I’m in the process of putting together a panel discussion for the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys regarding online marketing and social media for lawyers, thinking about the need for more lawyers to get online. The question that always comes to me is about whether I’ve found clients on Twitter (I have) and Facebook (yes, there as well).
But by answering this question, a lot is left on the table. After all, it’s like asking someone if they picked up much business as their neighbor’s house party. Or if they scored a big client at that cocktail party at the Rotary Club. Or if that trip to the NACBA convention resulted in any new bankruptcy clients for them.
Those questions are ordinarily absurd, though in all of those situations some lawyers come up with an affirmative response. But the key is that these social media platforms allow the lawyer to “get out there,” (gosh, I do so hate that phrase) and interact with other people. Some of those people are potential clients, some are fascinating human beings, some are sources of information that would not otherwise be uncovered.
Just like any networking event, social media allows us to interact on a real-time basis and get to know one another. It’s not about diving in for business, but about connections – making them, learning from others, building community. And especially for solo and small-firm lawyers, that community can be a source of inspiration and change.
There are lists of lawyers to follow on Twitter, ways to find people with similar interests and in your local community, real-time search engines to see what people are talking about that may interest you, and a host of other resources.
But still, that list of lawyers numbers in the sub-1,000 range. Why?
There are lots of possible reasons, from the fear of new technologies to the sense that it’s a time-suck in a world where time is at a premium. But this isn’t just a Twitter issue. Look at the number of law blogs and compelling legal websites – not so many. In fact, only 2 percent of lawyers are blogging, according to the ABA (see this post by Carolyn Elefant that sheds some light on the statistics).
Here’s my take on the matter – the legal profession refuses to see the value in maintaining an active online presence on the whole because we as lawyers have been trained to look to the past rather than the present or future. That translates into our marketing efforts, which continues to rely heavily on outmoded media such as Yellow Pages, newspaper ads and the like. When we do venture into the online world we look to technologies and platforms that are similarly outmoded.
Lawyers are taught the value of precedent, and the wisdom of looking to the past as a guide for the present. We rely on judicial decisions dating back to the birth of our nation. We are educated in a fashion derived from Socrates. Our law school education demands that we adapt our thinking to use the past as our crutch.
And that’s not a bad thing. The past has much to teach us, and the legal system is precedential in nature. But when it comes to marketing, promotion and networking (both social and business) that’s a liability that must be overcome. The legal profession hasn’t even been permitted to advertise or otherwise promote our services to the public for very long (about 30 years or so), but we’ve always been allowed to schmooze and network. Social media is nothing more than a new platform, a new tool for doing that which we’ve been doing since … well, forever. Of course, there are no cocktails or golf clubs involved on Twitter.
We can talk all day about educating lawyers about online platforms, but the reality is that there just aren’t many heretics out there to follow. In fact, one of the self-proclaimed gurus uses multiple spam Twitter accounts (featuring the obligatory stock photos of beautiful women) and prohibits comments on their blog – both of which go against the very nature of social media and online conversations. This person is not building a community, not building trust, not establishing authority, but using a social platform as a tool of constant self-promotion without more.
The teacher is misinforming the student and setting an outrageously bad example. It’s like going into a party and being accosted by someone who wants only to talk about himself, his business, and how he can help you (without knowing anything about you) as he reaches into your pocket for your wallet.
But on some level we can’t blame this guru. Nor can we blame the lawyers who relentlessly tweet, “If you’re looking for a [insert niche] lawyer in the [insert area] area, call [insert firm name] at [insert phone number].” They are, after all, looking back at their own precedents. It’s wrong, it’s painful to watch, and it horrifies me to realize how many other lawyers will follow their lead. But I can’t pretend to be surprised by it given the source of our knowledge.
I don’t know the answer to my own question. What I do know is that as the next generation of lawyers enters the profession, those who are already here will suffer tremendously. These new lawyers have grown up with adaptive technologies, with Google, with Twitter and other social media platforms. They are coming online every day, and are used to the level of authenticity and transparency the medium demands.
My hope is that their law school education does not beat their curiosity and adaptability out of them. And that those already in the field take their cue from the rest of the world.
What do you think? How can lawyers break the cycle? How can we as a profession move forward in the way we interact and communicate? Leave a comment with your thoughts.
Photo courtesy of 7-how-7.
