I regularly review and write material for law firm Websites, so I spend a lot of time scouring the Internet to see what leading-edge firms are doing.  Based on my experience, I have noticed 10 relatively new features that top notch firms are offering that should help to win business clients.

Those features and some of the firms offering them are as follows:

1. Public statements of commitment to service standards. These statements essentially amount to a service pledge, similar to that you might find at many great companies in the service sector. See e.g.:  Thompson Hine LLP and Goulston & Storrs.

2. Statements of value proposition. Some firms are brave enough to put themselves in the clients’ shoes and ask “Why hire us?” A few have even been bold enough to answer that question publicly for clients. See e.g.: Quinn Emanuel and Lahive & Cockfield.

3. More complete access to ”Our People.” Most law firms have their entire professional staffs missing from their directories that are often entitled, “Our People.” This is incredibly irritating to clients, who often need to find a paralegal for a routine question, or a management team person about an accounting or billing issue or maybe an IT issue related to extranets, e-billing or document management in litigation. Press people similarly want a contact – a PR person - for finding quick comments or sources for quotes. Now some client-oriented leading-edge firms actually list many or all of their professionals other than lawyers. See e.g.: Goulston & Storrs ; Miles & Stockbridge; and Burns & Levinson LLP.

4. Useful information about industries and clients served. Some firms keep their clients hidden from view and they make no effort on their Websites to speak to one of the business client’s biggest concerns – relevant industry experience. But other visionary firms are leading the way with more information about clients and industries served, and a few are even starting to organize their practices by industry (rather than just by legal specialty).  See e.g.: Reed Smith ; Quinn Emanuel ; and Miles Stockbridge.

5. Information about the firm’s mission, values or culture. Business people say “it’s all about the culture,” but some law firms think culture is about the kinds of paintings on your walls. It is not. It is about what you stand for, why go to work each day, and HOW you intend to get your work done. It is about what principles are guiding you. Some firms get that and display it. See e.g.: Holland & Hart ; Quinn Emanuel ; Wilmer Hale; and Bingham McCutchen.

6. Information about knowledge management and technology. Technology is now the single biggest competitive differentiator in business other than people. You need the best of both to be best in your field, and yet most law firms ignore or shun any mention of how they use technology to keep costs down, to deliver faster, to do more for clients. A few firms, however, are telling their clients and prospective clients exactly how they use technology for the client’s benefit. See e.g.: Littler ; Holland & Hart ; and McGuire Woods.

7. A way to communicate with alumni. Some law firms have realized that alumni are among their biggest potential referral and networking sources. They also realize the critical importance of maintaing good relations with alumni, who may go on to become in-house counsel, government lawyers or judges that influence and shape reputations. These firms have used their Websites to facilitate bringing alumni into the family fold. See e.g.:  Sullivan Cromwell ; Bingham McCutchen; and Nixon Peabody.

8. More information about law firm careers.  Some firms recognize that they are competing for the best people to serve their clients in all professional capacities. Those firms are dedicating space on their Websites to attract the best talent and inform them of career opportunities at their firms. They are also touting awards for “best place to work” or other recognitions that are important to employees. See e.g.: Bingham McCutchen; Nixon Peabody; and Alston Bird.

9. Value-added Publications. A good number of leading-edge firms are now using their Websites to promote their expertise by offering access to newsletters, articles, or even books. Some also make webinars or other digital publications available through their sites. One of the best in show is undoubtedly Littler Mendelson. See e.g.: Littler ; Bingham McCutchen; Alston Bird; and Nixon Peabody.

10. Law Blogs (sometimes called “Blawgs”).  These Website “appendages” often raise a related Website’s visibility, search engine ranking and value to clients. But, of course, it is very hard for large firms to give their imprimatur to the written work of any one lawyer on behalf of the firm (even though they daily give individual lawyers license to advocate publicly on behalf of clients). So, naturally you see more frequent blogging from smaller firms, but some larger firms are getting into the act. See e.g.: The Beasley Law Firm blog of Max Kennerly;  the NJ Employment Law Blog of the Steinberg Law Offices; and the Holland & Hart Healthcare Law Blog.

There you have it. Ten great ways to improve your Website in 2010. Call me, John Cunningham, at the number indicated on my blog if you want more info.

Participants in the social media “pods” at the November 20, 2009 LMA New England conference registered more comments about the risks than the rewards of social media participation. However, they also expressed great interest in the potential upside of social media platforms that are: 1.  no-cost or low-cost; and 2. already delivering measurable returns on business development for savvy users.

