highly successful records. This reputation is now widely dependent on the online world. Today, a post from Legal Blog Watch points out the growing influence of the online world on winning business. And who hasn't Googled their firm name and discovered data they didn't expect?

How many of our law firms are leaving their online reputation up for grabs?

Social Life Now at the Bar

Online social life, that is. Bar rules, that is. Both in Philadelphia and in Connecticut, opinion and advice have surfaced dealing with the use of online social networks in the legal industry. Hat tips to my two favorite daily reads: Legal Blog Watch from incisive media (that's the way THEY spell it) and ABA Journal Daily Newsletter.

From the former, I learn that A Connecticut Law Blog author Ryan McKeen had received a confusing missive from his state Bar when he asked for guidance on Web 2.0 communications. As he points out, the lack of foresight by the Bar has left the user adrift in Rules designed for paper, phone and fax. I fear this is the norm.

But there is hope. In today's ABA newsletter, I learn that in Philadelphia, as reported by Doug Cornelius on Social Media Today , the local Bar Association has ventured the advice that "friending" someone on Facebook through a third party meets the "misleading" standard that govern attorney communications. I'm so glad someone asked.

We've been discussing online social media with a passion for weeks. No stranger to these pages, Twitter, blogs, Facebook and LinkedIn have enraptured attorney audiences in our offices and out of town. I was glad to meet Wendy Nemitz of Ingenuity Marketing, Kristen Campbell of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Steve Baird of Winthrop & Weinstine and DuetsBlog, Larry James, Jr., of Dickenson, Mackaman, Tyles & Hagan and Mark Krueger of Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance for a spirited discussion in Minneapolis last weekend.

Stay tuned as Bars tune in to this new world.

Confusing Times for Law Firm Advisors?

The stress and financial turmoil roiling through law firms must make marketing very difficult for established consultancies such as Altman Weil and Hildebrandt. Let me give you one personal example.

This week, I will attend a meeting where we'll hear from Ward Bower of A-W on "Opportunities for Mid-Sized Firms in the Current Economy." Many of my friends at places like the Legal Water Cooler, Law Firm CI and folks I've seen speaking recently have been referring to the compression in legal budgets among corporations as a chance for mid-sized and boutique firms (read: less costly) to make some inroads in a market that has been dominated by large "safe bets" among the AmLaw 100.

I listened avidly at the Legal Marketing Association Conference the first of this month to Tom Clay of the same firm detail their recent "Legal Transformation Study" that used scenario planning to posit the possible fields of play in 2020, about a decade away. When the researchers asked a wide group of law firm managers and partners which of the four scenarios were most likely to be reality in 2020, there was almost an even divide among them. By this we see clearly there is no agreement among law firms on the likelihood of a particular end point for the legal industry.

So, we'll hear Mr. Bower opine on the kinds of opportunities firms like the one I work at might salivate over and, frankly, need to keep growing.

Then, in my email yesterday, comes a missive from Pam Woldow, a "Ramper" at LegalOnRamp.com, and a consultant at...Altman Weil. In this lengthy opinion, largely designed, it seems, to show the benefits of LegalOnRamp.com membership and participation, Ms. Woldow says:

"Dear General Counsel or Chief Legal Officer:
If you feel like you are in a classic double bind these days, you are not alone. I have spoken with dozens of GCs in the last few months, and Altman Weil has surveyed hundreds more, many of whom report themselves on the horns of a risky dilemma.

They say they are inclined to join the cost-saving trend to move "down market" (their term) to midsized and boutique firms that have lower costs bases, but are afraid the move will put them in hot water, no matter what the cost savings."

Later, after a long description of the process by which a corporate general counsel might put the squeeze on its current BigLaw vendors and use LegalOnRamp.com as the big stick to "help firm XYZ convert to your religion", she continues:

"The bottom line in law is that quality is quality. Cost is not quality. Risk-reduction is not quality. In every instance the highest quality firm will be the lowest cost, but that means you have to think about quality in terms of outcomes, not inputs - or even likelihood of substandard performance by outside counsel. Once you start focusing on true quality to the client - that's you and your company - you'll see a variety of ways to reduce costs. You'll also find that lots of firms, including, ultimately, your incumbent service providers, will be willing to play ball according to the new rules of the legal game."

Oh, oh, oh. I wonder how these consultants reconcile their various messages. Which opportunities do the corporate clients hear, the large providers get told about and which are left to the mid-size and boutiques? Are they talking among themselves about this? At Altman Weil, the evidence is that they are not. This double-speak may eventually trip them up and a fall could be disastrous in this economy.

Would you hire a consultant from a company that pitches your possible clients and competitors on a way to prevent your success?