Excellent questions Jay. Start with the basics: stop listening to some of these so called experts. They may take a good game, but look at their actions. If their actions are different from what they say, they should be distrusted. And many of these social media gurus for lawyers are about nothing except building up a list of contacts. That may work for them, but that is not how practicing lawyers should be looking at these tools.By the way, I think lawyers should start "outing" these "experts" who resort to spam, reselling other people's ideas without credit and fake twitter accounts.
Does the marketing guru have anything new to say? Anything original? Anything valuable? A new angle or way of thinking about an old problem? An insight that had not occurred to you before? A new connection between two things that seemed unrelated? A new application of something classical, or obscure? A humorous, profound, or interesting way of putting things? Does he or she ask something of you before he or she has first provided value to you? Does any part of the guru's message or methods involve deception? These questions will help lawyers sort the wheat from the chaff.
Absolutely. As a parent we lead by example, and there's no reason why an expert in any field should not do the same. Lift the curtain to reveal the Wizard of Oz before taking his or her lead.
I think the problem is that most lawyers are not naturals with computers. Many lawyers I know have an adversarial relationship with their computer. They suffer it when they must and no more. But given the reliability and shortcomings of the most popular operating system, who can blame them? In this, I think precedent as applied to technology is most pernicious because there is scant authority for computers being anything other than a hassle for those not intimately familiar. A lawyer’s distance from a computer gives those who spread bad information about social media and other technologies all the space they need to thrive because the information and familiarity to combat them is accessible only with the very thing that so often causes so much frustration and waste. For younger lawyers, computers are part of life and I think the problem handles itself. For everyone else, spending some time learning the basics, like an operating system and essential file management techniques is time well spent because modern computers* quickly give up all manners of convenience and pleasure quickly. And then, putting in the time to explore the web, read blogs, write blogs, learn about and use technology ceases to be a chore. I think thereafter most will realize that the Internet is a conversation between people and not just an exchange of billboards. But until pain vanishes from time spent with a computer, I don’t think the profession will embrace technology any faster than the rate at which old lawyers are replaced with young ones. *I really talking about Macs here but I'm leaving the door open a bit for Windows 7.
Jay, excellent content! While not an attorney, but a communication prof, I find this post and its comments (especially Mr. Merenda's) very interesting. This is an amazingly complex topic, and the variousness with which people learn, adapt, interact, and benefit from this tapestry is infinite. Your approach — avoiding absolutes and saying you don't have all the answers — is a healthy and productive one; it allows you and your readers to see each other as human and fallible, while still keeping in motion the fires of growth and drive. It is not an easy journey, and those who make it seem so are fooling themselves (and some of us). Perhaps the best approach is to see the path as a 'Pilgrim's Progress.' I cannot remember which philosopher wrote the following quote (or the context in which it was set), but it seems to make sense here:"There are storms to weather on the ocean of becoming"
I can't speak to Twitter, but I think that the problem with blogging stems more from the fact that the legal profession has conceded that blogs are marketing. I believe that is a terrible mistake, and the bars should start drawing the line between (a) blogs that are considered "advertising" and (b) blogs that enrich, enlighten and educate the public.When blogs are motivated by generating business (instead of starting conversations), authors usually do things like put in little content or turn off comments (to prevent competitors from commenting). They offer little value and cheapen the better blogs out there. As a result, I think that many lawyers who aren't self-promotional are deterred from blogging because they feel that blogging has been reduced to that level. Same with Twitter and other social media. In short, the danger that you predict of lawyers being turned off by these tools is already happening.What's also interesting to me is that social media does not seem to be gaining all that much traction with younger lawyers or professionals. I am 45 and often work with lawyers and lobbyists in the renewable energy business (a fairly progressive field) who are in their 30s. When I mention Twitter, Ning or even ask if they know how to blog, the response is generally no. Perhaps it is different for people in their 20s.
Any lawyer who has been in the field for more than 3 years has a tough time adapting to the world of social networking and social media. It wasn't in place when they began practicing, so it's just as foreign to them as it is to a lawyer who's been practicing for 20 years.
Any lawyer who has been in the field for more than 3 years has a tough time adapting to the world of social networking and social media. It wasn't in place when they began practicing, so it's just as foreign to them as it is to a lawyer who's been practicing for 20 years.