These days, it’s a given that within its collection of web properties, a law firm must have its own website. Every year, the legal industry spends a pretty penny hiring consultants, designers and copywriters to produce a website that will serve as the firm’s online headquarters. 

Much attention is given (at least we hope it is…) to the aesthetics: colour and font choices, graphical images, photos, etc. And if the firm is smart, the actual content of the website is given just as much consideration.  But what about the site’s most basic, fundamental element: the domain name?  How much thought is given to the URL that firms hope their potential clients will click on in their search results? 

This article will address some of the common issues lawyers and firms face when deciding on a domain name, as well as some more sophisticated tactics that may be taken advantage of. A little time spent considering domain name options up front can often result in benefits down the road.

The Top Level Domain (TLD)

Top level domains are the end part of the URL: the .com, .ca, .org, .net, etc. Perhaps the most common issue most Canadian firms will encounter is whether to choose a .ca or a .com domain.  

Generally speaking, a .ca domain is given some preference in the search results for those searches conducted within Canada’s borders. Thanks to Google’s geotargetting algorithms (the next Web Law Connected column will focus on this topic), choosing a .ca domain tells the search engines that your site is self-defined as Canadian content. 

While having a .ca domain gives you a definite advantage in the Canadian search results, the other part of the equation is knowing  if your audience is distinctly and exclusively Canadian. 

What if you’re a bigger firm that hopes to attract the attention of international searchers? In this situation, you’ll want to consider whether a .com domain will help make your site more visible to searchers outside of Canada. Usually, the answer is “yes”.

The Domain Name

Now that you’ve chosen an appropriate TLD, the fun part: the domain (the principal part of the URL). Most often, this will be the firm’s name, or an abbreviation or acronym for the full name – the “stemlegal” in www.stemlegal.com. 

The best advice at this point (if the domain name is available) is for firms to lock up their brand name. Identify a reasonably short name variation – drop a couple name partners if necessary – and register both the .com and .ca.  Budget restrictions aside, the .org, .net and .info would also be $30/year well spent. 

But we often see keyword-based domain names, too, such as www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com. This is especially common with blog URLs. 

The advantage of these types of domains is that they naturally rank quite well for the search phrases they include, without a lot of work on the webmaster’s behalf. Because of this, endless variations of geographic/practice-based domains are snatched up pretty quickly. Opinions will differ on this next point, but I would suggest keyword domains are most appropriate for:

• boutique practices; 
• solos and small firms; or
• content-based web properties like blogs or microsites.

If you do decide to go for a keyword-rich domain, be warned: concise, accurate domains are becoming much harder to get. Look for a domain that has your desired search term targets, in the same keyword order, ideally, and three words or less in length. 

How do you figure out what your desired search term targets are? The Google Keyword Research tool tells us how many people are searching for a given keyword or phrase every month. This tool is free, insightful, and you should use it! 

If you can find an appropriate phrase with a relatively high volume of searches, and the equivalent domain is available for a good price, it may be worth registering or purchasing from another party. Even if you don’t use it for your firm website, you could keep it handy for that blog you’ve been wanting to start.

Valuing Domains: Whether to Register (or Purchase)

Brand-oriented domains are pretty straightforward for me. Find an acceptable budget for protecting the firm’s IP, and then lock them down long term. For important domains, I’d suggest at least 10 years, and even consider Network Solutions long-term registrations. 

Keyword-rich domains are particularly valuable if they: 1) accurately reflect the practice area and geographic location of your services, and 2) the phrase is actually one that people type into the search engines!  

I put a lot of emphasis on factor #2. Having search volume is extremely important when considering the value of any domain name.

Other factors:

Gauging your market: Every market is different — just because of disparity in populations, search volumes in say, Saskatchewan will be significantly lower than volumes in Ontario. To get a better sense, compare phrases with the same words but in a different order; or compare phrases with broader or narrower geographic terms (replace City references with Provinces).

When to Buy –vs- When to Register:  Deciding whether the price is good is an important question. A basic .com domain registration can be had for about $10/year – a drop in the bucket and something you shouldn’t waffle over. But a more valuable, desirable domain – often owned by another party -can cost much more than that. 

In the end, you must decide whether a business case can be made for the investment of a pricey domain.  Personally, I don’t advise lawyers to purchase domains from third parties unless all other alternative names (singular vs. plural terms, for example.) have been considered.  Even then, Lawyers should consider using an anonymous negotiation service over direct email communication – having a JD or LLB after your name screams $$$ to domain speculators. 

Conclusion

One final point on domain names is the importance of sticking with your choices once you’ve made them. Aged domains and the corresponding incoming links to your website can be valuable trust factors for the search engine rankings. That doesn’t mean that firms can’t move their principal domain, but that they should seriously weigh the drawbacks before doing so. If you’ve spent 10 or 15 years building up that location, even with the appropriate redirect technology, I wouldn’t expect that success to be replicated overnight. 

At the end of each year, I try to find some time to consider growing trends and how each might play out the following year. I’m just beginning that process now, and honestly, I’m not even close to a complete list. For those items I do have, however, I thought it might be interesting to present them in the form of predictions. And then with any luck, others here at Slaw might consider adding an item or two of their own!

So here we go:

More Social in our Enterprise Software: We know some of these features are in the works already, including Microsoft’s social connector, and rumblings that LexisNexis Interaction is looking to extract more value from LinkedIn and online web relationship tools. This should be a big trend in 2010. Expect a push for ‘social’ integrations from all types of enterprise software in the legal industry. As the number of lawyers participating in these web communities increases, smart firms will look to cull the data, and get smarter from it.

Real Time Web replaces Social Web: Within our vocabulary, and probably more. Just as law firms & enterprise software are catching onto ‘social’, expect some early adopters to distance themselves from the term, and proceed to align with the next big thing. The ‘real time’ web is about instant response and feedback. Launch a product, make an announcement, and then watch the pundits react. Google’s addition of popular twitter topics into the search results is just the beginning. Every industry, including legal, should expect a bigger ‘peanut gallery’ of commentators in 2010. The real time web will also push us to publish faster (or at least make us feel like we should). Those with the skill to draft insightful responses quickly, and then push those comments out onto ‘the circuit’, will see success.

Mobile Web Becomes Important: The mobile web made some major inroads in 2009, but I expect it to become a priority in 2010. By year’s end, expect to be sick of iPhone application launches from the legal industry – both from vendors and law firms. Also expect an increase in law firms launching mobile versions of their website, mobile friendly extranets, and hopefully in all this – something innovative and useful! Internally, I’ll go out on a limb, and predict that 2010 will be the year a law firm somewhere will declare smart phones to be a security risk, jamming transmission internally or banning usage from inside the firm.

Mashups Finally Prevail: The more granular published web content becomes, the more I expect (and hope) developers see value in adding context. Last year, I wrote a post on active collections and got very excited about the concept – i.e. powerful filters that help monitor pre-chosen online sources for a particular subject matter. … So this may be wishful thinking, but I’d love 2010 to be the year that filtered mashups for legal topics finally get some overdue attention.

Real Time Spam Ramps-up Production: As mentioned above, ‘real time’ is going to be the rage this year, especially with Bing & Google sprinkling social media updates into their results. Obviously, the next step for this mainstream acceptance is mainstream spam. Expect #hashtag search tracking in Twitter to be taken to the next level for formal events. As an example, you may need to be become an approved tweeter before attending a conference and being able to contribute to the comment stream.

