Continuing my trip around the blogosphere with you, we move on to the Second Part of our Journey Law Office Management and Tech posts.
1. Cornell Univ. Legal Information Institute is a really great service providing case law and statutory law for no cost (but you should donate)to users. LII has a new beta program for attorneys to get referrals from other LII users. Go to the NYS General Practice Section Blog for more information. Oh by the way, did I mention that it is free?
2. Susan Cartier-Liebel's Build a Solo Practice Blogis one of the most popular blogs in the legal world. Susan is the founder of the Solo Practice University a great resource for CLE, "bridge the gap" and "develop a new practice area" learning.
In this blog post she shares a new service that can help a solo (or anyone else) organize the business cards they get, loose receipts, as well as other information. Really it is a scanning operation for your stuff, but if you don't have the time to do it yourself, or you just are not going to do it (or you don't own a scanner) then this service is cost effective. It is called Shoeboxed and it looks pretty interesting. I will be checking out myself before the year is out. You may want to do the same.
3. Susan also has a second post that is very important as money for legal services begins to dry up. In her post "When Pricing Your Legal Services, Remember Your Client" Susan suggests that we might want to start understanding what our potential clients are going through financially, and start to think about how we can help them through this difficult stage in their lives. I think if we are just looking at this problem now, we may be too late, but while not answering any questions, Susan raises the issues that are on our clients pricing minds and makes us think about these issues too. Which leads me too our next post:
4. The Dirty Thirteen, or as the post writer (the modestly named Greatest American Lawyer) calls it, the Thirteen Worst Things About Hourly Billing.
As a long time fan of "Value" billing I see the last two posts going hand in hand. I will have my own Value billing post up in a couple of days (weeks?) and will discuss it further, but I want to say one thing now: In a time of economic uncertainty, the two things a client wants most is a fee certain, and a fair shake. Value billing provides both.
5.Allison Shields is the President of Legal Ease Consulting and is a business consultant for law firms. She also writes another really great legal business blog by the name Legal Ease Blog.(What else would you call it if you were she?)
In her recent post she talks about "When E-mail Isn't Appropriate."
I have to say that I disagree to an extent with Allison. In a day and age where time is money, and money is scarce; where clients complain that lawyers do not communicate enough, I think E-mail, text messaging, and now Twitter Direct messaging, can really reduce client anxiety. I will agree with her on one point however, if you will be bringing important information to a client by electronic medium, it is only fair to the client to make yourself or another in your office available to answer any questions your client may have thereafter.
I find the best way to do this is to send the e-mail late in the day so that the client will get it in the morning (if it is more urgent than that, I pick up the phone.) I then ask that they respond with questions which I can peruse while waiting in court; answer from my blackberry; or call my secretary or associate to help me respond. Then I return calls at the end of the day, or at least I try to. I am not perfect but I am improving.
6.Your best source of new business is your present client. If you are in a practice area that doesn't lend itself to clients who have other legal matters you could work on (like Criminal law for example)then you need to constantly look for new work or referral sources. This post on the Rainmaker Blog gives some excellent suggestions and ideas. It is worth the read.
Well that is two posts down but I have a few more to go. I will have more for you in a little while.
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
My Final Words on Blogs, "Blads" and Other Forms of Legal Marketing
Certain legal bloggers led by a couple of people I hold in moderately high regard, are ticked off about what they see as a proliferation of Blogs that are not conversations but are in their not so humble opinions "advertisements". These "BLADS" are annoying to them because:
1. they aren't about substantive issues they are more along the lines of "Hey, hire me I'll set you free."
2. They do not add to the quantum of knowledge or foster discussion about the law and,
3. They ( these "Bladders") make it look like lawyers who blog are hucksters.
I concur with both points 1 & 2 and I understand that those types of blogs are not really helpful. I will also not allow spammers to leave messages and I will not allow "nonsense" on this site.
I vehemently disagree however with the third reason that is put forth against "Blads." I do not see how these Blads effect how anybody else looks at me or my blog, any more than allowing Homosexuals to get married makes my marriage look cheap.
I do not consider my blog a "blatant marketing blog" and I too don't like the "Call me and get out for free" bloggers. On the other hand, I have no problem with someone who occasionally says on his blog, "Hey I do this type of work and I would like your case if you have one." I have said that in the past on here but not recently. In fact I think it is a duty of the bar to let people know there are honest good and hard working lawyers willing to take cases on.
Now I also don't have a problem with the guy who writes for the love of teaching. In fact that is what led me to blogging. I just think that guys who do that, who aren't teachers and who then take cases from the blog, need to realize that the blog is a marketing tool. A well written blog tells people a lot about the author, a lot more than the client learns about a lawyer from solely reading a website or a yellow page ad.
Look, I like Jazz. I like that Coca Cola sponsors Jazz at Lincoln Center. I like that they don't come on before every song and say "Have a Coke while you listen to Wynton blow that horn and smile." I am also aware that if I buy a drink at JALC, I am going to get a Coke product. Now I may buy a Coke product if I am outside of JALC, just because they give money to a cause I care about. Their subtle marketing in that situation works. That type of marketing is not the same as the Coke Commercial during American Idol. One is sublime, the other is in your face.
