The Law.com Legal Blog Watch has been doing an excellent job of covering stories about lawyers who despise Twitter. Okay, “despise” might be a mischaracterization. They have posted blogs by Larry Bodine on why lawyers should not use Twitter and more recently, on Tom McLain’s departure from Twitter. To its credit, Law.com has also blogged in favor of Twitter marketing via hyper-popular Adrian Dayton’s blawg review.
The Social Media Lawyer wants to weigh in: Don’t buy the hype — on either side.
Bodine and McLain are correct. Twitter will not build a law practice. Just like buying a stack of fancy looking business cards, leasing some fancy new office space, or “hanging up a shingle” won’t build a law practice. But the current discussion of Twitter as a marketing tool is too narrow (and often misunderstood). For example, Bodine states:
After months of using Twitter, I’ve learned that it is a shouting post for relentless self-promoters, a dumping ground for press releases and advertising, an ego-driven competition to amass followers, and a target for computer-automated Tweets.
Wow. That sounds a lot like the same problems that come along with advertising in phone books or on billboards. I disagree with Bodine’s claim that Twitter cannot be used for business development. The underlying principle of social media is to connect people who share some sort of commonality. Those people are more likely to turn to each other in their decision making processes. In our business, having a big network, especially a big network that trusts you and frequently benefits from our advice, is invaluable.
McLain’s approach is more reasonable. He doesn’t outright criticize Twitter as a marketing tool. Rather, he states:
A fair assessment of my own marketing practices is that my priorities have been wrong and I was spending too much time on Twitter and not enough on higher ranking methods.
And in all fairness, everyone should read McLain’s response (which can be found below), which explains the purpose for his infamous “tweet” and provides a much better and more thorough explanation of McLain’s thoughts on Twitter marketing than can be found on the infamous Law.com blog post.
That said, it still strikes me as odd that the concept of Twitter marketing can be completely written off with a straight face. Good lawyers know that a good law practice is built — and has always been built — based on good legal work and good results. Law firm marketing, outside the P.I. world, focuses on highlighting your specialties and the unique characteristics that you bring to the table. When was the last time someone retained Kirkland, Skadden, or Cravath from a phone book ad? Never. (On a side note, I think Quinn Emanuel’s “Justice is Blind” campaign is clever and probably effective).
For firm lawyers, at least, Twitter is not about building a practice; it is about sustaining a practice. Twitter, like blogs, like newsletters, like updates, like all those other things you send out to your clients, simply helps you share your wares. It is a showcase. A much classier showcase than the back of a phone book. As numerous law firms have already noticed, Twitter is a fast, easy, and efficient way of proclaiming their success and their expertise. This is good marketing, not an “an ego-driven competition to amass followers,” as Bodine would have you believe. Check out these names:
Fulbright & Jaworski
McDermott Will & Emery
Weil Gotshal & Manges
Greenberg Traurig
And other major players are waiting in the wings. According to @LawyerKM, here are some of the firms making their Twitter presence known:
- Akin Gump – http://twitter.com/AkinGump
- AlstonBird – http://twitter.com/AlstonBird
- Arnold & Porter – http://twitter.com/arnoldporter
- Baker Botts – http://twitter.com/BakerBotts
- Bryan Cave – http://twitter.com/BryanCave
- Cleary Gottlieb – http://twitter.com/ClearyGottlieb
- Davis Polk – http://twitter.com/DavisPolk
- DLA Piper – http://twitter.com/DLAPiper
- Fish & Richardson – http://twitter.com/FishRichardson
- Gibson, Dunn – http://twitter.com/GibsonDunn
- Holland & Knight – http://twitter.com/hollandknight
- Howrey – http://twitter.com/howrey
- Jones Day – http://twitter.com/jonesday
- Latham & Watkins – http://twitter.com/lathamwatkins
- Dewey & LeBoeuf – http://twitter.com/deweyleboeuf
- Mayer Brown – http://twitter.com/mayerbrown
- O’Melveny & Myers – http://twitter.com/omelveny
- Paul Hastings – http://twitter.com/paulhastings
- Proskauer Rose – http://twitter.com/proskauerrose
- Ropes & Gray http://twitter.com/ropesgray
- Seyfarth Shaw – http://twitter.com/seyfarthshawLLP
- Sidley Austin – http://twitter.com/sidleyaustin
- Simpson Thacher – http://twitter.com/simpsonthacher
- Vinson & Elkins – http://twitter.com/vinsonelkins
- White & Case – http://twitter.com/whitecase
- WilmerHale – http://twitter.com/wilmerhale
- Wilson Sonsini – http://twitter.com/wilsonsonsini
Those, my friends, are some heavy hitters. They aren’t “active” yet and it is possible that the firms don’t intend to use the Twitter feeds. But they are there none the less.
Now, it is true that Twitter is a new technology, in the process of developing, and it is most certainly not an end-all-be-all to lawyer marketing. But to simply discount it as a marketing method is ridiculous. Especially in a time when clients want to know who their attorneys are, the types of people they will be working with, and what unique characteristics and abilities their counselors bring to the table. Trust me lawyers; clients will use Twitter to compare law firms in the same way that they are currently using Martindale-Hubbell and LinkedIn.
