My Shingle

Print Friendly

Update (1/26/12, 11 am) Here’s Scott’s post, Un-Optimization, which was also referenced by Kevin. Read the post yourself, but as I interpret it, Scott argues you can’t have it both ways: if you write what you believe in or what is controversial, you take a chance that you will offend or drive others away. If you blog to voice an opinion, that risk won’t bother you, but if you are blogging to market, the risk will be too great. That, as I understand is why Scott believes blogging to opine and blogging to market are incompatible but READ HIS POST!! I am not sure that the continuum is as black and white as this (which goes back to Jamison’s point) but that is because if my principles were important enough, I’d voice my opinion without compromise (that’s why I’m stuck in the Rakofsky lawsuit). On the other hand, if the issue didn’t matter so much to me and would offend, I suppose I would back away. What a lawyer’s line. Anyway, this issue has been beaten to death but if you want to jump in for another round, feel free.

Every so often, the familiar conversation crops up in the blogosphere over why we ought to blog?  My buddy Kevin O’Keefe sells blogs, so of course, he’s bullish about their importance to the legal profession.  Except, if you’ve ever met Kevin, you know that this isn’t just a sales pitch; he actually believes this stuff.

Other bloggers believe this stuff too.  As Kevin notes,  Scott Greenfield blogs to let people know he was here [update: see comment above]; Jamison Koehler blogs to share his love of the law and desire to engage other bloggers, but he’s also frank in noting that there’s a residual marketing benefit that he derives from his efforts.

I’ll admit, that I don’t get as agitated by others by flawging (except if there’s ghostwriting involved, I consider deceptive. But blogging for the sake of SEO only may not be wrong, but it’s a waste of a medium that empowers individual lawyers to do great things.

Take a look at a companion post I wrote long ago about why I blog. What’s your reason?

{ 2 comments }

Print Friendly

Of all of the commandments of blogging, know and write for your audience ranks at the top of the list.  But for those who blog to silent crowds who never email or send comments, the primary source of information about our readers comes through statistical data generated by our stat counters on the popularity of certain posts or referral sources or search term origination. So like dutiful marketers, we use our blogs to deliver the goods, writing posts that respond to the Google searches that bring readers to our site or reprising the topics that are a hit as defined by the numbers.

There’s nothing wrong with that approach, if you merely want to use your blog to market to clients or build SEO – to  flawg (fake blog) as some have called it.  But if you want to take your blog to another level, to establish the kind of intimacy that some wrongly contend has been supplanted by immediacy or to educate the public, as we lawyers are encouraged to do, or to inspire, you need to imagine your audience.

What I mean by imagine your audience is to visualize the individual readers, from those who stumble across your site online to those who dutifully read your updates daily. Where are they reading your blog – in a Starbucks? Their office? At a basement computer after the kids are in bed? Are they dressed in stiff work clothes or wearing pajamas? Are they using an news reader to catch up on posts – or do they actually visit the site to get the information?  Do they print out your posts in a public library because they don’t have a printer at home, or scroll through them casually on their smartphone while riding the subway to a suburban mansion? By imagining these details, you can refine the form of your post to match your audience’s circumstances – for example, enlarging the font or brightening the page if you suspect folks are reading in dimly lit areas, or including an easy print or PDF option if your audience prefers hard copy. [click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

At the End of the Day, Who Comes Through For You?

by Carolyn Elefant on January 25, 2012 · 6 comments

in Encouragement

Print Friendly

When you start a law firm, you encounter lots of naysayers along the way. Yet while negativity is always unpleasant, at least when it’s out there, blatantly up front and in your face, you can simply walk away.

