Jetpack Publicize is a Worthy Addition to Law Firm Websites

Almost every website we build these days includes social media connectivity. Whether we’re adding ‘sharing’ buttons to content pages, or posting links and headlines to the firm accounts,  social media connections are expected to happen (or encouraged) whenever new content published. Two years ago, firms would have considered this to be a choice, waffling back and forth. But that seems to have ended.  This kind of connectivity can now be considered “part of the plumbing”.

Our company has been designing sites for WordPress since we started back in ’07, and to say we’ve “tested” a few plugins in that time would be an understatement. When it comes to social media integrations, I think we’ve tried it all — from the vendor’s standard widget buttons, to external sharing services, to custom coding the functionality ourselves. On the automated publishing side, we’ve tried several RSS feeding services to route new content out to social media, and published directly to these same accounts via installed plugins. Most of these tools worked, to varying degrees; and a few were bombs from the outset, and were quickly discarded.

Integrating a website’s publishing with social media is, of course, more difficult than it needs to be. The major networks like Google and Facebook don’t always play nice with each other, and some have released functionality at an incredibly slow rate. (Lookin’ at you, G+.) There also seems to be an ongoing feature competition between providers. Just as you think you have the right tool in place, another company comes along with a new ‘must have’ problem solver.

As an example, Hootesuite was one of the first external tools that allowed you to push content via an RSS feed into a Google Plus (“G+”) brand page. There were a lot of developers out there grabbing accounts, solely to take the burden off manually publishing to G+.

The makers of WordPress, Automattic, were also early to figure out G+ publishing within their Jetpack plugin, which led me about a year ago to give it a try. We had a client who was on and wanted to switch over to a hosted version of WordPress. The two issues we wanted to address were:  1) the client liked statistics and was looking to keep those numbers, and 2) direct publishing to a G+; we wanted to experiment with Jetpack’s new G+ publishing capabilities.

I had always heard that Jetpack slowed websites down (truth is, it probably does), but the performance wasn’t all that bad, especially if you could utilize Jetpack to consolidate functionality, removing a few duplicate plugins along the way.

The results on the statistics side were as expected. The stats module did a great job of mimicking the numbers shown on, and offered a nice supplement measure to Google Analytics.

The surprise, however, was on the social media side.  Jetpack’s Publicize seems to do it all. Clean looking share buttons — that just work — out of the box. Plus, you can route your latest blog post or news items out to Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus (business pages AND personal profiles), and LinkedIn automatically. You can also show a link to your G+ profile right on your posts, and integrate email alerts.

Jetpack might not be for everyone, but for a lot of you reading this post, installing this plugin will be a solid addition to your WordPress website.  Automattic seems to be keeping up with the latest changes from the big social networks, and introducing that functionality quickly into their product. It’s also very modular, making it easy to customize.

WordPress Plugins come and go, but this one is leaving me with a good feeling. It’s one of the most trustworthy plugins we’ve used to date.

Lock Down Your iPhone Notifications

Have you noticed how many screen alerts on your iPhone show a “summary snippet”? It’s a default setting for a number of apps. The arrival of a new text message gets displayed on the screen, or an alert from your calendar displays a portion of the event’s description.

Probably the most frustrating part of these alerts is that they can happen when your phone is idle. Even while locked, there’s a good chance you’ve unwittingly authorized a number of apps to display the private information contained within these alerts.

So why not lock it down? The newly redesigned Yahoo Tech has posted a short set of instructions on how to limit the summaries of your Text messages. This same technique can be applied by going into your notification center and culling ALL of your alerts that publish snippets to the home screen.

For most lawyers, conducting this kind of ‘alert shutdown’ for client communication makes sense. When your phone is off-line and locked, nothing should be displayed. Not from calendars, email, texts or private app communications. Nothing. Right?

Simple fix.

Stem Client Roundup for December 2013

The holiday season is almost over and it is very nearly 2014, but we have one last client roundup for 2013!  Despite the usual slowdown for the holiday season, our clients have been busy this month.

We’ll be back in 2014 to let you know what our clients have been doing in January.  Until then, Happy New Year!

Testimonials In The Amazon Age

One way I sometimes describe marketing is “opening the door through which business will walk.” At a minimum, marketing in the legal context means making current and potential clients constantly aware of who you are and what kind of legal work you do. That’s “opening the door.” But by itself, that’s not necessarily going to motivate anyone to walk though it.