Now, I don't know of any real blogs, indexed and respected blogs, blogs that have been cited by other lawyer's blogs, that are no more than advertisements for their authors services. I get newsletters all the time from colleagues that talk about their wins and analyze the legal news and mention themselves in the article. I don't consider that sublime, but I don't think it is advertising either, it is in a in between state.
Finally take a look at one of my favorite blogs, DUI Blog by Larry Taylor. DUI Blog is one of the most informative blogs about a single subject that I have ever read. To that end, in the upper right hand corner of Larry's blog is a picture of him as a talking head on Court TV. If you click it, it brings you to a page that says Larry Taylor is the "Dean of the DWI Bar". Isn't that marketing and maybe advertising?
And what of the blog of that great anti-marketer from the Big Apple Mr. Scott Greenfield himself? I notice he still has not explained why I am a marketer but he is a writer, when his blog links directly to his webpage and he even tells readers that reading the blog doesn't equal him giving legal advice, but if you pay him then you may have the advice. Come on, is that not a fairly blatant attempt to say "Look, if you like what I write, this is how you hire me?"
And what of Mr.Bennett's banning any blog(ger) that has a so called "Call to action" on it (The outright "If you want to hire me, click here and it will take you to my website)? I am not offended by this type of blog and I will link to a commentor who has such a blog, as long as his blog posts have some value in explaining the law to lay readers or lawyers. If you have something to say, then I am willing to let you let others know you have something to say by allowing NAY encouraging you to comment here.
Frankly I am tired of this fight. It isn't my fight. I don't care what others are doing on their blogs. I am doing what I want on mine. My blog is a conversation. Anybody who wants to add to that conversation is welcome to do so here. I am aware that what I write is being read by my adversaries, my enemies, as well as my friends family and clients. It is also being read by writers and newspeople. I guess it is being read by potential (and I hope future) clients.
They can follow me on Twitter but they cannot log onto my website from my blog.Does that make this less of a marketing tool than Greenfield's or Taylors blogs? No. It is just a different degree.
Nevertheless, I am going to brag about my victories and whine about my losses. I am going to grab my soapbox and hope it holds me up as I say whatever the "You KNOW WHAT", I want to say. I will let others do that too as long as it is not a flame post, or a spam post, or some type of rubbish that only spammers know why they put it there.
If that means that Greenfield, Gideon, and Bennett don't want to blogroll me, then fine. If they do, that is fine too. Oh and if you leave a comment on my blog, I won't edit away and I won't attack you. That goes for BLADDERS as well as for all the rest of the "non-admitting marketing attorneys who write blogs but delude themsleves into think they are writing for a law review."
The only non-marketing lawyer-blogger I know of, is the person who writes Blonde Justice. She is anonymous. after all the garbage about this topic, I now know why...
You can follow me on Twitter, by going to Twitter.com/thatlawyerdude. Try it, you may find you like it. Oh yeah, please go to the ABA Top 100 Blogs and vote for Blonde's blog, she wants to win, and I like it when Blonde is happy.
1. they aren't about substantive issues they are more along the lines of "Hey, hire me I'll set you free."
2. They do not add to the quantum of knowledge or foster discussion about the law and,
3. They ( these "Bladders") make it look like lawyers who blog are hucksters.
I concur with both points 1 & 2 and I understand that those types of blogs are not really helpful. I will also not allow spammers to leave messages and I will not allow "nonsense" on this site.
I vehemently disagree however with the third reason that is put forth against "Blads." I do not see how these Blads effect how anybody else looks at me or my blog, any more than allowing Homosexuals to get married makes my marriage look cheap.
I do not consider my blog a "blatant marketing blog" and I too don't like the "Call me and get out for free" bloggers. On the other hand, I have no problem with someone who occasionally says on his blog, "Hey I do this type of work and I would like your case if you have one." I have said that in the past on here but not recently. In fact I think it is a duty of the bar to let people know there are honest good and hard working lawyers willing to take cases on.
Now I also don't have a problem with the guy who writes for the love of teaching. In fact that is what led me to blogging. I just think that guys who do that, who aren't teachers and who then take cases from the blog, need to realize that the blog is a marketing tool. A well written blog tells people a lot about the author, a lot more than the client learns about a lawyer from solely reading a website or a yellow page ad.
Look, I like Jazz. I like that Coca Cola sponsors Jazz at Lincoln Center. I like that they don't come on before every song and say "Have a Coke while you listen to Wynton blow that horn and smile." I am also aware that if I buy a drink at JALC, I am going to get a Coke product. Now I may buy a Coke product if I am outside of JALC, just because they give money to a cause I care about. Their subtle marketing in that situation works. That type of marketing is not the same as the Coke Commercial during American Idol. One is sublime, the other is in your face.
