Wired GC

law from the inside out

US News: Law Firm Da Vinci Code?

After many months of work, US News has released its America’s Best Law Firms ranking.

A likely starting point is the practice research page. Interestingly, as I clicked on that page this morning, this rotating US News banner ad appeared on the right:

danbrown1.jpg

Mentioning Masons is probably not accurate, as I think the firm is based in the UK and referred to in the market as “Pinsents.”

For National Law firms in Corporate Law, there are 27 firms in Tier 1. So it’s good marketing for law firms that had the foresight 100 years ago to choose a name partner with a surname starting with an A, B or C.

For potential clients? The jury is out.

The methodology is actually quite solid, and they do mention the obligatory value mantra. But no way to compare firms on value or cost.

Beyond marketing, these rankings will likely be used as a confirming source rather than a primary one. When you have a lead on a firm, or a need in a specific practice area, a firm’s entry is integrated with the companion Best Lawyers site. As most general counsel will tell you, they usually start with finding the right lawyer for a matter rather than by just throwing a dart at a list of firms.

usnews1.jpg

What Law Firms Can Learn From Pizza

Not too far from my company is the international HQ of Domino’s Pizza. Just on the outskirts of Ann Arbor, Michigan, Domino’s occupies a large, low-slung Frank Lloyd Wright inspired corporate campus.

Recently, Domino’s did something quite revolutionary: it asked customers what they thought about their pizza, and then publicized the results (the most brutal stuff is in the first 90 seconds):

Domino’s CEO Patrick Doyle distills it down to two sentences in today’s Detroit Free Press:

“It’s remarkable the campaign is getting as much attention as it is. All we’re doing is telling the truth about what our customers said and doing something about it,” he said.

It’s probably not totally coincidental that Domino’s share price has nearly doubled since the “Turnaround” campaigned started in November.

So do I expect law firms to run hidden-camera client focus groups and put the results up on YouTube? Um, no. (But it would be awesome, you have to admit; the essence of differentiation).

But a good start is getting some honest feedback from key clients (not easy), sharing it with them, and saying what you will do differently. Oh, and actually doing it.

What would your firm’s “crust tastes like cardboard” comment be?

pizza1.jpg

Law Firm Clients Going Generic?

We have seen many stories of large-firm clients moving some work to smaller, lower-cost firms.

It turns out that this goes beyond corporate law and extends to cornflakes. The Economist
($$) drills into this issue and quotes Eric Anderson, associate professor of marketing at Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University:

The study will alarm packaged goods groups, as the most loyal customers – those choosing one brand for more than 70 per cent of their purchases in a category – should also be their most lucrative.

“Defection is top of mind for brand managers now because they’re the most profitable customers…”

You could link that excerpt to convergence and ponder it for awhile. The good professor continues:

“Price and promotion have become so salient at retail, that what we thought was the loyal customer can be moved with discounts…”

“Past recessions have seen similar defections from top-tier national brands to stores’ private-label goods, Mr Anderson said. Academic research showed that customers could be quickly persuaded to switch by a cheaper price but took far longer to switch back.”

Let’s assume for a moment that some of this retail phenomenon applies to professional services. My question is: will the flight work return to the largest law firms once the economy turns around?

My hunch: some maybe, most no. (The efforts of certain firms to hold on by giving discounts in consideration for future work is noted, but it will get a separate post.)

Certainly these so-called “branded” firms may have to try something different, marketing-wise, to make that happen.

One idea: how about this splashed across the firm home page?

new2.jpg

Law Firm Marketing and Web 2.0

As summer vacation winds up, and the beach chairs are thrown into the back of the Family Truckster, it’s time for the long drive home. In between stops for road food on the turnpike, a lawyer’s mind inevitably turns to thoughts of business. As in new business.

The kids were complaining about being off-the-grid from Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. But what does this “kid stuff” have to do with my prestigious law firm?

Potentially, quite a lot.

There’s a decline in the use of traditional print media and when you hit “send” on that press release you may just be throwing a polished needle into a large haystack called Google.

So a few intrepid tech-savvy partners start to contemplate dipping a toe in the icy waters of Web 2.0: using social media like blogs, podcasts, video, networks, and wikis as part of their overall marketing plans.

Inevitably, questions arise:

– What does web 2.0 mean for the law firm?

– Why are many firms so slow to act?

– Why do plaintiffs’ firms sometimes act sooner?

– What is the GC really looking for?

Get answers to these questions (and more) right here, on Friday, when the Wired GC again goes “Unplugged,” and talks with Jay Jaffe, CEO of Jaffe Associates.

truckster_copy_copy.jpg

Martindale Hits “Refresh”

Martinale-Hubbell is getting an extreme makeover, according to the American Lawyer. It’s about time, as Wikipedia notes that the directory traces its origins back to 1868. This is rather amazing:

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?

MH - old school