Designing a new logo and looking for new ideas? Try SeekLogo.com, a new search tool that indexes 200,000 downloadable vector graphic logos.

The term ‘law’ produced only 59 logos, so it’s not particularly heavy on legal examples;  but a database of 200K operational logo designs may help your next brainstorming session.

Matt Homann over at the [non] billable hour has a great new post up titled 10 New Rules for Legal Marketing.

As many of you may know, Matt is a long-term member of the legal blogging community, and prides himself on inspiring innovative thinking. His current push over at lexthink is to inject that method into his speaking, conferences and law firm retreats.  I genuinely hope he finds that success, mostly because I do find him inspiring.

While I encourage you to visit & read the post in its entirety, there were a couple items on this list that really stood out for me. And they were:

9.  Your future clients have been living their entire lives online and will expect the same from you.  If you’re invisible on the web, you won’t exist to them.

Such an essential point, and especially for younger Lawyers. If you’re in your 30s or 40s, you need to think long term. Marketing your practice the same way as a practitioner in their 60s makes little sense. Learn from an older peer’s success? Absolutely. But don’t mimic marketing tactics. The mix for a younger lawyer should be very different.

7.  Having the scales of justice on your business card says you’re a lawyer — an old, stodgy, unimaginative, do-what-everyone-else-has-done-for-fifty-years lawyer.  Same is true for your yellow pages ad.

The same holds true for law firm websites. Stock images = stock lawyer. Invest in a good photographer and a graphic designer. Find imagery that works for your practice, and stand behind it for a few years.

2.  Google tells me there are 337,000 “Full Service Law Firms” out there.  Which one was yours again?

This is one of the ‘big ones’ in my world.  Neither corporate or commodity legal consumers use generic terms when searching. Couple that fact with a lawyer that’s unwilling to ‘hang their hat’ on an area of practise, or narrow their target geographic region of service…  and the whole sales proposition becomes infinitely more difficult.  Similar to off-line brand tactics, its much easier to explain & share a simplified concept – a lawyer who knows exactly what they do, and who they do it for.

I hope you’ll go read Matt’s post … and kickstart your Monday morning. :)

Most in-house law firm Marketers were aware of the Findlaw PageRank sales scam long before it hit the blogosphere. Mostly because they were the target of a huge email blast from Findlaw a few weeks back. Which is how I found out about the offering, when clients then forwarded the program details to me for review.

[If you're looking for some background, please see the preceding link from Todd Friesen who originally broke the story, and the follow up critique from Kevin O'Keefe.]

My response to clients (admittedly in hindsight) was the right one… “decline it”. Google’s hit bigger sites than Findlaw in the past including the Economist, the Times of London, and the Wall Street Journal (link cite).

I don’t want to re-hash the details of the situation in this post. And really, it’s well covered in the above links… but, I was asked recently on Twitter how I see things, and if I would be commenting. I do have some thoughts, so let me share.

• First, Findlaw selling link-based advertising isn’t the issue here. To be clear, the issue is that Findlaw used the Google measure of PageRank as the basis for selling those links. And that has long been off-side when it comes to Google’s Webmaster Guidelines.
• Second, Google’s response of a PageRank reduction penalty isn’t new. It’s similar treatment to what a group of prominent bloggers received just a few months ago. The penalty is likely temporary and probably will last until Findlaw kills the program.
• Third, the reduction (PR7 to PR5) is for the visible PageRank displayed in the Google Toolbar. Does it effect the actual rankings? As of today, in Canada, when you search for ‘find lawyer‘, I’m getting Findlaw as the No. 1 result. I repeated the search over the phone with a US client, and Findlaw was No. 2. If Google had hit Findlaw with a true penalty, those results wouldn’t be happening.
• And related, the reduction of visible PageRank was the objective here. Lowered PageRank removes Findlaw’s ability to sell its pages as a commodity using the Google PageRank measure. Google have been consistent and clear: they want PageRank to be a measure of authority, and not the basis of a link marketplace.

Finally, I’d just like to add one personal opinion. Findlaw’s biggest crime here may just be how blatantly overt they were. It’s almost as if they were tempting Google to hit them? or naive? dumb perhaps? Take your pick.

