Larry Bodine notes the release of a legal industry statistics summary on his Law marketing portal. The document was put together by Margaret Grisdela, president of Legal Expert Connections.

The survey covers everything from the number of lawyers licensed to practice in the U.S., to the number of firms, size of firms, etc. It’s a very quick read, and packs a lot of information in one short summary.

One of the intended effects of starting this business was to force me to focus. You see, I’ve always been this multi-discipline kind of guy — web marketer, KM practitioner, coder developer, law librarian, etc. (you can check the About page, or my profile, if you don’t know me) — lots of interests and lots of hats, but always with a web-information delivery bent, and always within the legal market.

I’ve also tried to recognize that it was those varying interests that tied me together; gave me my perspective. And while I’m appreciative of my time working in law firms, it was the opportunity to roll those skills into a single focus that drove me to the Stem concept.

Beyond worrying about the company’s financial viability [Note to concerned friends: it's going better than expected! stop worrying...], my biggest concern coming out the gate has been the possibility of losing my connection to the things that interest me, like Knowledge Management. And so, even in the earliest stages of my business plan, I made myself this promise: Along the way, I reserve the right to work on projects that I believe in.

That doesn’t mean I want to be a KM consultant. Trust me, there’s only one Ron Friedmann. [that's a plug btw, in case you missed it. ;-) ]

It just so happens that I love the KM literature — the puzzle of how to codify knowledge & expertise, and what that information tells us. I also believe there’s a strong link from internal KM collections to the development of online marketing product. But that’s another post…

So, Day 1 of operation, I come down to my new office. Out of the HSBC building in downtown Vancouver, and into my newly retooled office, a.k.a. my basement. :-) My voice mail is flashing, and the person on the other end is Aviva Cuyler, a lawyer in the San Francisco bay area. Cool, a great way to start!

Well, she wasn’t inquiring for her firm, but I found the call no less interesting. We talked for a good hour. About her new website – JD Supra. About lawyer work product, and what it can tell about an individual’s expertise – especially within niche areas of the law. How research and filings and court successes can qualify a lawyer’s knowledge & experience. And how in a world where everyone ‘says’ they’re an expert, this new website has the chance to ‘prove’, or at least validate, that a lawyer can execute what they’ve said they can.

Now she’s got my KM interest – a qualification tool that would tie work product to professional profile. A tool that would give credit to the lawyers and firms that contribute, including logos and links back to their firm website. Perhaps a future that includes some Community 2.0 tools? collaboration? networking opportunities? My mind is now working overtime.

So there it is. I’m sold. If there’s a better fit for all those varying interests of mine, I’m not sure what it would be. Aviva Cuyler’s vision is unique, and yet well aligned to the type of product I would conceive of myself. I think JD Supra is set to become an important web 2.o offering for the legal industry. And that’s why I’m signing on.

I’ll say more soon, and sorry about the month-early tease (launch is slated for late September 2007). If you’re a legal researcher, writer, or gatekeeper for in-house precedents, there is an early bird opportunity for those willing to contribute. You can sign up on the JD Supra homepage or email Aviva directly to get involved.

More great legal web demographics! This time, Kevin O’Keefe and Lexblog have produced a detailed list of which Amlaw 200 law firms have started law blogs, and which providers they’re engaging. From the announcement:

• Of the firms on the 2006 AMLaw list (the number was a few below 200, as mergers have consolidated firms since the list first published), 38 firms were blogging;
• From those 38 firms, we found a total of 73 blogs;
• 55 of these blogs were firm branded (meaning they had the firm’s logo prominently displayed on the page). 18 were not branded, indicating that the lawyer was operating their blog independently of or at a distance from their firm;
• Of the 73 blogs, 32 belonged to LexBlog clients. The other 41 belonged to firms or attorneys that were not LexBlog clients, using either free blogging services or personal/firm domains;
  • 12 law firms were LexBlog clients using LexBlog’s platform and accompanying turnkey solution
  • Of the non-LexBlog client blogging firms, there were a range of other platforms used: 8 were using Blogger; 3 were using Typepad; 1 was using Justia; 1 was using WordPress; and 13 had their blogs published and hosted through other services or personal domains.

I guess congratulations to Kevin are in order!  Wow…

I’d like to pass along a white paper that was sent to me (Thanks Connie!) titled Tracking the Influence (PDF download). It was written by Jeremiah Owyang of PodTech and Matt Toll of Factiva, and discusses various aspects of social media measurement. It offers a great overview, and properly identifies the importance of both the reach and influence of web conversations.

If your time is limited, I suggest starting on page 6 at the section titled ‘The Attributes‘.  It’s these aspects, in my view, that really need to be accounted for. Raw metrics like ‘link counts’ and  ’Technorati rankings’ are important, but the ability to look deeper and identify the audience is when we really get into something powerful.

Like other businesses, law firms are now entering market discussions. It makes little sense to engage tactics like blogs and social networking without a strategy to measure the end result of those efforts.  And no different than any other part of law firm management - it’s always worth measuring.

