Firms Require Guides To Conduct Online

Bob Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch calls our attention to a vital piece of legal marketing practice today, that of the need for law firms to take charge of their own online social destiny and protect their fragile reputations by giving thorough guidance to their lawyers and staff about using social utilities. His post last week Rules of Conduct for Social Networking steps off from a set of guidelines given out at the Wall Street Journal about social media.

Just today, I introduced Swati Agrawal of Firmseek at the Legal Marketing Association Virginias Chapter, and she hit this subject, too, in connection with a talk on law firm marketing technology in times when firms are cutting back budgets and leaning even more heavily on demonstrated ROI. Along with suggestions to make more of what firms already have in place and work their own networks for knowledge was her endorsement of free tools such as Facebook and Twitter. Her caution: don’t do anything without first deciding what you want to get out of it and how it should be employed, and beware the user with a bone to pick. She had a few interesting real-life tales to make her points. (Hat tip to Swati, who taught me the term “social utility” today.)

It remains to be seen whether there is a positive business development path through these new areas, but there is most certainly a negative one: the loss of a law firm’s good name through the misuse of the media by its own people, or those it offends. I have noted the potential loss of control of a firm’s reputation pointed out in this telling post on Kara Smith’s blog.

The first significant area of liability to address is state Bars. Our own firm’s code of participation is largely informed by the Rules active in the states where we practice and I recommend that for every firm. If only that were sufficient.

The Bar may govern the behavior and ethics of a lawyer, but firms also will find their positive reputation depends on the good and ethical online behavior of their staff and that is not a Bar concern except to the extent it may affect client representation. That’s why our code also suggests appropriate use for these new media by non-attorneys, too.

As a third leg to stabilize this social networking platform, we have retained a firm of online social networking specialists (http://crt-tanaka.com/ and @crttanaka) to help chart our course. Still, the reason to build this platform is singular: once upon a time, firms used to control their message, but the online social media world is a conversation and participation may give you influence, but you will never have complete control.

Yet, what does a firm possess of value to clients but reputation? This is akin to the business accounting concept of goodwill. Even Bars believe that lawyers have clients, firms do not. The Rules are built to govern the behavior of lawyers, not firms. The collection of lawyers that is a law firm possess only the record of representation that inur to these lawyers. Clients hire firms with highly successful records. This reputation is now widely dependent on the online world. Today, a post from Legal Blog Watch points out the growing influence of the online world on winning business. And who hasn’t Googled their firm name and discovered data they didn’t expect?

How many of our law firms are leaving their online reputation up for grabs?