Here’s why I think so. Google themselves say: “Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results.” Findlaw easily falls into the class of a legitimate advertising opportunity.

Was it their choice to provide raw links? Not likely, or at least not by itself. There are lots of websites with raw links; and if that alone were the factor, paid sites with low editorial standards like the Yahoo directory (sorry, that’s how I feel) would have been hit long ago.

So what tipped Google off? It was the whole package. Those spammy marketing materials, unsolicited emails, selling links based on PageRank, training lawyers how to show ‘link love’ and apply link text, and just generally having the feel of a total Machiavellian manipulation of the system. Frankly, it was arrogant.

Now, let me tell you why those firms are wasting their money. Unless you are in a completely uncompetitive search market, 3 links and a few articles from one website won’t make a dent in your ranking equation. You need links from lots of websites; in some cases, thousands. Those links need to be from a wide range of authorities (think: government, education, professional associations, libraries, conferences, magazines, journals); and increasingly, those links should be from websites on the same finite subject including blogs and social networking groups. Subject specificity is making great strides lately. What’s the topic of the page linking in? what about the pages linking to that person? All parts of the puzzle that must be considered.

Do I think this will all blow over? Sure, and Findlaw will likely get some or all of its PageRank back… after they terminate the program. Or perhaps they won’t terminate it and the Lawyers will get involved? Either way, it should prove interesting to watch Thomson Reuters and Google – old publishing economy vs new publishing economy – stand off. Get the popcorn! :)

Where do I find the time? A common question for many lawyers… for just about ever subject, actually. Not billable? Sorry, no time.

Keeping perspective on personal productivity is an important issue. True, but what about down time? While the typical lawyer has less ’social surplus’ (see video below) than the average person out there, most still have *some* time dictated by personal choice. If you’re not working, doing a family activity, sport, club/assoc. meeting, grocery shopping or laundry – what are you doing then? where do you escape?

Clay Shirky’s video from the Web 2.0 Expo (below) is thought provoking. Every hour can’t be accounted for under the category of “work productivity”. There’s a lot more optional time than any of us believe.

So for every law blogger, twitter user (yup that’s me), or social network participant out there who has to answer: ‘where do you find the time?’ … Tell them you’re being very productive, with your social surplus. And that many parts of the social web are both productive for business, and enjoyable.

Do lawyers watch TV? I suspect a few do.

[hat tip: Connie Crosby]

Following up on a Stem news item I just posted, I’d like to offer a blogging welcome to Florida criminal lawyer Ron Chapman. Ron became a Stem client just after Christmas, and we’ve been slowly retooling some of the aspects of his blog & website.

Here’s a short snippet about Ron’s practice:

About Ronald Chapman, P.A.: Since 1990, Mr. Chapman’s law firm has represented those who have been accused of committing crimes in both State and Federal Courts within the State of Florida. Mr. Chapman is a sole practitioner whose service areas include violent crimes, DUI offenses, drug offenses, domestic violence, Sentencing & Appeals and criminal records services.

Ron is also new law blogger, and a Lexblog customer. One of the big challenges we’re going to tackle is how to mix traditional law firm website features with blogging and providing legal commentary. And to that end, I think what we’re doing is somewhat unique. Working within the lexblog platform, we’re trying to integrate some of the traditional service-based website features, but, still use the blog as the public front-end of the website.

As an example, one of the first things we’ve done is to ‘beef up’ Ron’s service pages. Why? Well, blog commentary is great, but you still need to explain to people what services you offer. These pages aren’t yet exhaustive in describing Ron’s practice, but it’s a start.

How successful will we be? Hard to say at this point, but I’ve got high hopes. We’ll be using the same techniques as I did with the Stem site. You see, not only is this blog running off blog software, but Stem’s principle website is too – entirely built on Wordpress. This time, we’ll be using Lexblog’s platform, and hopefully in a month or two, we’ll have Ron’s phone ringing off the hook. :)

So a big welcome to Ron! And thanks for agreeing to be a case study.

Update: I’ve added some related thoughts to this post over at the VLLB.

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.