If I can pay a compliment to the writers, I would say this is the type of written product I can see in Stem‘s future; with my own legal market spin of course. :-)  I’m also adding Jeremiah’s feed into my reader. Thanks guys!

Came across a good article today in the latest issue of Law Practice Today, by  John Remsen, Jr. of the Remsen Group, titled What is the Best Way to Catch New Clients? Find Their Associations and Get Actively Involved.

In addition to the great tips John offers, I’d like to add a digital networking twist and offer a few ideas on how to network within those same Associations over the web:

1. LinkedIn Your Close Contacts – As you get involved in an Association’s operations, use the exposure to map your contacts with a professional networking tool like LinkedIn.  LinkedIn displays a digital CV for each of its users, shows your business contacts, and then displays each of their business contacts — but unlike the Kevin Bacon game, only includes 3 degrees of separation. LinkedIn’s membership includes executives from all Fortune 500 companies, and is used by more than 12 million business people around the world. It’s a great tool to expand one’s digital horizon.
    
2. Identify Bloggers- More business and industry bloggers are coming online everyday. If you’re also a blogger, one of the strongest digital connections you can make is to use your blog as a networking tool.  Do some Google sleuthing on your Association’s name, and see who is linking into the Association website, or blogging within the membership.  Read, comment, write about, and link to their blog. Then make contact and consider adding them to your blogroll. Want to get close to someone online? There’s no closer relationship than getting into one’s inner circle of blog-to-blog networking. 
    
3. Write for the Association – This works offline as well, but adding your expertise to an Association’s online newsletter, or an article on the website will create long term marketing collateral. And unlike the paper equivalent, articles on an Association website are rarely taken down unless the author requests it (so watch those time sensitive topics…).  Association websites also offer a stamp of approval for your content, and quality links back to your firm website – which can pass that site trust element that Google values within the search rankings.   
    
4. Community Portals- Now here’s one for the future. You can expect many Association websites to go Web 2.0 very shortly, offering blogs to the entire membership, wikis, in-site mail systems, and link exchange opportunities to show what you’re reading. These community portals are going to offer a great opportunity to build online profile in a very focused way.  If you write a new article, you’ll be able to alert the Association’s membership by posting a link. If you discover a new legal issue that effects the industry, you can survey the community and get feedback before launching a new service offering. Community portal style websites will offer greater access to a targeted niche audience, and an opportunity to get involved and contribute on a wider scale. Watch for it! And don’t be afraid to be an early adopter on this one.

Kevin O’Keefe of Lexblog has re-mixed a short post from the Wall Street Journal called ”Why most business web sites stink‘. Kevin’s re-title, Why Most Law Firm Web Sites Stink.

The recommendations via Harley Manning at Forrester are nothing new, saying ’97% of corporate websites get a failing grade’. With the key factors for success identified as: Value, Navigation, Presentation, and Trust. At the end of his post, Kevin suggests that law firms go beyond other legal websites when looking to innovate, and check out other corporate websites.

Ok, Kevin’s probably sticking himself out on a limb here, especially with a 97% chance of replicating one of those failing websites, but the essence of his thought is correct. Web innovation rarely comes from the legal web, and many times law firms don’t need to be that cutting edge. The trick is simply timing your innovation, and when it will be accepted by the business community.

Anyone want a curve ball? I suggest looking at banking websites when it comes to law firm website design. Banks have similar issues – delivering lots of varying services, packaging or productizing services lines, and making the complex easier to understand.  In general, I don’t consider banks more innovative, but if you look at their high-end services, the audiences can be similar. If you’re trying to get outside the box, banking sites can offer an alternative approach to how you conceive of presenting your services online.

There’s an old adage on the web says ‘content is king’, and that continues to be true even when selling professional services. Your content is your drawing card. It acts as proof that the writer is knowledgeable about their subject, but more important, is an absolute requirement to drawing new visitors to your website. Without content, the only visitors your website will see will be from your existing clientele and offline relationships.

The irony of course is that many law firms, even those substantial in size and resources, have a minimal content offering. If we consider that now in 2007, many firms have had an online presence for 10 or so years. And if we also consider that website content is cumulative, and the majority of law firms rarely (or do not) cull their content offering, then… What gross size would you consider to be appropriate for a law firm website? more than 2,000 pages in size? 5k? 10k? 30k?

From my list of global 100 law firm websites, we see that 65% have less than 10k pages published.  And from personal experience I think I can safely estimate that with smaller firms, in general, online publishing does not exceed 1k pages. So the next question, as noted over on the VLLB, is bigger necessarily better? My answer would be a very firm - it depends. :-)

Benchmarking the raw size of those websites was interesting to me because, in my opinion, legal web marketing is currently going through a big change; with firms moving from a single domain presence to more of a multiple brand / multiple website effort, ie. my hub-n-wheel approach.  This may be one of the last points in time that we are able to measure (most of) a firm’s web presence without identifying and reviewing all the pieces of the puzzle.