The Tablet Web Debuts: If you haven’t heard yet, 2010 is expected to be the year of the tablet – think: a 10-inch iPod touch screen. I’m actually putting off buying a new laptop because of it; and expect this to be a watershed moment in computing. Very important to this transition, to me, will be how the web adapts. How will touch technology change web interaction and web design in general? Will new delivery vehicles emerge? Subscription models? Or will the infrastructure of Apple’s app store (or the Kindle for that matter) become a revenue replacement for magazine content? 2010 isn’t going to answer all these questions, but it is exciting because they’re ALL up for grabs!

Happy holidays to all my friends at Slaw!

Cheers,
Steve

The lines in the sand seem firmly drawn when it comes to social media blocking. Some firms have taken the view that accessing websites such as Facebook during work hours is an attack on business productivity, and have locked down access. Detractors identify the fact that any personal smart phone can access these sites, and that blocking is not only ineffective, but is taking young lawyers ‘off-grid’ and restricting their ability to communicate with peers and business contacts.

So who’s right? Unfortunately, the answer may be everyone.

The Case for Lockdown

Let’s start this piece by facing facts. Having worked in-house up until two years ago, and having confirmed this with network administrators at a number of other firms, I can say that without question, the rise of Facebook network traffic has become a big issue. It’s not uncommon for firms who don’t block these websites to have Facebook traffic exceed Google.

Traffic alone is not the issue, mind you, but rather how it is impacting business efficiency. It’s a simple question: Are we wasting time? Most of us have heard stories about the stereotypical 20-something spending half their day on Facebook (If you haven’t, ask a coworker over 50). But then again, we don’t need stories, or to be over-50, to know that we can’t spend half our day on social media websites.

It’s a very paternal approach, but the rationale is there. A number or years back, I heard a lawyer ask if it was possible to block sports-related websites because he was wasting too many hours, and couldn’t seem to self-police his behavior. It was possible, but that lawyer ultimately decided against it. On a wider scale however, any time a website becomes a productivity problem for multiple-members of the firm, and impacts operations, the temptation to block access will remain – because it is technologically feasible.

The Case for Access

There are many who will sing the virtues of social media, including myself, but that alone is not enough to justify not blocking when a firm is having productivity issues. A better approach is to view these tools as a communication device, like email, and to identify which people or groups have a business need for access.

Take associates as an example. If firms expect their associates to build a book of business, and the majority of those individuals are between ages 25 and 40, blocking access is a big barrier to that expectation. This is a group that actively uses social media to communicate with business peers. This is also a group that has always had productivity targets; and it is well known they won’t be around long-term if they don’t meet those expectations.

The same could also be said about anyone internal who is tasked with improving operations. The best free advice for practice management has always come from inter-firm online groups. First listservs, then closed communities, and now these conversations are evolving toward public facing web-groups (aka Social Media). Do you want your employees to be careful about participation? Of course, but blocking those same employees from viewing these conversations is like putting up a brick wall.

Being Practical

As we said in the beginning, opinions on this issue are polarized. The problem though, is that neither side is being practical about the problem or finding an appropriate solution.

Group One says: If a group of employees isn’t executing their job, and you can clearly see ‘where’ they are spending their less productive time, then of course you will engage the available solution – ie. blocking – to remedy the problem. It’s too easy not to; terminating a mass group of employees because they can’t self-police their own behavior isn’t an option.

Group Two says: Equally impractical is global blocking. These tools are what you make of them – simple communication like the phone or email. If firms have no accountability for employee productivity, then that’s the issue, not the tools. As soon as the Internet became integrated with your computer desktop, it became both a time waster and facilitator of smarter business. Blocking is a lazy solution to a complex problem. And firms, consider yourself warned… Lack of trust in the workplace is a killer for both retention and recruiting efforts.

There’s a touch of truth to both positions.

Possible Solutions

Each firm will create its own direction, but I’d hate to write an article like this without noting some of the possible compromises. Consider the following:

• Time-based restrictions – Not everyone is aware that proxy server blocking can be automated to open or close accessibility depending on the time of day. How about a 2-hour window around mid-day for lunch hour? Before 8AM and after 5PM? Restricting by time can tell people that the activity is frowned upon during business hours, but that the firm understands the need for access.
• Restricting by group affiliation – Office networks classify users into different role-based groups, and this extends to website blocking. When a group clearly has a business need, they can (and should) have different access permissions. At the very least, forcing each group to make a business case for access will help identify acceptable use.
• Identify the abusers – Proxy servers can also isolate who the top users of any website are. In some places of work, you must sign an acknowledgement that your online activity may be monitored. This seems like overkill, but some may find it preferable to individual site-restrictions. Getting employees to sign an online code of conduct is another related policy alternative.
• Review each website individually – Painting with broad brush never helps. If firms need to block Facebook, that shouldn’t mean LinkedIn suffers the same fate. If a website has business development benefits – get a firm lawyer who actually does business development to evaluate it. The IT department should never make that decision arbitrarily.
• Clarify productivity expectations – This helps for the ‘old-school’ time wasters in your office too — crosswords, readers of the newspaper, and fiction! Spell out what milestones are required for success at work. If billable work isn’t available, what are the project priorities for non-billable work?

Conclusion

I sit on the fence on this issue, perhaps more than most would expect. While I see an incredible amount of value to social media, I also understand how critical it is to maintain balance. That’s one of the reasons my network of contacts will see me online frequently, and then I disappear for days at a time.

Personal productivity is a learned skill – knowing when to hide, stick your head down and just get the work done. I don’t think you learn work ethic by taking away temptation, and micromanaging behavior is rarely a great solution. For those reasons, I’m not a fan of global blocking of any website by law firms.

I do believe, however, that there are situations when selective blocking may help, and that there is a ‘middle ground’ of alternative solutions available. Both time and role based restrictions seem to make a lot more sense, especially when we make exceptions for those with a business need.

One last point: A significant number of web tools start with a ‘fun’ or social purpose, before evolving for business use. And few remain in the form for which they were originally envisioned. Law firms would do well to leave themselves an open door to re-evaluate blocking decisions. The site you blocked two years ago may be an unforeseen opportunity in the future.

Once you remove content publishing from the equation, there are typically four major entry points into law firm websites: the homepage, practice pages, lawyer profiles and regional office pages. For this month’s web law connected column, I thought it might be interesting to offer comments on each of these pages, and issues I’ve seen from a search marketing perspective.

The law firm homepage: The firm homepage is obviously the most important entry point for a firm website and can often be a prime battleground when stakeholders are trying to ensure the strongest aspects of the firm are reflected in the site design. But with regard to search exposure, there are two pointers that most firms could benefit from: 


1. Owning the short common form of their firm name in the search engines – which is frequently the number one search phase visitors use to arrive at your site; and,
2. Including important keywords in the homepage title that clearly represent the firm’s services.

Firms that consider keyword phrasing when developing their official ‘tag line’ also put themselves at an advantage for search placement.

Practice pages: These pages define your service lines and help clarify to visitors exactly what types of work you have experience with. If you don’t explicitly detail each area of practice, the search engines won’t have subject-relevant text to index, and the site will never be found for related searches. This sounds intuitive, and it is; but the vast majority of law firms are guilty of under-detailing their services online.