Contrast the naysayers with another sector that many solos and solos-to-be run into: the well-intended lawyers and clients and mentors who encourage and promise, but never deliver. Back in the day, when I started my practice, a few colleagues assured me that they’d keep me in mind for future matters, but never came through. Sometimes, they’d offer up this promise after I shared, without charge, advice on a specialized FERC or marine renewable energy issue as a matter of professional courtesy. Other times, they’d say that they were glad to have talented new lawyers to whom they could refer cases, but I never received any work – and on the rare occasions that I did, the case was a dog — like a client looking for pro bono help. Sometimes, a lawyer would promise to put me in touch with other colleagues for informational purposes and never sent on a name.

While I’m sure that many of these colleagues made promises with the best of intentions, I eventually learned to distinguish between those who would come through for me and those who weren’t going to follow up (or who, like one colleague, would send me cases that were complete duds). By drawing this distinction, I could plan my workload and predict my future revenue more reliably. More importantly, I could spend my limited resources going the extra mile for those who sent me real business or complimented my work to others rather than those who simply talked about it but never followed through.

So let me throw this question out: who’s come through for you in your practice? Are there lawyers who gave you paying contract work, even when they really didn’t need it or could barely afford the expense? Are there clients from your former firm who went out of their way to convince management to retain you? Are there colleagues who can’t stop saying how great you are and who recommend you every chance they get? I’d love if you would share your experiences, both the positive and the negative, in the comments below.

{ 6 comments }

Print Friendly

Ever intrepid tech-adventurer, Bob Ambrogi has uncovered yet another interesting find: My Pocket Attorney, a site that provides a  template that lawyers can use to create a branded mobile app for their law firm. Apps developed through the MyPocketAttorney suite of tools include features such as one-touch dialing so that users can call your office, get GPS directions and schedule appointments, receive monthly newsletters.

Although the site just launched on the same day as Bob’s post, Bob expressed some preliminary concerns. In particular, the app includes a feature, albeit optional, which would allow for payment of referral fees when users share the app with others. Bob suggested that the referral feature might violate many bars’ prohibitions on fee-splitting with non-lawyers. As for me, I’m not sure that simply paying someone to pass on a law firm app to a friend, in and of itself, would violate ethics rules. Rather, it would depend on whether sending the app may be construed as a “recommendation,” which lawyers can’t pay for. Still, the referral program strikes me as a bad idea, nonetheless, since as a consumer, I certainly wouldn’t want to be bombarded with dozens of lawyer apps passed on by others who want to earn a buck.

Other than the referral feature, I’ve long been jazzed about the idea of  lawyer-created apps. As more consumers spend more time using mobile devices and grow accustomed to consuming content that way, apps can provide a way for lawyers to get in front on prospective clients. On the other hand, lawyers need to recall that just as they are competing for consumers’ attention, so too are hundreds of other businesses – and as a result, a mediocre or useless app is likely to go ignored in the kaleidoscope of other apps clogging most smartphones.

That’s the other reason why MyPocketAttorney hasn’t yet captured my fancy. While existing clients may appreciate an app with basic contact information and directions, truth is, much of that is already available on websites. Moreover, these types of very simple apps can now be had fairly inexpensively; the MyPocketAttorney price of $1199 plus a monthly fee after a year, isn’t crazy-expensive, but I think you could also find an elance or odesk developer to come up with a similar product, for a similar price.

But really, if you’re going to go to the trouble of developing an app, it should have unique functionality. These Divorce Apps, a suite created by Dallas lawyer, Michelle May O’Neill has multi-functionality and really help to guide consumers through various issues they’ll encounter in a family law matter. This kind of app is much more than a vanity app, but useful, robust tool that lawyers, and more importantly, their perspective clients will want to rock, not block.

{ 0 comments }

Print Friendly

So, a lawyer walks on to Groupon, offers a $99 will, scores some coverage in the ABA Journal, sells 53 of the $99 will packages (with Groupon taking a 50 percent cut) and generates 150 calls and emails from other lawyers who are interested as well as some “uncharitable” commentary.  Now, he’s decided against using Groupon again. Why?