Out of 50 social media pod participants in five groups, 48 said that they need more help in understanding, using or explaining social media tools of potential use within their organizations. 

For the 96 percent of legal marketers who want more assistance, social media user Amy Campbell’s weblog has offered up some recommended resources: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/amy/2009/09/26/social-media-for-attorney-marketing-recommended-reading/

Elonide Semmes of Red Hat has also offered up a recommended visual chart of available social media tools: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fredcavazza/3428921418/sizes/l/

And Stewart Hirsch of Trust Advisor Associates has recommended: “Trust Agents, Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation and Earn Trust” by social media commentator Chris Brogan.

Legal service marketers in general might be interested in other informal survey results obtained from the 50 social media pod participants at the LMA New England conference. Some of the other results are as follows:

1. Only 26 percent had a social media strategy or were working on one.

2. Only 28 percent had any kind of social media training resources in their organizations.

3. Only 44 percent had social media policies in place or in process.

4. In 58 percent of the organizations of participants, marketers had taken the lead or were asked to take the lead in social media strategy, policy and/or training.

5. Only 8 percent had actually experienced a social media disaster, but 32 percent had obtained real, measurable results from use of social media for business development purposes.

The greatest number of participants who had used social media successfully were focused on the following tools: LinkedIn; Blawgs; ListServs; and social media monitoring tools (such as blog and social media news monitoring offered through Google and various search filters).

For an interesting use of YouTube, check out the video of a Skadden Arps lunch seminar on white collar crime:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cRyQU2MQEI

If you are in the process of formulating or updating your organization’s social media policy, you might want to take a look at other published social media policies.

For instance, you might want to review the guidelines for Intel employees published at: http://www.intel.com/sites/sitewide/en_US/social-media.htm, offered through http://www.intel.com/#/en_US_01 .

A slightly older social media policy for IBM can be found at: http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html , offered through http://www.ibm.com/us/en/ .

You also might want to start building your policy by asking key members of your organization to provide input on the following issues:

1. Whether employees should be required to maintain “neutrality” on certain topical or controversial issues.

2. Whether employees should be required to disclaim or affirm that they are speaking for your organization and whether the policy should spell out when each role is appropriate.

3. Whether the social media policy should incorporate by reference the terms of any privacy policy, code of conduct or other existing published guidelines of your organization.

4. Whether the social media policy should be “aspirational” in nature or “punitive” or a mixture of both.

5. Whether the policy should spell out certain rules for protecting copyrights, trade secrets or other proprietary information belonging to your organization or to others and how.

6. Whether the policy should address issues regarding free speech, libel, slander or invasion of privacy and how.

7. Whether the policy should address enforcement issues, penalties for non-compliance, the role of HR or management in upholding or interpreting the policy, and/or responsiblity to report violations.

You might also benefit from taking a look at social media website policies that have received some commendation from others, such as that of Community Hospital of Monterey at: http://www.chomp.org/terms-conditions/social-media-website-participation-policy.aspx .

The number of social media platforms, tools and users continues to grow exponentially while the social etiquette for proper use of such media has yet to be established. For those who want to use social media for business purposes, this can present some thorny questions about the best and most fruitful ways to use this new media. 

Based on my review of various social media contributors, I have put together a list of 7 guidelines for good useage that is respectful of the rights of posters and readers alike:

1. Don’t “friend” people or otherwise connect with them indiscriminately. This is a frequent source of complaints and can put those with whom you seek to connect in awkward positions (forcing them to accept a near stranger’s invitation or to offend the inviter by rejection). This is one reason that Bill Gates removed his name from Facebook – he was getting “friend” requests from literally thousands of people. Most CEOs don’t want you to solicit their friendship.

2. Respect that some people have borders between their personal and professional lives. Some people might want to connect with you for business purposes on LinkedIn but prefer not to “friend” you on Facebook. Before you attempt to cross the boundary from one world into another, you should know how your intended “friend” or business contact will feel about it.

3. Write or post responsibly. If you want to post something to the permanent billboard of cyberpace, you better think about how your musings will impact your organization, your clients, your potential clients and anyone else affected by your posting. Irresponsible or impulsive posting might result in more than hurt feelings – lawsuits have not been uncommon.