More considerations:


• Don’t embed too many topics on a single practice page;
• Isolate any sub-elements of service descriptions that may have search demand;
• Use the practice homepage as a secondary index to sub-pages – bulleted lists can be very effective as jumping off points to more detailed descriptions;
• Don’t forget to include a ‘call to action’ and to provide an appropriate contact point for the group.

Lawyer profile pages: Interestingly, lawyer profiles are probably the most intellectually honest targets that should rank for the terms lawyer or attorney. That’s not always the case as they often compete with solo practitioner websites, but when properly coded (eg. proper page titles) these pages do have an excellent opportunity to compete. Probably the most common problem I see with profile pages, though, is the inability to rank well for the short common form of a lawyer’s name. A problem that can normally be resolved with proper title tags, dropping (excessive) use of the middle initial, and increasing incoming link references using the more common form.

Lawyer profile pages are an extremely important element to online marketing, and being found for the common form of your name is critical. Consider this scenario: you just gave a lunch presentation to 200 industry insiders. How many of them will search for you? And do you know what they will find? In a working environment as large as some firms, lawyer profiles can be one of the few opportunities to stand out. Your profile page isn’t just about Google-cold-calls. A findable lawyer profile means you’re supporting all aspects of your chosen marketing efforts – both online and off.

Regional office pages: Larger multi-office firms, whether national or international, are sometimes seen at a disadvantage when it comes to ranking for regional search phrases, especially when local firms can put all their focus on homepage optimization, and larger firms must represent their brand as more geographically diverse. One work-around that seems to be gaining strength is to utilize the regional office pages as landing page opportunities. If the website’s navigation structure includes an appropriate amount of cross-linking, and the on-page optimization is appropriately targeted, these pages will have a much better ranking in the search results. We don’t see this tactic too often in the Canadian market, but it is being used by a number of US-based firms.

Conclusion

We tend to focus a lot on content when it comes to legal web marketing, and rightly so, as it remains an important key to long-term profile building. But what’s easy to forget is that legal businesses (from the solo lawyer to the large law firm) have other facets that can create exposure and potentially drive work. Law firm websites are frequently accused of being ‘brochure sites’, but without some elements of a brochure, ie. telling people what services you offer, firms can potentially paint an incomplete picture.

If search engines are sending the vast majority of traffic to most law firm websites, then it is incumbent on firms to consider what’s driving those visitors. Removing individuals with a prior firm/lawyer relationship, recruiting efforts, etc., I see two strong rationales relating to business development. First, is the sophisticated consumer conducting research – likely connecting to firm content published on their selected topic or issue. And second, is a far simpler proposition — the individual simply looking for a local practitioner with relevant experience.

Law firm websites need to meet both of these information-seeking strategies. Either exposure opportunity will do, especially if you leave a positive impression.

One of my routine considerations, is the amount of time I invest in websites that I own, versus the amount of time I invest in the websites of others.

In many cases, that boils down to the value of domain ownership – websites, blogs, and so forth. Sites where there is little question to who benefits, and if you do good things, the asset grows in value. I still believe in these types of websites. In my own little Maslow pyramid, they set the foundation and I see little value in pushing ahead without them.

But the question then becomes, what’s next? Even if we own our websites, who’s reading? who are we connecting with? One of the reasons I don’t have an issue with participating in Twitter or social networking sites is because these tools are 1) good for feedback, and 2) solid distribution channels. And while feedback is extremely important, distribution channels are becoming, in my view, almost critical.

Unless you have a pre-existing audience, a solitary writing routine isn’t going to cut it. Some channels are low lying fruit, available for the cost of participation. I put social networks (the ‘garden wall’ variety) in that class, along with Twitter, JD Supra, and RSS. If you have content to feed them, you’ll get value back.

There are also channels that require more work – email marketing and search engine marketing are good examples. Building a collection of email subscribers who value your content (& don’t think you’re a spammer) is no easy task. Same goes for search marketing, where on-page optimization is rarely enough. A website needs a strong & diverse link network to rank well, with the best links based on relationships or endorsements of your published content. Both these tactics may have a high ROI, but are often deceptive in the amount of time required, and the number of human relationships involved.

The last point I’d like to make, is the required interaction between tools. Some we will own, and some we sign-up for, but together they should be judged as a team. Not measured individually. Don’t like your results? Change what you’re feeding the channels, add new channels, or automate those that don’t perform.

I pay attention to content routes, destinations vs channels, link citation and the value of incoming links, authenticity of message, the audience, and the feedback. I also try to balance my time so I value personal publishing (read: sites I own).

If someone’s got an ROI formula for all that, I’m happy to take a look.

Twitter is undeniably the social media darling of 2009. From celebrity stalking to Oprah coverage, the monopoly of micro-blogging is now pushing 10 million active users. The legal profession is equally aboard this bandwagon, with adoption numbers rising fast. Where tools such as LinkedIn and Facebook have traditionally helped to create value from existing relationships, Twitter is fast gaining its reputation as a tool to help generate new relationships. 

So Twitter gets your foot in the door? A great tool for business development, right? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is a very lawyeresque ‘it depends’. While deriving business value from of Twitter is indeed possible, that value is often indirect in nature and depends greatly on personal approach. Similar to all forms of the online participation, there’s no room for the Injured? Call now! lawyer. Those that can’t drop the advertising and solicitation approach are inviting failure. 

It’s these types of lessons that I hope to address in the list below – which tactics will put you offside, and which will add value. The following practices (I’m hesitant to call them ‘best practices’) are tips that either work for me, or methods that seem to consistently work for others.  Enjoy!

 The Dos

1. Do start by replicating your offline network on Twitter. There’s a much greater likelihood that people you already know in real life will follow you back.

2. Do be strategic, geography-wise, about who you follow. Consider whether you stand a realistic chance of future networking, referrals, friendship, or other value before clicking “follow”. 

3. In the same vein, do understand professional demographics. If you’re a tax lawyer and you know that a good deal of your work comes from accountants or other financial services professionals, seek out those people. Just as you would in real life, use Twitter to embed yourself in your chosen industry — show that you are in tune with the industries that relate to and intersect with your own.

4. Do exchange content and opinions.

5. Do be thought-provoking.

6. Do poll your followers and ask questions. Take advantage of the opportunity to consult the crowd. The more followers you have, the more varied the responses, and the more value you get from your network.

7. Do recommend books and articles that you’ve read.

8. Do tweet about events and conferences you attend. Identify the event’s #hashtag before you get there – you can’t attend all the sessions, but you can track what people are saying about them.

9. Do keep a balanced approach when demonstrating your professional and personal characteristics; don’t veer too much in either direction.

10. Do post your blog posts to Twitter. It’s a great place for feedback as well as continued conversation on the topic. (Tip: use Twitterfeed to automate this process.)

11. Do use Twitter to publicize your upcoming speaking engagements.

12. Do use your real name as your username, the one that people know you by. Your name is your brand, after all! There is SEO value in Twitter only insofar as it can help extend the reach of your content and build a network — there’s no juice in the links you post or the URL in your profile. One exception on the branded username: If you’ve built a personal brand around a name other than your own (e.g., @taxgirl), staying consistent takes priority. 

13. Do craft your Twitter bio with consideration, and use the 160 characters wisely. Cut right to the chase with what you do and, offer a keyword rich profile to help others find you. Although Twitter has a social slant to it, use a balanced approach: if your description is too “business”, people may be inclined not to follow you. But by the same token, if your bio appears too personal, people can’t discern what you do for a living.

