Legal marketing is hard. There. I said it.

When you’re trying to market a law firm you will, without question, face the following paradox:

“We want to seem ____________ but we don’t want to seem _________________”

Let me explain.

For example, in law firm advertising, firms want their campaigns to be clever, but not too clever. That would seem gimmicky…..like the firm is trying too hard to look “cute.”

Firms want to be seen as having expertise in specific areas, but they don’t want to be perceived as only serving that niche. For example, a tech firm the has expertise in the Open Source area definitely wants to show their specialty. However, they don’t want people thinking that Open Source is all the firm does, as having a niche practice can be a great opportunity to bring in business for other practice areas.

Law firms that have been in business for a considerable amount of time often use their legal tradition as a selling point. However, relying too heavily on the past can be seen as being resistant to the future as well as the present.

Firms want to be seen as being up-to-date on technology/legal issues/regulatory concerns. Blogging is a pretty good example of this. But, as with all things there is a line. Sure, you want people to think “Wow. This firm is really ontop of things.” But, do you have the same opinion of a firm that has a myspace profile?  A firm that puts ads on YouTube? Or, a firm that buys an ad on the million dollar home page?

Finally, firms want to be noticed, but having their logo everywhere can take away from the perception of professionalism. Some attorneys/firms see advertising and marketing as unbecoming. But, given the competitive nature of the legal industry, firms need to create awareness. The result: a delicate balance.

Reminds me of my favorite Steven Wright quote:

“There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking like an idiot.”

Popularity: 3% [?]

I want to try something different here.

We all know that legal blogging is getting very popular and is changing the way law firms market, the way attorneys share their opinions and expertise, and how blogging changes the “conversation.” So, given the fact that legal blogging is relatively new, we can be sure that there will be some fallout or issues that result from blogging.

So, I’d like to open the floor to speculation. Let me first give some examples of things that have already happened:

1. Because of blogging, well-known attorney bloggers will leave their firms and go solo.

2. Because of blogging, a large law firm will receive an incalculable amount of bad publicity for firing a prominent legal blogger.

I don’t want to limit this to the attorney blogging world. I’d also like to include legal issues that arise because of blogs.

3. Because of blogging, companies will fire their employees for pictures posted on their blogs.

4. Because of blogging, cases will be retried after attorneys realize a juror posted disparaging comments about the defendant before the trial.

So, here are a couple of predictions I have. Let me know if they’ve already happened and I’ll put them on the “checked” list:

1. Because of blogging, investigators will be able to identify a murderer who assumes their blog is anonymous.

2. Because of blogging, an employee will disclose details of illegal activities within their company, resulting in a book deal.

Please add your predictions in the comments section. I plan to keep this post updated regularly.

Popularity: 3% [?]

I just read an article at BusinessWeek online entitled “Disaster Leads to Law Firm Marketing Coup“, which made me consider some interesting questions about legal marketing.

The article talks about the Boston firm of WilmerHale, which has been chosen to represent Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney against the head of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, Matt Amorello. For those unfamiliar with the situation, here’s a nice recap. In short, a concrete slab fell on, and killed a passenger in a car driving through a Big Dig tunnel. Governor Romney is now putting the blame on the head of the MTA, Matt Amorello, and wants him removed from his post. Governor Romney has now turned to WilmerHale to represent him in his case to oust Amorello.

With that said, the article goes on to talk about how law firms do pro bono work because it can often be a good marketing opportunity. From the article:

“Pro bono legal assistance is generally thought of as something that law firms provide as part of their civic duty, to help indigents charged with a crime or nonprofit organizations with miniscule budgets. In fact, WilmerHale says on its Web site that its pro bono program is “based on the belief that there is more to our professional mandate than advocacy for the most powerful and successful members of society.”

……What’s really happening here is more about marketing than helping the underdog. In the murky world of legal marketing, where opportunities for publicity and access to influential decision-makers are key to a firm’s success, this nonpaying assignment is a marketing coup for WilmerHale.”