Marketing has to do more: it has to describe the kind of people or companies that you serve, the kind of solutions and assistance you give them, and how you do these things in a noticeably different and better way than others. That’s the kind of information that might persuade a client to walk through that open door and see what’s on the other side.

This is one reason I still find testimonials to be a highly effective form of marketing. A genuine testimonial from someone whom a potential client recognizes (a well-known company) or with whom they identify (“a single mother like me”) can be powerful: it details the kind of solutions you deliver and the people to whom you deliver it — ideally, with some distinguishing features of your personality or process.

At the same time, the testimonial has also become a critical feature of the buying process in every part of the consumer sector, thanks to the ubiquity of online reviews. Buyers are asking what other people think of a product or service before they buy it themselves:

  • Amazon reviews are now so voluminous that they virtually constitute a massive content database and opinion clearinghouse all on their own.
  • Mobile-friendly sites like Yelp provide potential customers with instantaneous access to reviews (good and bad) posted by previous customers.
  • Simply by searching for a business on Google, you can read all the reviews and assessments of everyone who has used that business before.

As online tools continue to improve, and the ability to rate and review any kind of business continues to develop, lawyers will find themselves subject to the assessments of clients they’ve served before — for better or for worse. These reviews will be available online, to everyone, pretty much forever. As time goes on, they will keep building up until they create a reasonably accurate profile of the lawyer through a critical mass of client feedback, for all the world to see.

Given this reality, you might want to consider putting this phenomenon to work for your benefit. At the end of each client retainer, ask the client to assess you — first, personally and privately: how did we do? Did we satisfy you, did we meet or surpass your expectations, or did we fall short?  One British law firm texts its clients every two weeks and asks to be graded (A, B, or C) on how it’s doing so far. While this is a great idea — asking for constant, real-time client feedback — you can at least start with one inquiry at the end of the matter.

Some of these client responses (hopefully, many of them) will be positive. If so, ask the client to share his or her positive assessment with the world — through Google Places, or Yelp, or whatever online review service seems most appropriate. The client can, of course, supply this feedback in the form of a traditional testimonial, to be posted on the law firm’s website or through a LinkedIn connection.

But considering how great client testimonials can be, and considering how widely read online review services are becoming, think about combining these two trends to promote how well your law practice served this particular client with this particular matter.

Stem Client Round-Up for November 2013

It is already the end of November and we are hurrying into the holiday season.  Our clients have been very active this month, as you can see by the following:

This was an exceptional month for client news, with some exceptional happenings! Join us next month for our year-end round-up.

Crowdsourcing Your Lawyer Biography

Two things can consistently be said about lawyers’ online biographies: they are among the most important pages on a law firm’s website, and they are among the least engaging and distinctive items on that site. This can be a frustrating disconnect: the lawyers I meet invariably are interesting, insightful, and well-rounded, yet their online bios are often stiff, stilted, and one-dimensional, providing readers with trivia such as year of call and source of law degree rather than information that clients can really use.

Chief among the reasons for this problem, I think, is lawyers’ natural inclination to downplay our own personalities. We’re trained in law school to distance ourselves personally from our work and our clients, and we inherit in practice the longstanding professional tendency to regard self-promotion as vaguely unseemly. We believe that our work and qualifications should speak for themselves, sparing us the necessity of stepping up to the microphone to share a few words about us. But clients hire and forge relationships with people, not qualifications. This reticence may be understandable, but it still hurts your chances of being noticed online and retained.

If you’d like your biography to better reflect who you really are, but you don’t know how to say anything about yourself that doesn’t feel facile or self-regarding, you might try this: ask other people to do it for you. Specifically, identify up to three clients, three colleagues, and three friends who’d be willing to help you out with this project by saying something about you.

  • Ask your clients: How would you introduce me to a new client? What am I like to work with? How do you feel after talking with me?
  • Ask your colleagues: How would you introduce me to a new lawyer? How am I perceived around the office (or the legal community)?
  • Ask your friends: How would you introduce me at a social gathering? What one personal characteristic stands out about me?

You don’t have to insert all the responses in your biography or publish them verbatim, and you certainly shouldn’t publish anyone’s name (unless a client insists on providing a testimonial). If the feedback you receive is less complimentary than you were expecting, you should probably put this project on the backburner and start attending to that issue instead.

But if this initiative can help you add something to your web biography that’s real and engaging (without being embarrassing or over the top), then you’ll have provided online visitors with a meaningful glimpse of who you are as a person and as a professional — something that will help them decide if you’re someone they’d like to do business with. You’ve got a good story to tell about yourself — if you can’t bring yourself to tell it, try asking other people if they’ll take the microphone for you.