14. Do track what people are saying about you, by using your @username in Twitter search (e.g., @stevematthews). The replies function in Twitter misses references to your username mid-tweet.

15. Do respond when people engage you in conversation.

16. Do include a photo in your profile. Not everyone is comfortable with displaying a photo, but the reality is that it’s standard practice. People are reluctant to follow or trust someone who isn’t willing to use a picture of their face. As for how formal your picture is, that’s up to your individual taste.

17. Do get yourself listed on Adrian Lurssen’s big list of lawyers to follow on Twitter...but don’t follow the entire list indiscriminately and without vetting.

18. Do use an application like Tweetdeck to filter topics, create groups, and maximize your time on Twitter.

19. Do engage the people you follow in conversation shortly after you connect. Ask them a question, or inquire about something they’ve read. They’ll be more likely to follow you back!>  And as much as I like web-automations, don’t auto-welcome new followers – it’s obvious & tacky. 

The Don’ts

1. Don’t follow more than 100 people than are following you. Watch the ratio and consider what it says about you. Following 6000 and being followed by 120 says twitter-spammer. 

2. Despite the fact that you may be using Twitter as a marketing tool, don’t try to solicit business or make sales. It looks spammy, and aside from that, a number of states that have state bar ethics rules that prevent ANY type of solicitation. Bottom line: you gain business by letting people know what you do for a living and what makes your job meaningful.

3. Don’t tweet more than 10 times a day or more than five times an hour. (There are different schools of thought on this one – for instance, Jim Calloway advises that four times a day is appropriate.) This might seem low compared to others you follow, but in the end, you don’t look like a busy professional if you’re tweeting all day.

4. Don’t feel compelled to answer the question “What are you doing?” – but don’t worry if you occasionally are.

5. Don’t tweet anything you wouldn’t want to be quoted on in the news.  Twitter exists in the public space – remember that it’s micro-blogging and as available and accessible as any other type of public commentary.

6. Don’t expect to read everything on your Twitter feed. Think of it as a river, or a fire hose! Jump in-stream, participate, and then get out. NEVER worry about what you’ve missed – it doesn’t work that way.

7. Don’t forget to consider the formal to informal rule – piping blog posts (formal) to Twitter (informal) is a great idea, but you’ll want to be careful when reversing the direction of that flow.

8. It should go without without saying, but don’t tweet anything about a client without explicit permission. Along the same lines, even if it’s good or exciting news about the client, don’t assume that the client has already made it public. Even if it IS public, you may still want to get permission first.

9. Don’t forget to fill out the location portion of your Twitter profile. Be accurate about the geographic region where you work. This is a simple step to help establish your presence locally.

10. Don’t let Twitter replace your personal blog, if you have one. Medium-length discourse is still a better way to impart your knowledge and exhibit your skill as a lawyer.

What do you think? Do you agree with these? Disagree? Leave a comment with your own ideas and suggestions.

One of the more interesting transitions the web has brought to legal marketing communication is the greater acceptance of informal lawyer commentary. Where formal business writing and legal analysis were once considered the only output for marketing materials, the advent of blogging, and now micro-blogging (i.e. Twitter), has allowed lawyers to create more approachable online personas and to simplify legal writing in a way that appeals to a wider demographic of readers.

This trend of informal communication, while liberating in many respects, doesn’t come without a few pitfalls. One that has become more evident recently, occurs with the automated routing of content between the different web services.

Through the use of widgets and RSS technology, it has become a common tactic to alert friends and followers when a new web publication has been released. An example of this, I auto-publish the headlines and supporting links for my latest blog posts into both my Twitter and Facebook accounts. Other examples might include:


• Routing Facebook status updates into Twitter;
• Publishing blog posts on your LinkedIn profile; or
• Displaying your latest JD Supra documents on a Facebook profile.

The point being, these tools exist and lawyers are wisely making the pieces of their profile work together. The ability to mix-n-match these tools, and to create new syndication routes for published content is increasing almost daily. 


The Problem

Now, the emerging issue that I think lawyers should be aware of here is the possibility of forgetting that these automations have been put into place. Think about an embarrassing or inappropriate tweet that gets displayed on your blog. Or perhaps you’ve had a sarcastic Facebook exchange that displays on your public timeline?

The possibility of displaying only a part (one half?) of a conversation, or an unprofessional exchange, is increasingly likely the more we mix our business and personal contacts. And when we start routing content from one web tool to another, it isn’t a stretch to say: “we need to be careful”.

Should we expect a bit more latitude with our professional peers that are now included on these informal social networks? Probably. But my conclusion is that lawyers should also be putting some safeguards in place. As I’ve tried to allude to, applying some personal -vs- business demographic boundaries to online tools would be a good start. The next step, in my view, is to make sure your content sources are routing properly, and preferably, from formal to informal.

The Formal-to-Informal Rule

One of the simplest strategies lawyers can use to protect themselves is to identify which tools they use; and then break them in two: one half being professional and formal in nature, and one half that are informal and conversational in nature. My formal-to-informal rule is simply that it’s always ok to route formal commentary to informal and conversational web tools; but that unfiltered, informal, or conversational tools should be considered a place of final destination.

Let me give a couple of practical examples:

• Blog headlines & links are an excellent addition to your Twitter or Facebook accounts. In fact, they often inspire post-publication conversations.
• Displaying your raw twitter posts (aka ‘tweets’) or Facebook status on your Blog’s side bar, in my opinion, presents a risk.
• Filtering or aggregating discussions that takes place on Twitter, on the other hand (see: LegalTweets.com), can be incredibly insightful.
• Many lawyers will use Facebook for personal contacts and LinkedIn for their business network. Routing LinkedIn content to Facebook probably wouldn’t present much of a risk. Moving Facebook timelines into LinkedIn would present more of a problem.
• Social bookmarking tools like Delicious.com give you the capability to auto-blog your entries each day or week. This can be a great tactic if you have a dedicated ‘professional’ account, or your bookmarks are exclusively ‘on topic’. However, if your blog has a couple thousand readers, and they start receiving links to your favourite sports team? Probably not a great reputation builder.

Do we need a rule for this?

One consistency when it comes to the web, is that inevitably the tools will change. The web five years ago looked very different than it does today; and in turn, will look very different five years from now. Written commentary shouldn’t get much shorter than 140 characters or longer than a white paper or book. And even if our perception about the formal-to-informal continuum of lawyer commentary changes in terms of social acceptance, we should still be able to place it onto this spectrum.

Do we need a rule? I have no clue if anyone else does. But it makes my life a little easier.

I sometimes get asked silly questions like “which social network is the best?” or “which is better for law firms, content marketing or email newsletters?”

I find these questions silly, not because lawyers shouldn’t make value judgments on where to invest their time and money, but rather, that questions like these can inspire thinking in exclusionary terms. That one web tactic or service is vastly superior to its competitors, or that personal experimentation should be abandoned. Here’s the simple truth: it can’t.

Most law firms wouldn’t purchase a software package without a trial test period, and by the same notion, the majority of web services out there require some level of testing for personal fit.

For me, the concept of personal fit is absolutely crucial when it comes to selecting web-marketing tools and finding success. You need to be able to answer the following questions realistically and honestly. Is there a substantial peer group you can connect with? Is your target audience participating? Is one of your competitors the 800 lb gorilla that will eclipse your presence regardless of how much time you invest?