Now, I don't know of any real blogs, indexed and respected blogs, blogs that have been cited by other lawyer's blogs, that are no more than advertisements for their authors services. I get newsletters all the time from colleagues that talk about their wins and analyze the legal news and mention themselves in the article. I don't consider that sublime, but I don't think it is advertising either, it is in a in between state.
Finally take a look at one of my favorite blogs, DUI Blog by Larry Taylor. DUI Blog is one of the most informative blogs about a single subject that I have ever read. To that end, in the upper right hand corner of Larry's blog is a picture of him as a talking head on Court TV. If you click it, it brings you to a page that says Larry Taylor is the "Dean of the DWI Bar". Isn't that marketing and maybe advertising?
And what of the blog of that great anti-marketer from the Big Apple Mr. Scott Greenfield himself? I notice he still has not explained why I am a marketer but he is a writer, when his blog links directly to his webpage and he even tells readers that reading the blog doesn't equal him giving legal advice, but if you pay him then you may have the advice. Come on, is that not a fairly blatant attempt to say "Look, if you like what I write, this is how you hire me?"
And what of Mr.Bennett's banning any blog(ger) that has a so called "Call to action" on it (The outright "If you want to hire me, click here and it will take you to my website)? I am not offended by this type of blog and I will link to a commentor who has such a blog, as long as his blog posts have some value in explaining the law to lay readers or lawyers. If you have something to say, then I am willing to let you let others know you have something to say by allowing NAY encouraging you to comment here.
Frankly I am tired of this fight. It isn't my fight. I don't care what others are doing on their blogs. I am doing what I want on mine. My blog is a conversation. Anybody who wants to add to that conversation is welcome to do so here. I am aware that what I write is being read by my adversaries, my enemies, as well as my friends family and clients. It is also being read by writers and newspeople. I guess it is being read by potential (and I hope future) clients.
They can follow me on Twitter but they cannot log onto my website from my blog.Does that make this less of a marketing tool than Greenfield's or Taylors blogs? No. It is just a different degree.
Nevertheless, I am going to brag about my victories and whine about my losses. I am going to grab my soapbox and hope it holds me up as I say whatever the "You KNOW WHAT", I want to say. I will let others do that too as long as it is not a flame post, or a spam post, or some type of rubbish that only spammers know why they put it there.
If that means that Greenfield, Gideon, and Bennett don't want to blogroll me, then fine. If they do, that is fine too. Oh and if you leave a comment on my blog, I won't edit away and I won't attack you. That goes for BLADDERS as well as for all the rest of the "non-admitting marketing attorneys who write blogs but delude themsleves into think they are writing for a law review."
The only non-marketing lawyer-blogger I know of, is the person who writes Blonde Justice. She is anonymous. after all the garbage about this topic, I now know why...
You can follow me on Twitter, by going to Twitter.com/thatlawyerdude. Try it, you may find you like it. Oh yeah, please go to the ABA Top 100 Blogs and vote for Blonde's blog, she wants to win, and I like it when Blonde is happy.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
More Lists From That Lawyer Dude: Ten Poignant Final Photos and Two Lists of Important Blawgs. On One You Can Vote For Your Favorites!
This is a quick hit. I was sent the link to this site after my blog roundup on Sunday. I love lists. I don't know why. While I was looking around, I saw this list of the last photo's taken of famous people. Though they did not know they would die soon after taking these pictures, there is a haunting aura about them as we know what is about to happen. I don't like to be maudlin, but I liked these portraits very much. What do you think? Have you thought about what you would like to do in your Final Photo?? I
Let me know what you think your's will look like in the Comments Section below.
While we are on the topic of Lists, Two Lists came out yesterday featuring the best of the law Blogs or BLAWGS.
One by E-Justice is called "The Top 50 Internet & Digital Law Blogs"
You will see some duplication with the "Top 100 Blogs of 2008" by the ABA Journal Law News Now. If you go on the site, you can vote for your favorites. I am following about 35 of those blogs in my RSS feed (I use Google Reader for law and news, and Opera Feeds for everything else.)
Let me know what you think your's will look like in the Comments Section below.
While we are on the topic of Lists, Two Lists came out yesterday featuring the best of the law Blogs or BLAWGS.
One by E-Justice is called "The Top 50 Internet & Digital Law Blogs"
You will see some duplication with the "Top 100 Blogs of 2008" by the ABA Journal Law News Now. If you go on the site, you can vote for your favorites. I am following about 35 of those blogs in my RSS feed (I use Google Reader for law and news, and Opera Feeds for everything else.)
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Some Fun on the Blogosphere: Kicking Back
Photo courtesy of The Perrysteins (Congratulations on the Baby!!)
This has not been a relaxing start to the Christmas season. Today was the first Sunday of Advent and I am not thinking Christmas Music. I am thinking death, destruction and doom. Hence it is time to change the Music in my head. Here are my favorite pick me up posts from this week.
Speaking of Music this post teaches you how to pimp out Pandora which is a pretty neat music site. Entitled 15 ways to get more out of Pandora. The writer saves a little surprise for you if you read the article to the end.
