March 29, 2011
Allison C.
Shields
What Makes a Good Testimonial for a Law Firm Website?
by Allison C. Shields
March 29, 2011
Many lawyers don’t think about testimonials until it’s time to create or update their website. Only then do they contact clients or send them a recommendation request on LinkedIn. The best clients are perfectly willing to provide a testimonial. Unfortunately, asking clients for a testimonial or a recommendation without providing any guidelines is likely to lead to bad testimonials.
By “bad testimonials,” I don’t mean testimonials that disparage the lawyer – indeed many bad testimonials are just the opposite – they praise the lawyer in glowing terms. Unfortunately, those glowing terms are often vague, which can lead to the impression that the lawyer wrote the testimonial themselves. Even if readers don’t believe the testimonials were made up, they are likely to carry very little weight if they are packed with superlatives but contain little substance or detail. These kinds of testimonials leave the reader with almost no impression of the lawyer at all.
The same problems can occur with unsolicited testimonials; a happy client writes a note of thanks or sends an email telling the lawyer how grateful they are to her and what a wonderful job she did. The lawyer then asks for (and receives) permission to use the client’s words as a testimonial, and posts those words on the lawyer’s website. While I applaud lawyers who seek the opportunity to showcase the words of their clients as a testament to the services they provide, to obtain very effective testimonials, the lawyer will have to go at least one step further.
As I indicated in my recent post on Lawyerist, Effective Client Testimonials, the best time to obtain a testimonial is when the client’s goals and desired outcome have been reached, when the client expresses gratitude for the work performed, or when the client asks how he can help the lawyer. Even clients who provide unsolicited testimonials could use a bit of guidance if the testimonial is going to have maximum marketing impact for the lawyer.
Testimonials that make an impression don’t necessarily have to identify the client by name (and some jurisdiction’s ethical rules may prohibit it). While anonymous testimonials may seem to have little value, in actuality, whether the testimonials is attributed specifically or not, it will have the most impact if it tells the story of the client’s experience with the lawyer or law firm. Those stories will have little chance of coming across as made up. Simply put, a testimonial that is substantive and tells a story is more believable.
For example, look at the difference between the following two testimonials:
- "Ellen was wonderful! She was so responsive, and we really felt that she had our best interests at heart."
- "Ellen was invaluable in helping us through a difficult time. After our son was involved in an accident and suffered a traumatic brain injury, we didn't know which end was up. We were dealing with doctors, medical bills, and the overwhelming emotions involved in knowing our son would never grow up to be the person he could have been. On top of all of that, we needed to set up a special needs trust to be sure our son would be well provided for, even when we could no longer do it ourselves. Ellen walked us through the process and made it easy. She answered our questions, no matter how trivial (even on the weekend!), and took time out of her day to come to our home, rather than making us come to her. Now that we know our son will be cared for financially, and we can focus on spending time together."
I think you get the idea. The detail in the second testimonial tells the story of the family’s experience while at the same time highlighting specific elements of the service they received from the lawyer (compassion, availability, responsiveness, etc.) Isn’t the second testimonial much more effective than the first? Isn’t the testimonial – the words of the client – much more effective than if the lawyer had simply stated on her site that she put her clients first, that she was compassionate, that she responded to clients’ needs?
Many marketing consultants will tell you to get results based testimonials, but for lawyers, those testimonials can be difficult or problematic to obtain, in part because clients may not be willing to divulge (even anonymously) the specifics about their case in hard terms, but also because lawyers have to be careful about giving the appearance of guaranteeing clients a specific outcome. Some of that can be remedied by accompanying testimonials with disclaimers, but even then they can be sticky. And a results-based testimonial followed immediately by a disclaimer waters down the testimonial itself.
The fact of the matter is that most lay people do not choose or evaluate their lawyers based upon technical skill. Instead, they rate their lawyer based upon the service they receive: how they are treated and how the lawyer (and the firm as a whole) makes them feel. A testimonial that focuses on service while still letting the reader know that the client was pleased with the outcome packs the most punch.
Many lawyers don’t think about testimonials until it’s time to create or update their website. Only then do they contact clients or send them a recommendation request on LinkedIn. The best clients are perfectly willing to provide a testimonial. Unfortunately, asking clients for a testimonial or a recommendation without providing any guidelines is likely to lead to bad testimonials.
By “bad testimonials,” I don’t mean testimonials that disparage the lawyer – indeed many bad testimonials are just the opposite – they praise the lawyer in glowing terms. Unfortunately, those glowing terms are often vague, which can lead to the impression that the lawyer wrote the testimonial themselves. Even if readers don’t believe the testimonials were made up, they are likely to carry very little weight if they are packed with superlatives but contain little substance or detail. These kinds of testimonials leave the reader with almost no impression of the lawyer at all.
The same problems can occur with unsolicited testimonials; a happy client writes a note of thanks or sends an email telling the lawyer how grateful they are to her and what a wonderful job she did. The lawyer then asks for (and receives) permission to use the client’s words as a testimonial, and posts those words on the lawyer’s website. While I applaud lawyers who seek the opportunity to showcase the words of their clients as a testament to the services they provide, to obtain very effective testimonials, the lawyer will have to go at least one step further.