And most of all… Do you believe you can have an impact and stand out?

Going Big!

Anyone can join a social network or start a blog. We know that. So the question for many lawyers looking to engage these tools has now become: how am I going to do this in a way that makes me stand out? How am I going to make some noise?

Consider the following scenarios:

• You’ve joined JD Supra, but you’ve only contributed a handful of documents. So now, what’s stopping you from getting on the top-10 contributors list?
• You have an account on a couple social networks like LegalOnramp or LinkedIn. But what have you done to engage? Have you considered starting an industry group or mapping out a set of discussion issues? Stick yourself right in the middle of your chosen industry, and provide the required context for other participants. Social networks are great tools, but ‘social’ is exclusively a human concept.

Admittedly, not everyone relishes the idea of ‘making noise’ online. As much as the general public may have a preconceived concept of the extroverted lawyer, I find lawyer introverts to be more the rule than the exception. That said, we all must live outside our skin sometimes. Living in an attention economy requires that we accept this attention, and that we put forward our best effort to stand out from the crowd.

Passion Over Hype

Once the experimental phase is over, and a decision made to go forward with a selected tool (or group of tools), not enough can be said about approaching your project with passion. Whatever direction a lawyer chooses, they must know their message, and back it up with an unquestionable love for what they do.

Language wise, marketing with hype may work for some, but it often comes off as contrived. Tapping into ‘passion’, however, is often a much simpler and authentic offering. Great industry conversations are rarely contrived, and put lawyers in the best possible position to showcase both their knowledge and personality.

Experiment Wide and Invest Deep

The trick of course is to know which services are worth a large time investment, and which are not. Unfortunately, I don’t see a one-size-fits-all answer to the question.

Building a collection of web-services that will represent a lawyer’s practice means knowing who the audience is, and how the two parties will connect. If a lawyer’s potential clients are coming from Main Street rather than Wall Street, then using a blog to establish a strong regional presence will likely pay bigger dividends than an investing in social networks.

Another factor for consideration is individual comfort level. If you’re going to spend significant time with any kind of web-tool, you need to like it – the feature list, the community, and ultimately the results.

I would also advise people to experiment with web-tools before making a project (and time) commitment. Not only will experimentation help create a wider digital footprint, which can have a positive effect on the search engines, but it also gives us good feedback for which tools are right for the job.

Timing for Adoption

My last consideration is timing for adoption. Each web tool has a limited window of opportunity, and the choice of when to participate can be really important. Early adopters tend to make an intuitive decision and wait for mainstream adoption; which can be a risk, as this may or may not happen. On the plus side, however, early adoption offers more flexibility, an open ground for staking your subject of expertise, and tends to deliver the biggest impact. Late adopters by comparison tend to become one of the crowd, and don’t always get the same attention.

Picking a time to participate isn’t an easy choice, but most lawyers would benefit from getting involved sooner than their instincts tell them.

Parting Thoughts

Online participation has been a fundamental evolution in the way the modern web works. The most important decision we make is frequently not the web-tool we choose, but rather, how we participate. Personal fit, in my opinion, can make a huge difference. Especially if we consider that our ‘time’ is the biggest investment we make with what are otherwise mostly ‘free’ tools. Experimenting should never be considered a waste. Not only does it deliver more web-marketing opportunities and a wider link network to support search rankings, but it also brings a better understanding of the tools in question.

Lawyers with the greatest chance for web-success are passionate about their subject, enjoy participating, and the positive profile that it brings. They don’t just sign up for accounts on these tools, but they participate within the infrastructure of the system, and most of all – they make noise!

Paid search advertising programs, like Google Adwords, allow for the placement of text-based ads next to the ‘natural’ search results, and can provide access to the desired audiences that many law firms seek. But what do they actually deliver? Are these ads effective for attracting clients? How much web traffic will they bring? Is it better to offer a paid ad or to show up in the natural search results? While paid search marketing has its place, and has generated billions in revenue for Google, this is also a form of advertising I advise clients marketing legal services to stay away from.

Let me start by being blunt. I’ve never been a huge fan of pay-per-click advertising for lawyer marketing. For product-based marketing, there is a clear rationale and ROI equation for placing text advertisements next to commercial search terms. For service-based marketing, however, pay-per-click advertising presents several issues, which I will explore in detail below.

Is 15% of the potential search market enough?

The first issue to be noted is that of volume. The percentage of clicks from the Search Engine Results Pages (a.k.a. the SERPs) heavily favours natural search results over paid. As an example, see this study that shows a search breakdown for the iPhone; noting that 16.5% were the result of paid search, and 83.5% were from the organic search results. This split (85:15) is also very consistent with campaigns I’ve observed in the legal industry.

I would also offer this study as support, which shows a 6:1 click ratio between the top organic results -vs- paid search listings. Clearly, if you wanted to be the leader in your area of practice, a PPC marketing campaign will at best deliver 15% of the potential visitors leaving Google for other web destinations.

The volume issue is also one of brand leadership. Most online brand leaders also happen to be leaders in their search space. The two frequently go hand in hand. For me, this is a very important consideration. It is near impossible to create a leading web-brand after shutting out 85% of the potential search market. Paid search simply can’t deliver those kind of results, which most definitely are achievable with the combination of strategic SEO and content marketing.

What will it cost you?

The second factor I offer for consideration is cost. While there are definitely costs associated with all forms of search marketing, I’m very confident that for paid search, the cost per lead is much higher. But natural search marketing isn’t free either; there are costs with content creation, SEO, and relationship marketing too. So our question is definitely one of ROI: which method gives you get the better value for your invested dollar?

As we’ve just noted, achieving a leading market position – traffic wise – isn’t possible with paid search because of the volume factor. But if it were, what do you think the cost would be to achieve that same amount of traffic? The answer: huge.

How do I know?

I just did a mini-research project, and tallied the CPC average price for every Google search phrase that contained the word ‘lawyer’ into a spreadsheet, and then divided by the total number of phrases. The average cost? Are you ready!?! $9.49 per click!

That kind of cost – $10,000 monthly per 1000 visitors received – would be prohibitive for almost any form of business.

If money were no object, could you do both? Yes, you probably could. But in good conscience, I can’t recommend it.

Are you building assets or just renting space?

The third issue is probably the most compelling for me: building assets vs renting space. Investing in organic search means doing all the good things that Google respects in terms of building an authority website: creating content, building your network of contacts, and generally increasing the firm’s web-footprint to drive exposure to its services. 

Is it a simple fix? No, not at all; it takes time and effort. I like to call it the diet-and-exercise approach to web marketing. However, the selling point here, is that you are investing in the firm’s websites as investment-worthy assets, rather than a rented space, which will cease to exist when your Adwords account runs dry.

There is an ongoing and cumulative effect from investing in your website’s published content and incoming link network. Search engines have always valued these elements, and these evolving attributes of ‘web authority’ will follow a lawyer’s website for a long time into the future.

How good is paid search at selling services?

My fourth issue is to question how effective paid search is for selling services? Unfortunately, the vast majority of research published discusses the effectiveness of the search engines to sell products, not services. In my opinion, products and services are only marginally similar.

What lawyers ‘sell’ is expertise; and the challenge when making this initial connection with a potential client, is to establish the element of trust. And the best way to accomplish this, in my experience, is through Content Marketing.