Staying on lists I thought these two posts were interesting:
A. This one has 8 hints on how to be a better blog writer. I will do my best to follow each of these tips. Hattip Copyblogger.com
B. This Post gives you a list of things you need to know to map out a successful marketing strategy. I think this one is not meant for guys like me, but it has a few ideas if you are marketing against another firm. I try to stay above that and market with less focus. Maybe I ought to rethink that. Hattip: the Rainmaker Institute
Here is bonus list:
From Matt Homman comes the list of Ten Rules of Legal Technology. Remember this you techie lawyers. There is some sage advice in these rules
Hattip: The Billable hour, which is where these rules actually came from. To the Person or people who write that Paralegal Prof site, learn to attribute. It is one thing to link or even republish, it is a whole other thing to Plagiarize!
Ok, moving right along, Blawgger extraordinaire Robert Ambrogi's Lawsites blog has the Top Ten List of ESSENTIAL PODCASTS FOR LAWYERS. I know that Robert's podcast Lawyer2Lawyer is always a very interesting show and he also acknowledges Monica Bay's Law Tech Now and the ABA Litigation Sections podcast as well. I have an Apple Ipod. Time to start downloading.
Hattip: Robert Ambrogi's Legal Lines
My last list post is my favorite list. It is the Fifty Things You Need To Know How To Do. The post names the 50 things and then links you to websites that explain how to do them. I already know how to do 20 solid and 10 more I am more than familiar with, however I could brush up. See how many you know and see if you think there is anything that should be added to the list. Let me know how you did. Hattip Marc and Angel Hack Life
Updated to reflect Matt Homman and the Non-Billable Hour blog as the true author of the 10 Rules of Legal Technology. Sorry Matt, Thanks for letting me know.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Banned in Simpleville: Bye Scottie Boy, It's Been Ok To Know You.
Seems that I have struck a nerve with one of the "Bloggers" who attacked me yesterday. I have been refused the right to reply under my blog name on his blog and I am now subject to editing of my posts if he feels I am "marketing myself." I guess that means if he feels that I am driving readership to That Lawyer Dude by leaving messages on his site, he will ban it and label it as "Marketing" (I wish I could add the sinister music you hear in the movies when someone says something evil on a soap opera).
Now I should point out that this blog pretty much always averages about 60 readers a day. As I was mentioned (attacked?) on three blogs yesterday and I had 77 readers (and today 90) I guess he gets credit for sending about 6-10 new people to my blog. I doubt it was because of my replies to his attack so much as it was his timed attack on me with other bloggers. Frankly he can keep his 10, I get more hits from people searching for "Hanna Montana Nude"...
Scottie writes:
The many who disagree with me, I truly don't care. This is my belief, and this is my blog. To those who say that if I won't let you play the game your way, you won't come here anymore, I can only say goodbye.
Well let's see how you play this game:
1.You conspired with three other bloggers to attack me in flame posts;
2.You mischaracterized my original post;
3.Insulted me in your posts and comments;
4.Then you changed my comments and took off the links to my blog, and;
5.Then you have the nerve to add a stupid editor's note to my mostly friendly response to your post which scolds me?? Not to mention calling a friend who agreed with me SCUM???
WOW Scott you can imagine how sorry I must be to be uninvited to reply to your "blog".
Here is the truth. Your blog is a LAWYER ADVERTISEMENT. Delude yourself all you like but unlike That Lawyer Dude, your blog links to your website. You tell people that if they want your "advice" they have to pay you (sounds like an ask for work to me but I'll let you define your own motives, something you begrudge me)and you(like I) announce your posts on Twitter.com
Oh yeah, That Lawyer Dude is also honest with its readers, I admit this blog can be construed to be an advertisement.
Blogging is a conversation. You treat it as a one way street. You have so little concern for your readers that you feel no obligation to them to allow them to express themselves in a way that you disapprove of on your blog. ( and no I am not talking about Spam mail or vulgar language whatever that is...)
Scott wrote:
"I reject the notion that because (my blog) has developed a following I somehow owe it to others to provide them with an opportunity to post their thoughts here as well. I do not."Clearly you don't understand the idea of blogging any more than you understand the difference between advertising and marketing. (B/t/w/ since you hate self promotion so much, I took the liberty of taking the name of your blog out of this quote.)
Well my Simple friend you said it best when you wrote:
"For those of you who think I'm overbearing, or just plain wrong about this, no one forces you to come here. This is not fodder for debate or discussion, at least not here, so please do not tell me what you think. This is how I intend to run my home, so your choices are limited to accepting it or going elsewhere."
So long Scott...
Shameless plug #1. You can follow me on Twitter by going to www.twitter.com/thatlawyerdude.
