By the 1896 edition, the Directory included the basic information that still appears in the standard Practice Profile listings, as well as ratings and a section on foreign lawyers and firms.
Two of the ideas, according to TAL:
1) Martindale is in the process of completely revamping its peer review ratings system by introducing client reviews, corporate counsel reviews of outside counsel and third-party objective data to create a more “holistic” ratings standard.
Could be interesting; I don’t see many in-house counsel doing this for attribution, except for the “great firm; good lawyer” sort of feedback.
2) Martindale has also recently unveiled its new “visibility rankings,” which are based strictly on the number of page views an individual lawyer’s profile receives.
More explanation is needed to show why this isn’t irrelevant or misleading.
This issue was initially addressed by yours truly in late 2005; I give Reed Elsevier credit for trying to re-position Martindale as other legal networks grow and fragment. Their recent press release on the subject is intriguing; one line is epic in understatement:
The legal profession is traditionally slow to adopt new technologies, so attorneys’ readiness to use online networking tools represents a significant shift in behavior.
My network colleagues at law.com apparently are using their archival set as a backdrop for new legal video offerings. Perhaps licensing the image could be a new revenue stream?