4. Know your audience. Some people who are new to a group can’t wait to share everything, but it is possible that useful information for one audience could be impractical, outdated or irrelevant to another audience. Get to know a group in cyberspace just as you would a group in person before asserting yourself in a major way.

5. Understand the limits of free speech. For some reason, people in cyberspace feel less restrained about their expression, but the rules of libel, slander, and privacy still apply (and in fact the rules of multiple jurisdictions could be involved, making cyber-expression more risky).

6. Respect proprietary rights. There are emerging legal rules for e-commerce and cyberspace in general. You should try to familiarize yourself as much as possible with rules related to copyrights, trademarks, fair use, and proper ways of linking to the expressions or content of others. These rules are evolving so periodic legal review is helpful.

7. Make sure your posts “add value.” Nobody likes a “wannabe” authority who is full of misinformation or just repeats what others say. Joining a social media conversation or group can be a form of negative advertising if you are posting content just to “get your name out there.” That is fairly transparent, and ultimately disastrous.

The power of a great story is derived in part from the power of the character or characters on which that story is based. That is one reason that an increasing number of sophisticated organizations are telling their stories through the character of their leaders, members, customers, clients and contributors.

These organizations are better defining themselves to the public in the reflective light of those characters who are shining examples of what they value, how they perform and the company they keep.

For example, the law firm of Bass Berry & Sims commits significant efforts and resources toward the profiling of its most brilliant clients in an annual report they call “Momentum.”

Similarly, the Legal Marketing Association has dedicated 12 monthly profiles to the “thought leaders” in the fields of marketing, sales, service, and communications. To see examples of these profiles, click on this LMA Website link.

Colleges and universities have also developed some excellent feature stories about the ways in which their alumni have changed the world for the better. For just one example, see some of the features about alumni over the decades by clicking on this Northeastern University Website link.

Such stories are not only highly effective, but they are easy to develop if you have a compelling subject and a skillful writer who can capture the special essence that makes your subject relevant and uniquely appealing to readers.

A lot of law firms have adopted the “buzz words” of being “client-based” or “client-centric” as a kind of variation on the business theme of “customer driven.” But how many understand the origins and true meaning of the terminology?

When Edwards Deming and other disciples of the Total Quality Movement pioneered the concept of “customer driven” organizations, they helped their client companies to improve quality and to meet customer demands by redesigning company systems. These pioneers also had a vision that a true “customer driven” organization is one in which the organizational chart is actually inverted.

At the bottom of the pyramid, the CEO serves and supports the functional units and department heads. The senior managers serve the line managers, who support those on the front lines interacting with and serving the customers. At the very top of the pyramid is the broad base of customers, who tell the servers and line managers what to do, what not to do, what needs fixing and what doesn’t. The middle and senior managers exist primarily to push the necessary resources and support upward to insure that customers get what they want.

Deming and others like him essentially built the Japanese auto industry at a time when GM had a lock on nearly 50 percent of domestic market share (now a paltry 18 percent). While Detroit kept pushing “bigger is better” themes that came from the boardroom instead of the customer, Honda and Toyota were designing their products so that they fit the specs demanded by customers in surveys.

These foreign companies were also determined to change the perception that “Made in Japan” meant junk. So any one worker on the assembly line could pull a cord and halt production if there was a quality assembly problem. The customers were put in touch with the workers and they told management what needed to be fixed. It was management’s job to design a fix that worked for the customers and those who served them.

So how many law firms work this way? How many survey their “customers” and how many have “bottom up” or “360 degree” reviews? How many begin each and every day in each and every meeting by asking “how can we produce better quality, better pricing, better technology and efficiency, and faster delivery for our customers?” How many include all their employees in system redesigns? If your firm does all that, then it can truly say that it is “client-based” and “customer driven.”

If anyone knows of law firms that do operate in this manner, I am always looking for feedback on this and leads for new articles.

In recent years, in-house general counsel have responded to pressures to operate their legal functions like a business, grappling with the concept of just how to demonstrate a “return on legal investment” to their corporate executive teams. Some have also hired professional operations managers to help them develop and track various metrics that can gauge productivity and value, which are essential to measuring return on investment. 

 

As we enter a new era of incredible cost-consciousness and tight credit, it is a certainty that those law firms and law departments which have embraced the concepts of measuring legal value and return on investment will thrive; and those who fail to do so, will be at a competitive disadvantage. 