Shameless plug #2. I will be speaking about Discovery and Motion Practice in a Criminal Case before the NYS Bar Association's Young Lawyers Section for their wonderful "Bridge the Gap" session at the Annual Mtg of the New York State Bar Association Meeting on January 29, 2009 at 9:30am. Don't worry, I will plug it again in the future.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Public Defenders, If You Don't Want Clients To Think They Get What They Pay For, Give Them Value: That Lawyer Dude responds to S.Greenfield and Gideon
All day there has been a lively discussion on blogs and on Twitter between myself, Scott Greenfield over at "Simple Justice" and Gideon's Trumpet over at "a public defender."*
What started this discussion was a combination of this post and the comments by the anti-lawyer marketing Mr. Greenfield and then my reply to this post on Accident Prone by Miriam. My sarcastic response to Miriam was then challenged simultaneously by Gideon and by Scott. Well it was almost simultaneous, Gideon got off to a late start.
So if you cared enough to follow all of this, and are still interested, this post is my response.
Miram in her original post (which was brought to my attention through Twitter about 3 weeks after she wrote it) was upset because a client came to her and told her that another lawyer (allegedly a paid or private lawyer) told him w/o knowing any facts that he (the pvt lawyer) could get him a misdemeanor. Now her client is giving her a hard time.
Her response was to scold all Private Counsel and tell us not to tell clients what we could do for her client if we are not going to take the case. I have some sympathy for her plight. After all I am a former Legal Aid Lawyer and I also still take a few Assigned counsel cases each year. On the other hand, it is not all lawyers who put down public lawyers and it is not even always private counsel's fault. I mean unless the lawyer is in the hallways offering unsolicited advice, and unless he is wrong about it, the client must have come to him and asked why his "League Aid" or "P.D." was giving his case such a short shrift. Not only did Miriam paint all of us non-public lawyers with the same broad brush, but she absolutely took no personal responsibility for her client's feelings.
I responded to her sarcastic open letter in kind. I pointed out that Private lawyers often have more experience with the law and with the Judges and Prosecutors than do Public lawyers. I also pointed out that we often engender more trust/value because the client is gets a value if he hires the right lawyer. For example, many, maybe most, public lawyers do not have after hour services. Most paid lawyers do. Many Public Defenders don't work on court holidays but most private lawyers do. Many PD's do not give cell phone numbers but most paid lawyers do.
In other words, I pointed out to Miriam and others that there is a value that paid lawyers provide a client. How many times does a person hear "You get what you pay for." In the context of law, clients who have public provided attorneys feel that they must not be getting very much. That is untrue. They feel that these public lawyers do not care, also not true. They feel like one of a herd of clients and that the free attorney doesn't have time for them. Sometimes true, but sometimes, that is an appearance. (see Miriam's response to my reply on her site).
Why does the client who is getting a free lawyer think that the lawyer he has is not on his side?
Well let's look at the reasons. The Client comes into the arrangement already thinking the worse about your ability. How many times are you able to spend more than a few minutes with the client? Do you work to meet the clients after hours? Do you stay more than three hours after the day is done? Do you have weekly after hours? How do you expect to engender trust in a person you barely know or only know as a file?
Do you or your office take the time to give the client a folder for his things? Do you copy him on all correspondence? Do you give him a chart or a letter explaining the system? How can a client think you know the system if you don't show him you know it? Is he supposed to go with sheer faith. When one is looking at a five year sentence that is asking an awful lot of faith.
How do you and the client best communicate? If he hasn't a computer, he cannot send you e-mail. If he doesn't have a cellphone, he cannot text you. Do you ask your clients if there is a relative? Someone else you can speak to? No? Do you not think that the client might be so scared he needs to have another person available to listen and help him make decisions? If you won't take the time to speak to his family, then why should he believe you care about him anywhere near as much as I do?
Have you gone with a client the first time you send him to Alcoholic's Anonymous meetings? The first time can be scary. Will the client think you are shoving him off to a meeting rather than help him with the problem yourself? Will he think that you are too busy to work with him so the meeting is an easy way for you to rid him of your schedule?
How active in the Bar are you? Do you write articles? Do you give lectures? Many PDs are fond of saying they have the most experience in the courthouse defending cases. That may be if sheer numbers are going to be our measure. If you are not however investing in your profession, then how does the client know if you are respected by your peers and the courts? How does the client know if you are as good as you say you are and not just robotically processing cases to plea?
I guess what I am saying is that public lawyers need to see what they did or didn't do that made her client doubt her. Too often Legal Aid lawyers think that the fact that they are a free lawyers is enough for the client to think them inferior. I do not agree. Even though they are skeptical of you, your clients want and need to believe in you. You however have to earn that belief.
One thing I will agree with, is that lawyers have no right to put down a Public lawyer's ability anonymously. On the few cases where I am approached by a Legal Aid Society client on a case, I obtain their permission to conference the case with their present counsel. On the other hand, do not expect me to back you up if your work has been less than stellar. Usually, thank goodness, the Legal Aid member has done a good job on the case, but hasn't built a relationship with the client. In my call I ask about that too, and I try to help them with that by both explaining the lawyer's position and by acknowledging their needs as well. That is not only good practice, but it is also good marketing. Which leads me to my next issue.