I expected to find a lot of very large websites in that list, and surprisingly did not. To me that indicates many firms are still working off of brochureware websites — lawyer profiles, transaction lists, media quotes, representative clients, deals, etc.  And running against conventional wisdom, I do not see that as an entirely bad thing.

Firms with long standing content initiatives may already have drafted content in place, but face the challenge of keeping their offering attractive and current. They face decisions about when to spin that content off into other websites, how to rework & republishing the most valuable content, and when to cull. Is it easier to create content from scratch? or to get decisions made about existing content? my opinion – a coin flip. Depending on the environment, either could be a big challenge.

There’s also the matter of web strategy. If a firm knows exactly which audiences it’s targeting, and puts up niche information that draws qualified leads from key decision makers, the size of the website will have very little to do with its rate of success. As a web marketer, I see the value in both (1) casting a wide net of content to draw audiences, and (2) identifying and expanding the most successful methods.  

What may be more important in reading that list, is what it tells the individual firms about the overall health of in-house routines and processes regarding the web.  If a firm has a 1000 or 2000 lawyers and can’t produce more than a page per lawyer, their troubles may be more systemic in nature. Firms with robust web publishing operations typically have:

• a great in-house committment to writing by lawyers;
• a defined content strategy;  
• a solid understanding of the desired audience;
• approprite publishing vehicles in place;
• active efforts to market both the content and authors.

Put these elements together, and great content can help firms connect with new audiences. I believe that. And while a bigger website may not necessarily be better, I do think it represents an understanding that modern global business relationships have a strong virtual component, that law firm brands are constantly in flux, and that people’s opinions are altered by online exposure. 

So maybe bigger is better? Execution has to count for something. Right?

I am pleased to announce the first of what I hope to be many demographic lists for the legal web: a re-ranked list of the 2006 Global 100 Law Firms (originally published by The Lawyer) by the number of web pages indexed within the search engines.

The list was developed using Yahoo’s Site Explorer, and offers a rough count of web pages published on the principal website of each of the Global 100 law firms. It was developed as a rough comparison tool for large law firm websites, but please keep in mind the following caveats:

• The list only includes the principal website, and does not include content published on alternate domains or other content-based websites such as blogs. Firms who spread out their content offering similar to my hub-n-wheel approach will not be accurately counted.
• It does include some websites, typically those under 300 pages, whose content may be partially hidden or blocked from search engine indexing because of flash based design.
• There are only 99 firms represented because DLA Piper is included for both North American and European operations in The Lawyer’s original list. This list does not differentiate, and includes DLA Piper as a single entry.

Your comments and questions are welcome. And I reserve the right to correct or modify the list for issues of accuracy.

Should a law firm have more than one web property? These days, the answer is an obvious and unequivocal ‘yes’.  Between blogs, wikis, group publishing and collaboration efforts – not to mention content mixing and syndication – the number of web brands under firm control is set to explode.  Need proof? Look no further than the online leaders in your own market. Do they have a firm website and a few blogs? Of course they do, and in the future that model can and will be expanded. Perhaps as many as one website for each major service line a firm offers.

I’m a big believer in having the main firm website define expertise and experience, and then surrounding it with content properties — I call it my hub-n-wheel strategy. And just like money and compounding interest, the trick is to make the sites work together and to be more than the sum of their parts.

The firm’s main website has a distinct purpose when it comes to business development – it must establish trust, experience and expertise.  You can match the tools that best fit each firm’s practice – group pages, detailed lawyer profiles, testimonials, success stories, client lists, transaction lists, speaking engagements, media quotes, publications, etc. – it doesn’t really matter which. The bare minimum must still be met – tell the visitor your experience with their issue, show that you’re good at what you do, and that others have trusted and benefited from your service in the past.  Even if the visitor has arrived at your firm website from your blog (or another content property), the website should reinforce that message, albeit in a more formal way. 

Content properties, such as blogs, are not removed from the trust, experience and expertise equation. Not at all, but the technique is intentionally different. Great content is still the most efficient way to attract online visitors to your website, but content based properties often (and should) lack the formality of the main firm website.  The message should be consistent, but the personal delivery method has a much better chance of connecting with the reader. And when it comes to establishing trust with an online reader you haven’t met yet, nothing beats that personal level of communication.

The positives for creating this ’wheel of content’ around your firm website, ie. the hub, are numerous. First of all, as alluded to above, the mix of personal and formal communication often work well together. Migrating the user from the casual feel of a blog to the more professional website can be akin to meeting someone at a cocktail party or a networking event prior to a meeting in your office. 

Next, via strategic linking, your content can also be levered to increase exposure for lawyer profile pages back on the main website, both through direct traffic and through better rankings in the search engines. There’s also an overall benefit to passing site trust between firm owned web properties. The search engines judge you by the company you keep, and on the web that equates to who’s linking to your website. Not connecting two firm owned web brands is simply a missed opportunity in my books.

Lastly, my personal take is that a law firm’s brand can be broken into four streams – firm, regional, practice groups, and individual lawyers. Pull these elements together online and you’ll likely get my hub-n-wheel approach. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and nothing is more important making the pieces of the puzzle aware of each other, and work together.