Although this fact pattern sounds like the opening of some kind of joke or riddle, actually, it was the opening for a conversation over at the Solo Practice University blog.  The discussion arose in response to a post by SPU Columnist Debra Bruce, who tracked down the lawyer who ran the Groupon deal (I’m not using his name since apparently, he’s sick of the publicity) and wrote about his experience.

Debra’s article was fairly even-handed; she didn’t express an opinion on Groupon one way or another, but opened the topic for dialogue.  Good, so far.  However, what’s been troubling me about the post are some of the comments which portray the lawyer’s Groupon experience not as an experiment gone wrong, but rather as yet another example of an innovative lawyer run out of town for trying something new.  I don’t buy it.

I’ve followed the Groupon story extensively since last year, writing two posts which analyzed its use from an ethics and economic perspective.  Though I concluded that any ethics problems were either red herrings or fairly easy to address, I came down hard on Groupon’s business model.  Citing the results I’d found from research studies and other industries, I argued that the Groupon model didn’t make sense to me financially.   Yes, I linked to the lawyer’s site, but I never mentioned him by name. Moreover, in searching for other posts on Groupon and lawyers, I found that the overall tone was relatively positive, in the nature of “maybe Groupon could work for certain practices.”  Hardly the lynch mob suggested in the SPU comment section.

What bugs me more than this re-writing of history — and indeed, what is particularly dangerous — is the implication that any criticism of a new idea — even an analytical, detailed commentary free of ad hominen attack — represents an assault on innovation.  Or that any action taken by a lawyer, whether sensible or not, deserves unmitigated support simply because it was revolutionary. It’s that type of attitude that actually instills Groupthink and stifles innovation far more than open dialogue, discussion and critique. [click to continue…]

{ 9 comments }

Does Your Marketing Consultant Have Skin In the Game?

January 19, 2012 by Carolyn Elefant
Print Friendly

Accountability is today’s latest buzzword, a commodity in high demand in the legal community. Whether it’s large firm clients exploring alternative billing that would create a nexus between price and value, or exploring ways to make legal education more useful or simply making legal fees more transparent for consumers, both law students and clients want [...]

Read more Marketing & Making Money 2 comments

Question for Transactional Solos: What Kind of Contracts Do You Frequently Draft?

January 19, 2012 by Carolyn Elefant
Print Friendly

A few months ago, I reviewed a product released by Ken Adams and Koncision; a form confidentiality agreement that lawyers can use for drafting. Though you’ve probably seen dozens of NDA’s and confidentiality agreements online, Ken’s product is far more high end and detailed, which means that you can rely on it to make a [...]

Read more Announcements 2 comments

The NY State Bar Has a Mobile App for Ethics. Why Not the ABA or Other States?

January 17, 2012 by Carolyn Elefant
Print Friendly

Lawyers are obligated to abide by ethics rules at all times – and thanks to the New York State Bar Association , fulfilling that obligation is easier than it’s ever been with a new mobile app that’s available for the iPhone, Android and Blackberry. As a New York licensed lawyer myself, I’ve already downloaded the [...]

Read more Ethics Issues 3 comments

Is Using a PO Box as A Law Firm Address Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?

January 17, 2012 by Carolyn Elefant
Print Friendly

Over at Attorney at Work, solo Ruth Carter discusses her reasons for choosing a post office box as a mailing address for her newly launched, home-based law firm. Not surprising for a new solo, cost considerations played a significant role; at a price of around $17-$22 per month, Carter explains that a post office box [...]

Read more Office Options 11 comments

Taking Back the Law Doesn’t Mean Going Backwards

January 13, 2012 by Carolyn Elefant
Print Friendly

So, I’m not sure what it was about my post last week, Take Back the Law, that lead a few commenters to suggest that I favor the status quo. I mean, I suppose the fact that I didn’t use buzzwords like entrepreneur (because I’m not, really) or enthusiastically promote unbundled virtual law practice (because in [...]

Read more Trends 0 comments