My friends Gideon and Scott think that when I write things like this I am marketing myself. That my interest in feeding my family and paying my staff "makes me dirty". Scott especially is of the opinion that marketing lawyers do a disservice to the profession. I heartily disagree. I think I am a very good lawyer. I also refer cases to lawyers I think are very good. I do not think most criminal clients have a clue as to who to ask for a recommendation nor what they need from the lawyer. If all I have is a website, that is no better than an ad. I am not teaching them anything about myself. On the other hand, my blogging and my tweeting and my question answering, all go to educate the client as to not only what I am writing about but also as to who I am. I am not saying "Hire Me I am good for you." I am saying "read what I write and see if that is what you want and if you will be comfortable with me." That is marketing, but is in my opinion talent related and legitimate. I feel I have a duty to help potential clients find a good lawyer.I am that person, and if I am not, I probably know who is.
I think Scott is deluding himself into believing that he is not marketing his talents by writing a blog. He says that since he is not trying to get clients from the blog, he isn't guilty of marketing. That marketing is but a by product of his more altruistic attempts to educate the masses.
Scott, if that is the case, Shut down the blog and write anonymously. Hell you know people are going to want to hire you. You have a disclaimer on the page that clearly says "
Now Scott, Gideon, if I were marketing, wouldn't I link my blog to my Homepage? Nothing on the front of my blog links you directly to my website. Further, even if you click onto my name when I leave comments, it links you to a page on my site that links to my blogs and does not mention one of my accomplishments (Stop snickering I have one or two!)If I were using the post at Accident Prone or this post only to market, I am doing a lousy job of it.
No I wrote the post to help Miriam and other PDs to see that advice is not all that they are good for. That clients value a relationship and knowledge and clout. That your poor clients and my wealthy ones both want a value to the representation given them. Just because your client cannot afford me, does not mean he doesn't want that experience. I wrote "harshly" because that is how I felt she wrote her original post. I am sure she can take as good as she gives. Nice of you guys to come to her defense by completely misstating the motive of my reply though.
Funny but I am not seeking, nor are many lawyers I know seeking legal aid clients. If they can afford me, they shouldn't have Legal Aid to begin with.
By the way, I am far from perfect. I don't always provide the value that I have described. I try to however, on every case. At least I acknowledge what the value is. Miriam's original open letter didn't seem to me to even see that maybe she needed to engender a more supportive relationship with her client. I also took her letter to be offensive to hard working Private lawyers. Do not "paint" me with a broad brush if you don't want to be "Spackled" right back.
After all, I am from New York.
* This column is not about twitter or blogging, but it is interesting to note how we three bloggers have used both the blogs and Twitter to enhance the conversation. IF you want to read some of the back story you can follow Scott Greenfield at Twitter.com/ScottGreenfield and Gideon at Twitter.com/Gideonstrumpet. Of course you can follow me at Twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude. Get on Twitter and follow the discussions.
What started this discussion was a combination of this post and the comments by the anti-lawyer marketing Mr. Greenfield and then my reply to this post on Accident Prone by Miriam. My sarcastic response to Miriam was then challenged simultaneously by Gideon and by Scott. Well it was almost simultaneous, Gideon got off to a late start.
So if you cared enough to follow all of this, and are still interested, this post is my response.
Miram in her original post (which was brought to my attention through Twitter about 3 weeks after she wrote it) was upset because a client came to her and told her that another lawyer (allegedly a paid or private lawyer) told him w/o knowing any facts that he (the pvt lawyer) could get him a misdemeanor. Now her client is giving her a hard time.
Her response was to scold all Private Counsel and tell us not to tell clients what we could do for her client if we are not going to take the case. I have some sympathy for her plight. After all I am a former Legal Aid Lawyer and I also still take a few Assigned counsel cases each year. On the other hand, it is not all lawyers who put down public lawyers and it is not even always private counsel's fault. I mean unless the lawyer is in the hallways offering unsolicited advice, and unless he is wrong about it, the client must have come to him and asked why his "League Aid" or "P.D." was giving his case such a short shrift. Not only did Miriam paint all of us non-public lawyers with the same broad brush, but she absolutely took no personal responsibility for her client's feelings.
I responded to her sarcastic open letter in kind. I pointed out that Private lawyers often have more experience with the law and with the Judges and Prosecutors than do Public lawyers. I also pointed out that we often engender more trust/value because the client is gets a value if he hires the right lawyer. For example, many, maybe most, public lawyers do not have after hour services. Most paid lawyers do. Many Public Defenders don't work on court holidays but most private lawyers do. Many PD's do not give cell phone numbers but most paid lawyers do.
In other words, I pointed out to Miriam and others that there is a value that paid lawyers provide a client. How many times does a person hear "You get what you pay for." In the context of law, clients who have public provided attorneys feel that they must not be getting very much. That is untrue. They feel that these public lawyers do not care, also not true. They feel like one of a herd of clients and that the free attorney doesn't have time for them. Sometimes true, but sometimes, that is an appearance. (see Miriam's response to my reply on her site).
Why does the client who is getting a free lawyer think that the lawyer he has is not on his side?