The most powerful marketing tool on the web today is written discourse. We need our content to connect with the individual. That person, in turn, needs to believe we understand their problem, and that we have the expertise to resolve it.

Unfortunately, paid search does not deliver this kind of informational advice very well. Lawyers need to recognize that this is the first interaction your potential client has with you, knowing that you’ve paid for the introduction. The average web user understands this; and the savvy user also understands that the natural search results are weighted because of subject relevance and recommendation factors (i.e., other websites linking in).

Once again, this gets back to establishing trust, and the potential client feeling comfortable enough to call or use the website contact form. In case anyone’s forgotten, these actions, and not simply traffic are the objectives at hand.

Final Thoughts

I said in the beginning that I wasn’t a fan of pay-per-click marketing. Admittedly, a portion of this attitude stems from my distrust of how search engines have historically handled paid search. There was a time, well documented in this Pew Internet study from 2005, when the search engines refused to divulge which results were actually sponsored! (A practice that would go nowhere in today’s market.)

On the positive side, I’m also confident that I’m not alone in this distrust. This was reconfirmed just a few months ago, when in April, the UK’s Tamar 2008 Search Attitudes Report was released. The money metric? A full “91% prefer using natural search results when looking to buy a product or a service”.

So, am I really that far off when advising lawyers not to pay $9.49 for every visitor they receive?

Yahoo Pipes is a tool that we’ve covered a few times here on Slaw. And having fielded a few questions myself on its use for RSS feed mixing, I thought it might be nice to demonstrate how simple the process is with a tutorial.

What you’ll find below is pretty granular in detail, with way too many screen captures. But if you like the KISS principle (a.k.a. Keep It Simple for Steve), a little hand-holding never hurts. So… go over to Yahoo Pipes, create an account, click on the big blue Create A Pipe, and let’s get started!

Step One – Adding the Components:

The first step is to add three items into your edit window: fetch feed, sort, & truncate.

1a) From the Sources drop down, drag Fetch Feed onto your screen:

1b) From the Operators drop down, drag Sort onto your screen:

1c) Also from the Operators drop down, drag Truncate onto your screen:

1d) By default the Pipes Output component should already be there:

Step Two – Configure the Components:

2a) Focusing on the Fetch Feed component, click on the ‘+’ sign next to the word URL to add the exact number of source feeds you want to add to the mix. Of course, clicking on the ‘-’ sign will get rid of unwanted fields.

Then copy in the URL for each feed source. In this example, I’m mixing the feed for Slaw post entries, with the feed for Slaw comments.

2b) Now we’ll configure the Sort component. For reference purposes, it’s the one highlighted in orange below.

Click on the drop down for the list of fields, and sort by the item date (a.k.a. item.pubDate). And then switch the order drop down from ascending to descending. Like this:

2c) Then change the Truncate component to limit the size of the end product. I chose ‘50′, but it could be bigger or smaller.

Step Three – Connect the Components:

Now the fun part! We want to connect the chain of components, going from Feed Fetch to Sort to Truncate to Pipe Output. Simply put your mouse over the bottom of one component and then click & drag the blue ‘pipe’ to the top of the next component. The end product will look like this:

Step Four – The Big Finish:

Click ‘Save’ in the top right corner – the greyed out button in this image:

Which should cause a new link to become available. Run Pipe should now be in the top-middle part of your screen.

Congratulations! You’ve just created your first Yahoo Pipe!

And now that you’ve read all this, I’m going to tell you a secret … on the top of the each published Pipe’s homepage is a button that says ‘Clone’ – which will allow you to copy the handywork of others, including our sample Slaw test pipe, and not have to create things from scratch!

Bonus Advice:

Now that you’ve got a pipe, what are you going to do with it? In a world where lawyers all had personal RSS readers, you could simply hand over the pipe’s RSS feed. But in reality, my best advice is to re-publish it, either on your firm’s intranet, or to the public-web. And to do that, you will need two things: 1) the feed and 2) a publishing tool.

To get a Pipe’s RSS feed, go to the Pipe’s homepage – see our example here. Then, click on ‘More Options‘, and select Get as RSS. Copy that page’s URL from the address bar.

To re-publish the feed, there are lots of great tools. See Feedburner (using their BuzzBoost feature to re-publish), Springwidgets, Grazr, or for a very simple bulleted list without branding, try Feed2js.org.

And that’s it!

The Internet is getting big and ugly. While our personal experience is still what we make of it, web-culture is seldom more than a reflection of our greater society. We take the good along with the bad; unfortunately, when it comes to web marketing, things don’t appear to be shaping up much different.

How bad is it? I recently came across this April 9th post by Steve Rubel that drives the point home: “94% of all email is spam, 64% of all English language blogs are splogs, and click fraud for sponsored links rose by 15% last year alone. Can we say it collectively? Yuck.

Regardless of whether they passively surf, actively participate, or assume the role of a web marketer, lawyers face daily decisions that require them to rise above and make good choices. No matter which techniques one chooses to employ, there seems to be an increased level of ethics involved – a duty to the legal profession, and also a duty to establish personal standards.

Most lawyers will acknowledge the importance of ethics, and this includes the standards we follow within legal marketing. Rules governing Lawyer conduct are in place for good reason, and set the stage for what should be an even playing field. Where Lawyers guide their marketing efforts from this point forward is a business decision, and simply part of market competition. Right? To a degree perhaps, but the answer isn’t that simple.

Marketing ethics are more than adhering to set standards, Lawyers should recognize that carrying on business in an ethical manner can also be good business.

The days of simply maintaining a law firm website are over, and the tactics available for marketing a legal practice are increasing constantly. Web 2.0 has brought new opportunities for online participation and spreading the word has never been easier. However, with this easy access to web publishing capability also comes the responsibility not to abuse. The tools are not at issue here, or really all that important. What is important is tactics.

Avoiding Lazy Marketing

Especially in the online space where lawyers may not have the day-to-day expertise to create exposure, there’s a risk of succumbing to lazy marketing. Whether put in place by the lawyers themselves, driven by the questionable results claimed by others, or by unethical sub-contractors, there is an increasing need for lawyers to monitor how their name is being used, and the response it is generating.

So, what is unethical or lazy marketing on the web? Some examples might include: unsavory link exchanges; blog spam; email marketing with questionable permission standards; websites exclusively built to pass link value (link farms); pyramid link strategies; using hidden or micro-text to drive keyword relevancy; automated publishing; and so on.

Perhaps the best test for these types of deceptions are the simple questions Google asks within their Webmaster Guidelines: “Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn’t exist?” Remember, links being the currency of the web, and one of the core elements that drive the search rankings, there’s an obvious temptation to create web pages that deliver no value to the reader – to any reader – other than to pass Google PageRank.

The problems with lazy tactics are numerous: they don’t deliver leads, they reflect badly on content presented (keyword stuffed content typically equals bad marketing copy), and as Google gets smarter – they don’t deliver the desired top rankings!

Never Deep-Six the Brand

The other problem at play here is that while a lawyer may intend to build their practice on a profitable niche or regional expertise, these lower quality marketing tactics frequently send them in the exact opposite direction.

For example, if sophisticated clients are the target, and we assume these clients have the capacity to understand complex legal matters, then can we not also assume they will see right though a law firm that link-spams? And what do these questionable tactics say about a firm’s web savvy-ness? You certainly wouldn’t want to be a Tech or IP firm and have this kind of dirty laundry come out, would you?

