Can Lawyer-Specific Social Networks Succeed?

Yesterday, Bob Ambrogi reported on the emergence of yet another lawyer-focused social network, this one called Foxwordy, which touts an invitation-only membership and “access to thousands of docs and clauses authored by experts” as two of its unique features. Of course, what’s also potentially unique about Foxworthy is that it may charge for membership (or at least, that’s what Bob reasonably infers from its current three-month free membership).

If precedent is any indicator, Foxwordy has a tough road ahead to succeed in the lawyer-focused social network space.  Sites like Legal OnRamp, the ABA’s now-shuttered LegallyMinded site and Martindale Connect have struggled to gain traction. And it seems like there’s another born every minute, with the launch of Libra Network, Wire Lawyer, Esquire Spot.  As Lisa Solomon commented at Ambrogi’s site:

You know how every town has at least one location that is occupied by a succession of failed restaurants? That’s how I see the “lawyer network” space: same mediocre product that not enough people want to buy, leading to a succession of failed ventures.

Lisa’s observation is accurate – but are all lawyer-only social networks doomed to failure?  Lawyers may be a small population to target, but they’re not inherently anti-social. In fact, I remember back when I started my firm, circa 1993, I longed to join Counsel Connect, a Steve Brill conceived site (described here ), an online community for lawyers to ask each other questions and locate referrals. Trouble was that at $600/month, the service was way above my pay grade. Still, eventually prices came down and the site enjoyed great success (at some point, around 16,000 members) but by then for whatever reason I’d lost interest. Likewise, I enjoy exchanging photos, recipes, rants and other water-cooler talk with lawyer colleagues on Facebook – where many attorneys maintain a healthy and active presence.

One of the problems with attorney social networks is that ultimately, they’re just not all that social. Instead, most lawyer-specific sites’ core selling point focuses on professional goals — a way to generate referrals or share knowledge. And that’s where lawyer social network sites have trouble. Because even though these platforms offer a snappy modern interface, they can’t compete with the technologically-neanderthal list serves run by the ABA (like Solosez), state bars and various specialty bar associations where members answer each other’s questions and share referrals.

For a younger generation of lawyers, the continued domination of the archaic listserve (or perhaps, a message board or forum) must come as a frustration. I may be ancient myself, but I’ve got teens and most of their interaction – even for school projects or complex math problems – largely takes place over Facebook chats, Google docs (or some other collaborative platform) or Skype rather than email. Yet because listserves remain the place to find experienced or “connected” lawyers online, younger lawyers follow along, become dependent on the site and the cycle repeats.

Of course, the other problem with most lawyer networks is that they’re not so much a quid pro quo as a quid pro no. Borrowing a page from the crowdsourcing phenomenon, lawyer-specific social media platforms try to persuade lawyers to share content free in exchange for attracting business. But the sites fail to make good on their end of the bargain, because they rarely deliver the goods — i.e., new clients or bonafide referrals — that lawyers want to see to justify giving away content to competitors. Some of the more successful lawyer-only sites – like JD Supra  ultimately found a niche not because other lawyers were able to “give content, get content” (the JD Supra’s former tagline) but rather, because the site distributes content to the media, getting lawyers exposure far beyond the legal community.

Still, some profession-specific sites do succeed. Sermo, a doctors’ network (that was actually discussed in Susskind’s End of Lawyers? ) has enjoyed robust engagement by doctors who use the site to collaborate on and crowdsource treatment. Perhaps doctor-to-doctor sites work better because there aren’t differing state rules to limit doctors to commenting on problems. After all, a clogged artery is the same in California and New York while the laws on medical malpractice are not – so the advice that a California lawyer can offer a New York lawyer is more restricted. Or perhaps there’s also less competition in the medical community, where physicians are often chosen as much for their participation in a patient health-plan as for skill and reputation. Finally, it may also be that until Sermo arrived on the scene that doctors didn’t have any alternative like the confederation of practice and bar specific list serves available to lawyers.

For now, I’m not so sure whether it matters if there are lawyer-only social networks or not. One of the greatest benefits that I’ve gained from the web and social media is wide exposure to technology, health and business trends and commentary in other industries that inform what I do in my practice. I’m not sure that I want to limit my professional conversations to lawyers. Meanwhile, on the personal side, I’m content to use non-lawyer sites like Facebook or Twitter, where I check in every day anyway, to keep in touch with lawyer friends on a personal basis.

Still, perhaps among the pure social platforms like Facebook and the listserves, there’s still a narrow space for lawyer-only sites to succeed.  What do you think?  The comment section is open for discussion!


  1. Sam Glover on February 28, 2014 at 11:43 am

    These networks have next-to-no value, usually aren’t very pleasant to use, and fall like dominos. But hey, everybody wants to build the next Facebook, and the “legal vertical” is a market the startups can’t seem to resist.

  2. Byron Warnken on February 28, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    I think it’s because their scope is generally too large. Numerous small, non-commercial listservs for lawyers thrive. However, when it’s super small, super specialized, there’s really no revenue model.

  3. Paul Spitz on February 28, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    I tried Solosez, and it’s absolutely horrible. I can’t for the life of me follow any particular discussion. Listservs are a terrible way for lawyers to communicate and share knowledge and experiences. And now, it’s like a haemerroid or old luggage, I can’t get rid of it. Several long emails a day clogging a defunct email account I rarely use.

    The thing is, there are software platforms that would be very good for lawyer interaction. When I had my picture framing store, I was quite active on a framers’ forum at I had a pen-making hobby, too, and there’s a similar forum for pen makers at

    That kind of format allows for different sub forums for different practice areas, and individual threads that you can pop into if they are of interest. I don’t know why the ABA or other professional organizations don’t migrate to something more current than the listserv, maybe like something from the 1990s!

  4. Debra L Bruce on February 28, 2014 at 8:34 pm

    Another significant difference between a forum for doctors and one for lawyers: Doctors don’t have Opposing Doctor or some other equivalent of Opposing Counsel on every case, that might be listening in.

  5. basura_blanca on March 1, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Your kissing of the ABA’s ass has become tiresome just like those trite columns you write (or used to write) at ATL.

  6. myshingle on March 1, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    No idea what you are talking about. Fact of the matter is that there are over 3000 lawyers on Solosez which is more than on other social networks. And I noted that the ABA social network site failed. If you actually read my site, you will probably find more posts critical of the ABA than not. And if you don’t like my columns, well, don’t read them (clearly you don’t anyway because you have no idea what you are talking about)

  7. Larry Port on April 18, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Pointing out here the simple truth that this username translates to “white trash”

  8. NYCesq on May 20, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    That may be the case with some of the others but I’ve tried out Foxwordy and it’s pretty good. The need for a good social network for our profession is pretty apparent if you ever use FB or LinkedIn. All of those groups! Too many.

  9. mariam on September 16, 2017 at 2:54 pm

    Please i am looking for a business lawyer
    please contact me

  10. mariam on September 16, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Dear Counsel,

    We have a proposed transaction contract agreement in united state, we are looking for a lawyer to help us with business advice, or A referral will be appreciated if this is not your area of practice.

    Please if you are interested we shall forward you the company information and letter of intent for you to run a conflict check, Kindly advice regarding this issue as soon as possible to our email

    Yours Sincerely,

    Edal Electronics Co. Ltd
    Room 911-914,
    Chevalier Commercial
    Centre 8 Wang Hoi Road,
    Kowloon Bay, KLN, Hong Kong

Leave a Comment