Twitter is a client facilitator. Other uses may develop over time but there are plenty of opportunities out there already. We are lawyers; we practice law; we market so that we can practice law. Twitter is only a small part of a marketing plan that is even a smaller part of building a successful legal practice. But Twitter is a factor in that plan and while there may be some people who disagree, but those people are wrong. Don’t worry, this site will contain many more articles about how social media is helping practicing and firm lawyers achieve success.
UPDATE: 7/3/2009:
Seyfarth Shaw LLP definitely has a Twitter presence. Check out the comments and follow them at @seyfarthshawLLP – http://twitter.com/seyfarthshawLLP (Mark, thinks for the heads-up!)
Haynes and Boone LLP is on board too: @haynesboone – http://twitter.com/haynesboone
–Tyson
http://twitter.com/tysonsnow (@tysonsnow)
http://linkedin.com/in/tysonsnow
July 3, 2009 at 12:07 pm |
Thank you for presenting the other side of the story. I’m Seyfarth Shaw’s PR Manager, and we actually have a pretty vibrant Twitter presence. Our handle is @seyfarthshawLLP (someone cyber-squated seyfarthshaw), and we have close to 900 followers and are up to 270 posts. What I’m more keen on measuring, however, is how often our tweets are ReTweeted and other users tweet something about the firm.
July 3, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
I think Twitter is an excellent tool, we’ve been running our @vololegal feed for about 8 weeks now & it has proved invaluable in helping us connect & spread the word about our legal networking site. People sometimes misunderstand the power of micro blogging in a heavily targeted environment; it is not meant to be the main thrust of a marketing plan, but a component of an overall strategy that connects people who share common interests and who may eventually do business together. Part of the attraction is that you can solicit opinions on various topics, not always about your core activity & surely the power of connectivity and conversation it offers does show that people engage with people who have something interesting to say rather than those who just wish to plug endlessly. I think perhaps the most important aspect people forget is that it is free and therefore criticism at the effectiveness of it is perhaps a trifle spurious. As with anything, paid for or not, you only get out what you put in.
July 3, 2009 at 4:06 pm |
I really enjoyed this post and your take on the Bodine debate. I couldn’t agree with you more. Thanks for breaking down both sides. In a high-profile sensationalist debate, the grey-area truths in the middle are sometimes overlooked.
Btw, Haynes and Boone has joined twitter and can be followed at @haynesboone. Thanks!
July 3, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
As a somewhat unwilling participant in this debate, I suppose I should weigh in. I claim to be an unwilling participant because the blog post that I tweeted on June 26 was meant to do two things. First, it was meant to explain to my 400+ followers why I was going to become quiet for a while. Second, it was meant to share my experiences for the benefits of other lawyers (or business people) using Twitter.
It could easily be said that the aftermath of my June 26 tweet actually proves the value and extraordinary reach of Twitter. I used http://bit.ly/ to shorten the link to my blog entry to keep track of what sort of traffic was driven to the blog. (If you don’t know about bit.ly, it will keep traffic statistics for you anytime you use it to shorten a link – a marvelous tool). At last count, Twitter alone was responsible for at least 296 visits to my blog article and probably many more. My tweet was retweeted many times providing me with significant exposure and the blog article has hit Twitter in a number of different tweets. So, by far and away, my June 26 tweet was my most successful tweet.
But, in the context of attorney marketing, was the tweet successful? Who knows. Part of the problem with measuring marketing success is that, at least for me, the “sales cycle” for legal services has always been long. Success cannot be measured in days or weeks, but in months or years. So, if my “massive” tweet success did anything for me, I won’t know for months or years. More importantly, did it really gain me notoriety for being a good corporate/M&A/international lawyer. Doubtful – instead it probably established me as someone who has thought about Twitter, marketing and web 2.0.
The lesson in this (for me at least) is that you have to understand what can and cannot be gained by using Twitter. 1. You are what you Tweet – my June 26 tweet did not establish me as a lawyer to be hired in my practice areas, so it was probably ineffective. 2. Tweets alone cannot bring clients to service providers – it is highly unlikely that Twitter will be directly responsible for a new client, especially acting alone. 3. Twitter is not a useless tool for lawyers and do I intend to give up on it – my plan is to continue to focus on other important marketing techniques and eventually bring Twitter back as a part of a balanced marketing plan.
As for social networking in general (I hate that term, its really Internet-based business networking), the following exchange I had on Twitter with a prospective client explains it usefulness quite well:
Me: Would you hire a lawyer off the Internet?
Prospect: I wouldn’t hire off the Internet, but I very well might meet because of the Internet, and then it’s even ground!
Me: Well, I suppose the whole point of all this stuff is to for me to at least get known enough by a guy like you to hope for a meeting.
Prospect: Exactly.
So, we should be using Web 2.0 to put us in a position to actually have a face to face meeting with a prospective client. Once you understand that, you can determine where it best fits into a marketing plan.
By the way, though no Akin Gump, my firm does still have an active Twitter account: http://twitter.com/ctflegal