Well let's look at the reasons. The Client comes into the arrangement already thinking the worse about your ability. How many times are you able to spend more than a few minutes with the client? Do you work to meet the clients after hours? Do you stay more than three hours after the day is done? Do you have weekly after hours? How do you expect to engender trust in a person you barely know or only know as a file?
Do you or your office take the time to give the client a folder for his things? Do you copy him on all correspondence? Do you give him a chart or a letter explaining the system? How can a client think you know the system if you don't show him you know it? Is he supposed to go with sheer faith. When one is looking at a five year sentence that is asking an awful lot of faith.
How do you and the client best communicate? If he hasn't a computer, he cannot send you e-mail. If he doesn't have a cellphone, he cannot text you. Do you ask your clients if there is a relative? Someone else you can speak to? No? Do you not think that the client might be so scared he needs to have another person available to listen and help him make decisions? If you won't take the time to speak to his family, then why should he believe you care about him anywhere near as much as I do?
Have you gone with a client the first time you send him to Alcoholic's Anonymous meetings? The first time can be scary. Will the client think you are shoving him off to a meeting rather than help him with the problem yourself? Will he think that you are too busy to work with him so the meeting is an easy way for you to rid him of your schedule?
How active in the Bar are you? Do you write articles? Do you give lectures? Many PDs are fond of saying they have the most experience in the courthouse defending cases. That may be if sheer numbers are going to be our measure. If you are not however investing in your profession, then how does the client know if you are respected by your peers and the courts? How does the client know if you are as good as you say you are and not just robotically processing cases to plea?
I guess what I am saying is that public lawyers need to see what they did or didn't do that made her client doubt her. Too often Legal Aid lawyers think that the fact that they are a free lawyers is enough for the client to think them inferior. I do not agree. Even though they are skeptical of you, your clients want and need to believe in you. You however have to earn that belief.
One thing I will agree with, is that lawyers have no right to put down a Public lawyer's ability anonymously. On the few cases where I am approached by a Legal Aid Society client on a case, I obtain their permission to conference the case with their present counsel. On the other hand, do not expect me to back you up if your work has been less than stellar. Usually, thank goodness, the Legal Aid member has done a good job on the case, but hasn't built a relationship with the client. In my call I ask about that too, and I try to help them with that by both explaining the lawyer's position and by acknowledging their needs as well. That is not only good practice, but it is also good marketing. Which leads me to my next issue.
My friends Gideon and Scott think that when I write things like this I am marketing myself. That my interest in feeding my family and paying my staff "makes me dirty". Scott especially is of the opinion that marketing lawyers do a disservice to the profession. I heartily disagree. I think I am a very good lawyer. I also refer cases to lawyers I think are very good. I do not think most criminal clients have a clue as to who to ask for a recommendation nor what they need from the lawyer. If all I have is a website, that is no better than an ad. I am not teaching them anything about myself. On the other hand, my blogging and my tweeting and my question answering, all go to educate the client as to not only what I am writing about but also as to who I am. I am not saying "Hire Me I am good for you." I am saying "read what I write and see if that is what you want and if you will be comfortable with me." That is marketing, but is in my opinion talent related and legitimate. I feel I have a duty to help potential clients find a good lawyer.I am that person, and if I am not, I probably know who is.
I think Scott is deluding himself into believing that he is not marketing his talents by writing a blog. He says that since he is not trying to get clients from the blog, he isn't guilty of marketing. That marketing is but a by product of his more altruistic attempts to educate the masses.
Scott, if that is the case, Shut down the blog and write anonymously. Hell you know people are going to want to hire you. You have a disclaimer on the page that clearly says "
Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. This is free. Legal advice you have to pay for."You then provide two links to your website one that links to a page where highlighted is the comment
"If your goal is to achieve the best possible outcome, you need a lawyer who can get the job done." That page lists your accomplishments including your AVVO.com rating and your Martindale rating. (Both very impressive btw)
Now Scott, Gideon, if I were marketing, wouldn't I link my blog to my Homepage? Nothing on the front of my blog links you directly to my website. Further, even if you click onto my name when I leave comments, it links you to a page on my site that links to my blogs and does not mention one of my accomplishments (Stop snickering I have one or two!)If I were using the post at Accident Prone or this post only to market, I am doing a lousy job of it.
No I wrote the post to help Miriam and other PDs to see that advice is not all that they are good for. That clients value a relationship and knowledge and clout. That your poor clients and my wealthy ones both want a value to the representation given them. Just because your client cannot afford me, does not mean he doesn't want that experience. I wrote "harshly" because that is how I felt she wrote her original post. I am sure she can take as good as she gives. Nice of you guys to come to her defense by completely misstating the motive of my reply though.
Funny but I am not seeking, nor are many lawyers I know seeking legal aid clients. If they can afford me, they shouldn't have Legal Aid to begin with.
By the way, I am far from perfect. I don't always provide the value that I have described. I try to however, on every case. At least I acknowledge what the value is. Miriam's original open letter didn't seem to me to even see that maybe she needed to engender a more supportive relationship with her client. I also took her letter to be offensive to hard working Private lawyers. Do not "paint" me with a broad brush if you don't want to be "Spackled" right back.