While I agree that the publicity WilmerHale will receive from representing Governor Romney pro bono will far outweigh the costs, I’m a little bit at odds with the “murky world of legal marketing” statement. For some reason the article really rubbed me the wrong way. It’s tone is accusatory, and gives me the following mental image:

It’s 1:00 am on a rainy Tuesday night. A representative from the WilmerHale Secret Legal Marketing Conspiracy Squad pauses on a street corner, leans against a street light, and lights a cigarette while drips of water from his hat drop into a puddle below. As he takes a drag, a man walks out of the nearby dive bar, nods his head, and says “We’re ready for you.”

Over the next several hours, the man from WilmerHale and representatives from the Romney administration hammer out a complex plan for world domination, starting with ousting the head of the Turnpike authority, ending at the White House.

Am I wrong here? Is there something about legal marketing that is inherently “murky”, secretive, and manipulative? Granted, when you talk to someone and saw the words “lawyer advertising” the idea of personal injury attorneys with 1-800 numbers during breaks in the Jerry Springer Show come to mind, but every industry has the exception to the rule.

Am I wrong in that I see absolutely nothing wrong or dishonest in what WilmerHale is doing?

Popularity: 6% [?]

I just saw another post on Denise Howell’s departure from Reed Smith after writing the last post, and had to point to it: Blogging World Abuzz as Attorney Mom is Fired.

So there’s another angle to the story. Now, not only is Reed Smith known as the firm that fired a prolific and influencial blogger…..they’re also known as the firm that doesn’t support working mothers.

So is it true that Reed Smith doesn’t like bloggers or mothers? That’s absolutely irrelevant. Regardless of what happened, that’s the perception right now. I would hate to be the person responsible for putting a positive spin on this PR nightmare.

Popularity: 2% [?]

As many people in the legal blog world know, Denise Howell, pioneer of legal blogging, was fired from her firm last week. Her post, Have Aeron, Will Travel gives her perspective on the situation.

What’s interesting to me is the amount of attention her firing is getting online. Her (now former) firm, Reed Smith, is getting the kind of publicity money can’t buy [Not that you'd want this kind of publicity if you could buy it!]. Some of the highlights:

“Denise is particularly mum about the whys and wherefores due to a confidentiality agreement (read:  severance package, I’m guessing).  Whatever the reason, what was Reed Smith thinking?  I don’t know about Denise’s rainmaking, but she’s certainly a forward thinker and more than creative.  There was a ripple in the fabric of the Internet the day that decision was made.”

J. Craig Williams from “May it please the court”

Dennis Kennedy has a longer, more speculative post giving his opinions on Reed Smith’s reasons for firing Denise (I’ve included his list below…..read the post for the longer version):

Based on my experience in law firms, inexplicable firing decisions (and sometimes inexplicable hiring decisions) almost invariably result in people inside and outside the firm drawing one of three conclusions:

1. The firm is slimming down for a merger.

2. The firm simply made a bad business decision. 

3. The firm may be having financial problems.

On the Between Lawyers blog, Mr Kennedy adds:

“How many law students interviewing with Reed Smith this fall will ask a question about Denise? How many of them will be satisfied with the answers they get?”

The fact that complete strangers are writing and commenting about a personnel move made by a law firm really illustrates how blogging has changed everything.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Seth Godin has a post entitled “How to live happily with a great designer” that does a great job explaining why so many companies settle for safe, average ads/print/brochures. One great line:

If you want average (mediocre) work, ask for it. Be really clear up front that you want something beyond reproach, that’s in the middle of the road, that will cause no controversy and will echo your competition. It’ll save everyone a lot of time.

But, he says, if you want great stuff, you’ll have to accept the fact that it will offend someone or it will make them nervous:

The Vietnam Vets memorial offended a lot of people. The design of Google made plenty of people nervous. Great work from a design time means new work, refreshing and remarkable and bit scary.

Read the whole post here.

Popularity: 8% [?]