Does Martindale Have A Point Anymore?

One of the original marketing tactics for U.S. lawyers, once the spread of business operations “went national” in the mid-1800’s, was James Martindale‘s directory, a printed listing of bank, real estate office and lawyer names, addresses and biographies, that went to businesses such as lawyers, bankers, wholesale merchants, manufacturers and real estate agents. Recognizing the expansion driven by the growing rail system that put business operations in new geographies across the country, Martindale was also aware that there would be a need for “reliable” services across state lines, where a pastiche of local land, legal and business practices would require a knowledgeable practitioner in each jurisdiction.

For 100 years, Martindale, which eventually absorbed its competitor Hubbell Legal Directory in the ’30s during the economic contraction, made the market in legal information exchange. And, as a printed vehicle, it uniformly based its charges on the number of lines required for each lawyer’s and law firm’s advertisement in the form of a listing. A century of growth fueled by the increasing number of lawyers and businesses who needed them made Martindale Hubbell the dominant force in legal marketing. Its directories were the gold standard and its ratings, rendered by lawyers’ peers, were coveted like the Holy Grail.

Neither the advent of radio nor broadcast television disturbed this closed system. Remember, until 1979, lawyers were effectively prevented from advertising in most other media by local Bar rules. After the Bates v. Arizona State Bar Supreme Court decision, broader media could be considered, but their mass audience and large costs created too much waste for most law firms to employ these in a practical way to become better known, especially on the national scale that the printed directory represented. Printed ads in business publications were about the only vehicle that made sense, and in the early days of legal advertising, these were universally ignored, excepting the infrequent newspaper “tombstone” announcing a lawyer’s arrival or a particular legal event.

The first challenge to Martindale–Hubbell’s dynasty was the advent of cable television. With these narrow-cast local networks open to advertisers for smaller investments, inexpensive and targeted ads and sponsorships made sense, even for smaller law firms. As business programming became better developed, the niche audiences were ripe for exposure to law firm names and ads.

Just 15 years after Bates, the commercialization of the Internet became a reality. While it took about the same amount of time afterwards for law firms to capitalize on this, early adopters in the mid-90’s foreshadowed the dissolution of the Martindale advantage. Once available only for the line-by-line expense of the directory, the attention of businesses and other lawyers across the globe was now available for the price of a PC, Internet connection and Web site host.

Martindale was not swift to recognize this C-change. “Head in the sand” might be a better description of their approach. In fact, it was not until about the year 2002 that a viable version of Martindale.com occupied the Internet. Seven years later, LexisNexis now owns the vehicle, and new products roll into the market almost regularly. Still, each one seems reactive, rather than proactive, and Martindale’s strategists seem bent on waiting for new ideas to coalesce into trends before following them.

Recent figures I’ve seen suggest that about one out of three of the AmLaw 200 have now left Martindale. The larger the firm, the more likely it is to have reconsidered advertising with the directory. Some are at a minimum participation, keeping only a firm listing and, occasionally, supporting Peer Rated attorneys by keeping their names in play.

Perhaps it makes little sense for a national or international firm with a large census, broad geographic distribution and solid reputation to use Martindale. Those firms are much more interested in internal referrals that in outside help. Their office locations and large body of professionals create more opportunities than Martindale can, ever, by virtue of their personal relationships.

Even mid-sized firms now question the value of an extensive Martindale presence. A group that includes our firm has been having spirited discussions for almost three years over the value, or non-value, of Martindale to the marketing function. This is the final threat to Martindale’s effectiveness and survival. Will they be able to address it? Are there still good reasons for firms to use Martindale, and to what extent?