Differentiating with Quality

In every legal market, lawyers compete against those with a similar skill set. How then, do you generate a firm or lawyer’s web image to stands out? Exposure is the first element obviously, but not at the expense of lowering yourself to the lowest common denominator! Instead, lawyers should rise above, marketing with quality content and build an authentic trusted voice. It’s the diet & exercise approach, and very difficult to compete against long term.

We should also not forget to put ourselves in the surfer’s shoes. How do you use the web to pick a doctor or a lawyer? or even hire a landscaping company for your yard? Trust is the key. If you want me to cut a cheque for your product or service, I need to trust you. If my life (doctor) or my financial future (lawyer) is on the line, then I really really need to trust you. Don’t give me reasons not to trust; the supply of alternate providers is just too abundant.

Rise Above

So once you do establish these standards, how do you “rise above” exactly? Can you really compete when others are engaging these unsavory tactics? Absolutely. Here’s some tips to get you started:

• Image Counts – Image is more than quality imagery & graphics, or the latest technology. Never lose sight of the impression you leave.

• Create Substantive Content People Care About – Whether you choose to write for an industry publication, local newspaper or engage the web – content should be drafted to connect with the desired audience. And always be passionate about your subject! 

• Align Yourself Online – Want to rise above the questionable marketing tactics of others? Reach out & connect with your peers. The web is a big place, and chalk full of non-competing professionals looking to do the same.
• Become the 360 Degree Lawyer – The web rewards individuals who shine a light on themselves, and the tools await any lawyer who wishes to build their web profile. Examples? Start a blog, build a collection of favorable decisions & court filings on JD Supra, or create a wiki on your area of expertise & collaborate with others. Want more? How about writing a book, starting a twitter account, creating a series of screencasts, or generating some audio & video content! Run the gamut of short-to-longer discourse, and then let this content present you in the best possible light. The net effect? A permanently codified body of work can market your practice 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

There will always be a way to game the system. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what it is – a game – and one that has long-term consequences for the domain name used in such tactics. In some cases, Google will label your website as tainted goods, applying penalty after penalty, and leaving the domain buried in the search results. The firm (or lawyer) can be forced to start over with a new domain name.

One final thought. Most industry leaders build their company’s web profile over years, not months. It takes constant work, and requires committing to both a short-term and long-term strategy. Yes, there can be spikes of coverage. That’s actually quite natural. But follow through is very important, and shortcuts are rare.

This month’s edition of Web Law Connected could be seen as a bit of a rant, but the honest intent here is to explore the underlying marketing value offered to lawyers by what has become the 800-pound gorilla of social networks – Facebook.

It’s difficult to refute the fact that Facebook is the fastest growing entity on the web today, and the adoption rate within the legal community has been no different than that of any other group within the Facebook walls – it’s expanding, and fast. While some law firms are guarding business productivity by blocking access, we’ve also observed firms who see this latest gathering spot as an opportunity to expand their online presence. It should be noted, anytime we find legitimate communities and discussion on the web, the chances are good that individuals looking for business development opportunities will soon follow.

However, the bigger issue for me goes beyond the website blocking debate, or whether there is a legitimate business community here that can be marketed to. But rather, if we compare the relative value of Facebook to all the varying forms of web marketing out there, is it a good use of a lawyer’s online marketing time?

After a lot of consideration, and my opinion wavering, I’ve concluded that Facebook is a low quality marketing investment. And above all the positive aspects this service offers, the deciding negative factor was the closed nature of its network.

Similar to AOL or Compuserve back in the late-80’s early-90’s, Facebook is a closed community that prevents connection to the outside Internet. Original content placed within the Facebook system not only ceases to be yours, but sits behind a membership wall, and cannot be found by non-members or indexed by the search engines.

That’s ok for the individual seeking to protect their personal privacy, but quite another for lawyers looking to extend the reach of their marketing efforts. From my perspective, the big selling points of online marketing are the ability to extend the reach of your written content, build a permanent body of work that represents your practice, and make the pieces work together.

Unfortunately, with Facebook that philosophy is completely out the window. And I refuse to treat Facebook as a separate sub-Internet that must somehow be marketed to individually. The rationale simply isn’t there. Why build up a body of professional work (articles, commentary, interactions) that no one will see outside of your Facebook friends?

It’s this distinct lack of control over content exposure that dooms Facebook to failure as a primary marketing tool. And just like back in the days of AOL & Prodigy, that closed access philosophy is a difficult sell up against the innovation of the larger Internet. With a history that spans less than 15 years, you’d think the lessons of previously failed web-businesses would be painfully familiar. I continue to question why this time should be any different.

Now, I don’t think we should discount Facebook entirely. I’m pretty confident the audiences and marketing prospects are legitimate. It could also be said that Facebook attracts those who may not be engaging the web otherwise. The lowest common denominator perhaps? :)

Tactics wise, I see nothing wrong with establishing a profile, and I still like the concept of feeding content from other sources into Facebook. But that’s where I am personally drawing the line. Maintaining a presence in Facebook is not time intensive, and if it yields a couple new contacts annually, that’s worth 15 minutes of my time. After that though, things are up for questioning.

Facebook vs. Everybody Else

Another aspect I think a lot of people miss about Facebook, and this is a definite critique, is that they don’t play nice with anyone else on the web. While importing and feeding content into their system is perfectly fine, pulling original content or contacts out of Facebook can get your account terminated. See Robert Scoble’s temporary Facebook suspension as an example. And do note, if you or I had done the same thing, our accounts probably would not have been reinstated, and our time invested in creating content within the Facebook system would be lost forever – notes, statuses, forum discussions, in-system email – poof! Gone.

The Lessons for Lawyers?

I’m a big believer that online marketing efforts, especially relating to content creation, should be done predominantly on a lawyer- or firm-owned web property. Not doing so can put your marketing investment at risk. A much healthier relationship with Facebook would be to use it as a final content destination rather than a tool of creation.

It’s ok to loosen up your vision of content control, commenting on other people’s blogs for example, but when it comes to closed networks like Facebook – it’s buyer beware. If you’re not prepared to lose everything you’ve written, write it in a personal blog post and import it into your account (see the feed importing link above).

I would also strongly advise managing online relationships with more than one tool! There are lots of alternatives that can easily export and import contacts. Everyone should learn to do this anyway – even if you’re taking a CSV export of your Outlook or Exchange – having backups are a must.

<RANT>
Finally, the thing that drives me completely batty about Facebook is that it’s counter to everything the web is about. The Internet is a level playing ground unlike anything the world has ever seen – at least until someone tries to own it! Personal data control, privacy, intrusive advertising. The issues are all there for Facebook, and not unlike AOL before it.

I’m not the first to say this, and I won’t be the last… I think we’re going to see a Facebook backlash in 2008.
</RANT>


There are a number of situations where a lawyer’s personal brand can take a hit on the modern web. From an unfavourable newspaper story being permanently codified within the paper’s archives, to casual web participation showing up in the search engines for a lawyer’s name. Reputation management has quickly become a very important consideration to how professionals choose to participate online. And since almost all content eventually hits Google, lawyers are now faced with the ongoing challenge to monitor (and mold) what clients and potential clients can see about them.