As I indicated in my recent post on Lawyerist, Effective Client Testimonials, the best time to obtain a testimonial is when the client’s goals and desired outcome have been reached, when the client expresses gratitude for the work performed, or when the client asks how he can help the lawyer. Even clients who provide unsolicited testimonials could use a bit of guidance if the testimonial is going to have maximum marketing impact for the lawyer.
Testimonials that make an impression don’t necessarily have to identify the client by name (and some jurisdiction’s ethical rules may prohibit it). While anonymous testimonials may seem to have little value, in actuality, whether the testimonials is attributed specifically or not, it will have the most impact if it tells the story of the client’s experience with the lawyer or law firm. Those stories will have little chance of coming across as made up. Simply put, a testimonial that is substantive and tells a story is more believable.
For example, look at the difference between the following two testimonials:
- "Ellen was wonderful! She was so responsive, and we really felt that she had our best interests at heart."
- "Ellen was invaluable in helping us through a difficult time. After our son was involved in an accident and suffered a traumatic brain injury, we didn't know which end was up. We were dealing with doctors, medical bills, and the overwhelming emotions involved in knowing our son would never grow up to be the person he could have been. On top of all of that, we needed to set up a special needs trust to be sure our son would be well provided for, even when we could no longer do it ourselves. Ellen walked us through the process and made it easy. She answered our questions, no matter how trivial (even on the weekend!), and took time out of her day to come to our home, rather than making us come to her. Now that we know our son will be cared for financially, and we can focus on spending time together."
I think you get the idea. The detail in the second testimonial tells the story of the family’s experience while at the same time highlighting specific elements of the service they received from the lawyer (compassion, availability, responsiveness, etc.) Isn’t the second testimonial much more effective than the first? Isn’t the testimonial – the words of the client – much more effective than if the lawyer had simply stated on her site that she put her clients first, that she was compassionate, that she responded to clients’ needs?
Many marketing consultants will tell you to get results based testimonials, but for lawyers, those testimonials can be difficult or problematic to obtain, in part because clients may not be willing to divulge (even anonymously) the specifics about their case in hard terms, but also because lawyers have to be careful about giving the appearance of guaranteeing clients a specific outcome. Some of that can be remedied by accompanying testimonials with disclaimers, but even then they can be sticky. And a results-based testimonial followed immediately by a disclaimer waters down the testimonial itself.
The fact of the matter is that most lay people do not choose or evaluate their lawyers based upon technical skill. Instead, they rate their lawyer based upon the service they receive: how they are treated and how the lawyer (and the firm as a whole) makes them feel. A testimonial that focuses on service while still letting the reader know that the client was pleased with the outcome packs the most punch.
Respond: make a comment
Share: Email | Save as PDF | Print
| Bookmark & Share |
| 
More columns on Columns: Legal Marketing | from Allison C. Shields
Make a comment:
Note that some comments may be moderated. If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will be held for approval. We are glad to publish comments that address issues raised in the post or other comments on it and that contribute to a fruitful discussion. We do not publish comments that seek to promote commercial products, that make personal attacks, or that seek personal legal advice.
Although we do not require it, we ask that in making a comment you use your full name. You must supply a valid email address, which will not appear with your comment.
|
the count:
8281 posts | 11497 comments
recent comments  
As Richard Ferguson, a lawyer friend of ours says on his email message: “People may forget what you said…. People may forget what you did…. but people will never forget … »»Practice There are two possible approaches to personal current awareness: Develop excellent searching skills so that you can find what you need when you need it Pick a fairly narrow specialty … »»Research “It is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating” was said once by Oscar Wilde. The final tip in this series is the capstone issue in our … »»Practice
-
Available online today are four new chapters of the publication Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report, which explores the socio-demographic and economic circumstances of Canadian women in general.
-
The bill amends the Constitution Act, 1867 by readjusting the number of members and the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons.
-
-
Blueseed plans to buy a ship and turn it into a floating incubator anchored in international waters off the coast of California.
-
Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the flow of information out of Ottawa has slowed to a trickle.
-
-
"…the IPC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a record is in the custody or control of a university in the context of an access request…"
-
-
John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. of Vancouver has been elected President for 2011-2012
-
Detailed results from 321 members.
These summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book.
More information.
-
Limitation of Actions - Actions in contract - Actions for debt - General
Moody died on December 3, 2005, leaving four adult children. Pursuant to Moody’s will two of her children, James and Tyrell, were appointed executors of the estate. It was alleged that, during her ...
-
Barristers and Solicitors - Discipline - Suspension - For professional misconduct
McLean pled guilty five counts of conduct unbecoming a lawyer. The Discipline Committee suspended him from practice for four months and placed him on indefinite supervision. McLean appealed the length of the penalty.
The Saskatchewan ...
-
Mines and Minerals - Operation of mines, quarries and wells - Licences and permits - Appeals or judicial review - Standing - Costs
Grizzly Resources Ltd. (Grizzly). made an applications to the Energy Resources Conservation Board to drill two sour gas wells on the same site. ...
-
Narcotic Control - Offences - Trafficking - Elements of
The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine. The trial judge granted the accused’s motion to discharge the charge. The Crown appealed.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Link ...
This is a listing of a few upcoming events in Canada of interest to lawyers, law students, legal librarians, and others involved in the practice of law.
Clicking on any event in the list below will give you access to more information and to links allowing you to see the full entry and to add the event to your own calendar.
Click this link for a fuller version of the TalkLaw/ParLoi calendar of events and for instructions as to how to add events and calendars to your own calendar.
|