 

But the process of measuring and stating the value of a legal service, which is a predicate to measuring productivity and return on investment, presents a communications challenge that has baffled many. While business people have long dealt with the issue of measuring and stating the value of intangibles (like the value of advertising or new equipment or training programs) lawyers have resisted it for years.

 

It can be done, however, and great lawyers have the analytical skills, the creativity and the dedication necessary to accomplish this. Some have measured the legal ROI of maintaining a trademark by calculating the sales of branded product minus the sales of identical or similar generic product divided by the legal cost of maintaining that trademark. Some have measured the value of legal training and prevention programs by gauging the average annual cost of various liabilities and exposures (under the ADA, the securities laws, or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, for instance) both before and after instituting relevant training and prevention. In defense litigation, some in-house lawyers have attempted to forecast their total defense costs for a case (verdict or settlement plus legal fees) based upon various possible strategies and past experiences. Some have also calculated the long-term “cost” of quick settlement vs. fierce defense by comparing regions or periods where each method has been tried.

 

Ultimately, the challenge is one of analysis and communications. Lawyers have the personal attributes and skills needed to rise to this challenge. They also have no shortage of consulting groups offering one or more services related to legal measurement, analysis and management. See, e.g.:

http://hildebrandt.com/

http://www.bticonsulting.com/

http://www.altmanweil.com/

http://www.crai.com/

 

So, is there any reason to resist tackling this communications challenge when there are surely business benefits that will accrue to those who do? 

 

 

The Value Of Listening

When you think of great communicators, you probably think of great speakers, but truly great communicators are also terrific listeners. They know the value of understanding the other person, and the importance of hearing from the audience to which they speak.

In fact, poor listening not only negates the value of crystal clear communication, it creates misunderstanding, results in misdirected action, and ultimately shuts down feedback and trust.

On the other hand, active and attentive listening not only affirms the value of good messaging, it encourages further communication, greater trust and more teamwork.

John Wooden, the most successful college basketball coach in history, once said that a player’s value to the team was just as dependent on what he does without the ball as with it. That is because there are 10 players on the court, so most players have the ball just one tenth of the time.

A good team player in a business organization knows that listening is a lot like playing without the ball. The speaker may be doing the scoring, but the listener often sets up the speaker for success or failure. Furthermore, a ball-hog talker discourages sharing of ideas, while an unselfish listener encourages teamwork and trust.

Organizations spend a lot of money on internal messaging and external PR, but most invest sparingly in “active listening” programs, which are badly needed in an age of excessive self-absorption and noisy distractions.

For more on active listening, check out: “The Zen of Listening” by Rebecca Shafir.

Communication, Kindness and Success

For those who missed it, you might want to check out PBS  for the Charlie Rose interview of Professor William Baker, who has co-authored “Leading With Kindness: How Good People Consistently Get Superior Results.” 

Baker’s findings, based on quantitative study of successful companies and qualitative interviews with their employees and leaders, reveal how leaders known for kindness breed organizational trust that facilitates more open and honest communications. Not surprisingly, the end result of that communication enhancement is greater success. See American Management Association release.

“Kindess” in the workplace is defined by the authors as a mixture of compassion, gratitude, honesty, humility, and humor. You might not think of those traits as keystones to organizational communication, but apparently they are. Kind bosses hear more from their employees and are heard better by them as well. Kind employees also work better with customers, and are a natural byproduct of kind bosses.

So if you are launching a communication program, and really want to insure delivery and receipt of critical messaging within your organization, ask yourself if you have first put the foundation in place for effective transmission – a culture of kindness!  

Sending the Wrong Message

 

The news in recent weeks has starkly illustrated how companies and firms can send incredibly damaging messages to their shareholders, clients and the general public solely through the actions of their leaders.

 

Whether it is the president of Merrill Lynch lavishly redecorating his office and handing out executive bonuses in the wake of bungled, highly leveraged investments, or Citigroup taking delivery of corporate jets after accepting federal assistance, or AIG executives taking exotic vacations and cashing large bonus checks after begging for taxpayer support, in each case the executives diminished the value of their company brands.

 

These are all organizations who depend on the trust of their clients. Trust is essential to the decision-making process of those purchasing insurance, investments or loans. But the leaders of these companies, through their actions, raised doubts about whether these instiutions can be entrusted with funds put into their custody by shareholders, clients and taxpayers as well.

 

So if you are an organizational leader, it is important to ask yourself: What can I do to send the right messages? How can I communicate, through my actions, that our brand is trustworthy? Your thoughts on this are welcomed.