The intent of this piece is not to scare, but simply to identify some of the possible pitfalls that any lawyer can run into. It is important, however, to recognize that lawyers who do not participate online are often the most vulnerable to these types of reputation issues. While definitely not immune, lawyers who web-publish to promote their legal services are often in direct control of the content most frequently accessed about them. And in some cases, having this kind of web collateral can act as a buffer reducing the visibility of negative content.

So without further ado, here are my top 5 reputation ‘landmines’ for lawyers:

1. The Newspaper Story Gone Awry

Bad press has long been an Achilles heel to anyone in the media spotlight – inaccuracies, misquotes, etc. But on the web, the damage can be much worse. The same story that would have blown over in a couple of days, now permanently resides in the paper’s online archives. It will be picked-up and indexed by Google, and if even a people link into it, that story may well sit at the top of the Google rankings for a lawyer’s name.

Now let me pour some salt in: As the story and links further age, these documents can gain quasi-authority status – making it very difficult to move down in the rankings.

2. Blog Attacks

Negative comments from a high profile blogger can be almost impossible to defend against. Based on the raw number of links coming into these sites, Blogs often score very well with Google in terms of reputation. A proper name that shows up in the title of a post, or even a mention somewhere within the post’s text, may be enough to garner a page-one ranking for that person’s name in Google.

The impact of such a situation would obviously depend on what the blogger said, but what’s even more critical here is the response. On more than one occasion, sending a demand letter to a blogger has led to a PR disaster with the letter being published by the blogger, and hundreds of other blogs doing the same in a show of solidarity. 


3. Having A Google Twin

What happens if two lawyers have the exact same name? What if you share a name with a well known sports or political figure? Do you stand a chance of being found online?

Having a Google Twin is a problem now, but will become significantly worse in the future. As more bloggers emerge, more legal practices move their marketing activities to the web, and as the world’s online population grows, identity confusion is going to increase.

4. The High Profile Court Case

Courts, as you can guess, have a very high authority ranking with Google. A good rule of thumb is that most cultural institutions (Courts, Libraries, .gov & .edu domains) will have similar authority online.

It’s a simple fact that Lawyers’ names get associated with court decisions, and potentially court documents. Whether due to client representation or (forbid) being named themselves, it’s not uncommon for court decisions to show up in Google. This scenario may sit ok when the decision is flattering, but what if it isn’t? What if every search for your name delivers a page of related news stories? To date, most newspaper websites don’t link to outside sources, but if that policy changes, you can bet they will link into decisions and related court documents – further fueling their value within the Google rankings.

5. The Personal Web -vs- The Business Web

The web has become a very social place in recent years, and not all of it business or professional development related [who knew? :)]. Lawyers must evaluate the activities they want to participate in, and decide whether they fit into their personal or professional persona. From personal blogs to Facebook photos, everything you publish on the public web becomes a potential evaluation tool within your ‘virtual CV’.

And Now For the Big Question…

Who owns you? If you Google your name, do you come up number one? What’s that first page look like?

The selling of ‘expertise’ has always been a crucial element to legal marketing. Why else would lawyers with heavy billable targets take months of their valuable time to write a book? Expertise, even more than having years of experience, is an important measure of qualification, and a tool used to grade the modern professional. So the question presents itself: does an Expert rise from the ranks and develop out of peer acknowledgment? -OR – is an Expert a created entity carefully crafted by profile building and marketing? It is my contention that the answer is likely found in that ‘grey area’ between the two theories. We all know exceptional professionals or academics who are very well respected in their small circles, with limited exposure, and we all know the so called experts that can best be described as “all sizzle and no steak”.

The concept of Thought Leadership is hardly new, of course. Lawyers have become experts off-line in their fields for years. There are, however, a number of characteristics that are unique to the online space. First of all, the barrier to entry has definitely been lowered. While web technology has been limited to those with programming expertise in the past, newer software technologies – such as blogs and social networks – have leveled the playing field for exposing one’s professional knowledge & expertise. Second, the number of participants in these online conversations is not limited. Those with a willingness to get in there and participate will benefit from the increased exposure. And lastly, the web is a mix of both those that innovate ideas, and those who diligently spread the word. Success can be found in either capacity, but a balance between ’subject expert’ and ‘online rainmaker’ is probably the best approach for most Professionals.

It is the concept of an ‘image‘ of being an expert that intrigues me. It is obviously a crucial element to building a lawyer, or any professional, into a marketable commodity. The selling of professional services on any level requires that an individual substantiate their level of expertise and establish credibility with the potential client. And only once a lawyer passes this test of credibility can the engagement potentially occur. This decision-making process is always in play, even (especially?) when it comes to marketing professional services over the Internet. There is, of course, one distinction worth identifying when it comes to building the image of expertise online: the web is just as much a social tool as it is a publishing tool. Lawyers who figure this element out will thrive, and those that don’t risk becoming obscure (and often can’t figure out why).

Thought Leadership is a phrase that’s evolved in online communities to describe those individuals who become a hub within online conversations. These individuals are very recognizable. Their opinions are watched by hundreds, and often thousands, who share a common interest. Their online publishing power is driven by their social network as much as their individual ideas. And when they do publish their opinion, people seem to jump! Jump you say? How so? It’s difficult to explain. Thought Leaders are in a very interesting position. Not all readers are supporters. And in some cases, the naysayers can outnumber their supporters. It’s not that their opinions are the most respected (although this is the case for some, and an ideal position, really), it’s that their voice drives others to respond. The end result is that they set online conversational direction, and if they enter into a particular discussion, that issue will be heard. These individuals carry an immense amount of ‘web profile’ power.

For a lawyer who wishes to drive their personal brand through the roof, becoming a Thought Leader can deliver one of the longest lasting effects possible. Done properly, the position of being a Thought Leader could create value for a lifetime, or at least as long as one’s professional career.

So what are the benefits of being a Thought Leader? If we consider the fact that links are the currency of the modern web, and that incoming links are one of the key elements to boosting Google rankings, Thought Leaders are often in an ideal position to generate ‘buzz’ related to their online presence. Those who believe that the web simply bounces from one innovation to the next should learn that the effects of Thought Leadership transcend the internet trend of the moment. The method of publication is unimportant. It might be a blog post, a threaded discussion, or a list of bookmarks to what that person is reading — no matter: it is the ‘brand’ of the Thought Leader that observers are watching. When web technology changes, these individuals simply move on to embrace the new.

Another benefit worth noting is the amount of personal control retained by these individuals. The degree of success can obviously vary, but as an example, consider the many lawyers who are currently investing their time blogging. These lawyers decide when they have time to contribute, write commentary in smaller ‘chunks’, and can focus exclusively on the narrow facets that they find interesting.

The results that can be achieved, again from a business perspective, have been repeatedly demonstrated with current blogging leaders, and are difficult to refute:

• Increased media exposure;
• A devoted referral network;
• Increased offers to do speaking engagements;
• More writing & publishing opportunities;
• A dominant presence in the search engines; and finally,
• Behind-the-scenes exchanges with other experts, which increases one’s exposure to an industry’s leading strategies & tactics.

Being an online Thought Leader means that you truly are a hub of your intellectual and social sphere. By keeping a balance between substantive discussion and social exchanges, Lawyers have the opportunity to increase both their ‘image’ of being an expert, and backing up their professional credibility with commentary that demonstrates, and qualifies, their knowledge with potential clients.