After all, I am from New York.
* This column is not about twitter or blogging, but it is interesting to note how we three bloggers have used both the blogs and Twitter to enhance the conversation. IF you want to read some of the back story you can follow Scott Greenfield at Twitter.com/ScottGreenfield and Gideon at Twitter.com/Gideonstrumpet. Of course you can follow me at Twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude. Get on Twitter and follow the discussions.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
That Lawyer Dude Talks Tech,Law Office Management and Internet Marketing: Some Favorite Posts in the Blawgosphere
My friends and families think I am so tech savvy because I blog, tweet, and have done a few podcasts. I market through AVVO.com, The Virtual Loop, The Attorney Store and I use the computer for educational reasons. Some even think it is wild that I have 2 E-Mail Accounts. I have news for you all, I am a tech idiot. That is why I follow Blogs by Dennis Kennedy, and Tom Mighell among others.
I do however read tech blogs and blogs about the Internet, and sometimes even understand them. Here are my favorite posts from this last week:
1.I just received the gift of a great new computer from my mom(Thanks Mom.) One of the things that used to drive me nuts with my old one however, was how slow it would become over time. This post will help you to keep your computer from giving up all its memory to disk fragmentation and other useless waste of space.
2. Now as for taking up space on your computer... This post teaches you how to backup your Gmail account using a free app called aptly enough Gmail Backup. How convenient. I would suggest that rather than take up a lot of memory on your computer's hard drive you move all this stuff to a thumb drive. It is inexpensive and you can store it offsite... like in your pocket.
3. These three posts don't really qualify as techie per se, but I think they belong in this post so here they are;
a.) 100 blogs That Make You Smarter... ok they forgot That Lawyer Dude but the others are pretty good.
b) Speaking of learning stuff, Our friend Ernie the Attorney has another blog called PDF for Lawyers. In this post he speaks about production of Electronic Discovery (specifically e-mail). It is an important short little post. I found the decision interesting because the ability to search material has become so prevalent that paper is no longer considered a viable medium.
c.) And finally a review of VideoSurf.com which claims to surf videos and makes it easier to find video on sites like YOuTube.com etc. Seems the idea is good, but not that reliable. You can find the review here courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.com.
4.Understanding how to get your blog or website a lot of hits and learning to drive traffic to that site so that you can get potential clients to your site means understanding SEO (Search Engine Optimization). Here are a couple of posts that take the mystery out of the initials:
a).One of my Favorite Bloggers is Carolyn Elefant. Her post at Nolo's Legal Marketing Blog is about do it yourself Search Engine Optimization. Carolyn makes it seem easy to get better Google ranks ethically and without costing yourself thousands of dollars. You can follow Carolyn on Twitter by clicking twitter.com/carolynelefant
b.) Mike Fruchter has a post over at LouisGray.com that has a few ideas not covered in Carolyn's piece. You can follow Mike at twitter.com/fruchter. By the way, Louis Gray is a wonderful website if you want to stay on top of and ahead of what is happening on the Internet.
5.Speaking of Twitter.com, Twitter is one of my favorite tools and occasionally a pleasant diversion/distraction. It has been driving readers to this blog (thanks and welcome) and it has provided quick information and some real friends. If you don't know what Twitter is, go to Twitter.com and find out. It is really a lot more than what you think it is from watching the videocast. It is a way to connect, share information and let others know what interesting (and not so interesting things) you are doing. Yes, tweeters (people who use Twitter) want to know all about you, so keep it interesting.
Here are a few blog posts to make the whole Twitter.com experience more interesting.
a.)The beautiful and intelligent Sarah Evans has these two self-explanatory posts on how be a useful tweeter that others want to follow. These are the Do's and these are the Don'ts. pay attention, this is good advice and you will soon find out that you too can have a great Twitter following. That following will turn into readers and sooner or later many will become people who help your career.
Follow Sarah Evans at Twitter.com/PRsarahevans
b.) As you build your following, you can drive traffic to your blog and to your website. "Pro Blogger" Darren Rowse uses this post to teach you how to use Twitter to turn your website Go Viral.
Follow Problogger at twitter.com/problogger
c.)This post will help you find Government tweeters. I think you can use it to find people to follow who will educate and inform you.
Here is their mission statement:
We want the GovTwit directory (below) to include all facets of government: state and local, federal, contractors, reporters, academics and more. The list below will be a living list, and we hope to keep it updated via our own research, as well as your submissions.
To start, we have included only Twitter IDs and links to official government blogs and URLs noted in Twitter bios
And that is my Tour of Tech posts for now. Let me know if you found this helpful and I may make it a regular part of this blog, either monthly or weekly. Let me have your input.
Speaking of following people on Twitter...You can follow
Tom Mighell at Twitter.com/TomMighell You can follow Dennis Kennedy at Twitter.com/DennisKennedy, you can follow Ernie (The Attorney)Svenson at Twitter.com/ernieattorney And...
You can follow me on Twitter by going to Twitter.com/thatlawyerdude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)