Stem Client Roundup for October 2013

October is quickly drawing to a close. It has been a busy and productive month for our clients, as you can see:

We’ll be back again at the end of November with more client accolades and accomplishments.

Drafting a Practice Description For Your Website Using Only The 1,000 Most Common English Words

Thus setting a personal record for longest blog post title….

Donald Johnston has published a great post at Slaw with the self-explanatory title, “Drafting a EULA Using Only the 1000 Most Common Words in American English.” Don references a terrific online tool, “The Up-goer Five Text Editor,” which allows you to use only the one thousand most frequently appearing words in the English language.

Using this site, Don wrote an end-user software licence agreement — normally, one of the most opaque and mystifying legal documents the world has ever seen. The Up-goer version of the EULA takes a little getting used to, and sometimes suffers from the clunky structure inherited from the original document. But as a means of communicating what you actually want to say, in order that your intent is understood and your rules for using your software are followed, it is far more effective than the standard version.

So here’s an exercise for you: try to write a practice description for your website using only the 1,000 most common words in English. Your practice description is arguably the most important page on your site — it’s where potential clients come to find out whether you can help them. But many such descriptions are written in long-winded, jargony, off-putting legalese. Trying to sound sophisticated, many lawyers instead come across as boring, pompous, or unintelligible. It’s worth trying something different.

Here’s an example for your consideration: I’ve drafted a generic four-paragraph description for a family law practice. This turned out to be a lot more challenging than I had anticipated. For instance, you can’t use the words “marriage,” “divorce,” “wife,” “husband,” “support,” “custody,” “court,” “judge,” “government,” or even “legal” or “law!”

How are you supposed to describe a law practice without these words, let alone terms like “division of property” or “pension valuation”? That’s the whole point: the exercise forces you to find simpler, plainer ways of saying what you need to say. Here’s my attempt (and okay, I cheated a little — I had to use “marriage”):

I help people fix things that have gone wrong in their lives. Most often, I help people who used to be married but who aren’t anymore. This is almost always hard for these people and their children, and I try to help them feel a little better. But my most important job is to help them with all the stuff that they have to go through because they’re not married anymore.

When a marriage is over, each person who was in the marriage has to do some things. They have to fill out a lot of papers, so that everyone knows the marriage is over. Each person who was in the marriage will take half of all the things the two people owned together — either the things themselves, or money to pay for the things. One person might have to give the other person money every month to help that person live his or her life.

If there are children of the marriage, one person may live with the children, and the other person will give that person money to help the children live their lives. The person who does not live with the children may be able to visit the children every two weeks or every month, or to have the children live with them at those times.

All of these things, and many more, can be hard to do and can take up a lot of time. My job is to help people do all these things, so that they don’t have to do it all themselves. If you think I could help you, please call me, so that we can plan to meet and talk about what’s going on with you. You don’t have to pay any money to speak with me for the first half an hour.

Not exactly Tolstoy, is it? And at times, it does come across as patronizing, as if you’re speaking to a child — your clients’ vocabulary will certainly contain more than 1,000 words. I doubt I would paste this directly into my firm’s practice description page.

But nonetheless, there’s an appealing directness about this draft, both in terms of the content of the message as well as its emotional connection. Please call me, so that I can help you  many clients are seeking exactly that level of forthright personal engagement from their legal adviser. If the text editor makes you draft something like this, don’t be afraid of it.

I think you should try writing a simple, 1,000-most-common-words version of your practice description, and use it as a template for your final version. Strive to add as few “illegal” words as possible — only those really necessary to communicate your meaning. And try to keep those elements that make you seem accessible, approachable, and responsive. Lawyers often use words to shield themselves from others — this exercise can help you reverse that process.

Facebook Timeline Moderation for Lawyers

I was recently trying to explain the idea of Facebook timeline moderation to a friend. That is, not letting someone “tag” you in an uploaded picture or text entry, and having that (potentially embarrassing) item automatically show up on your profile page.

While  it’s odd that this setting isn’t activated by default [insert Facebook privacy 'eye roll' here], the fix for pre-moderating your timeline takes about 30 seconds.

Below is a quick set of instructions to get this working:

Step one. Log into Facebook, and hit the Privacy drop down menu in the top-right corner of the screen:


Step 2. Click on See More Settings at the bottom of that menu.

Step 3. Click on the “Timeline and Tagging Settings” tab in the left-sidebar navigation menu:


Step 4:  Turn “On” the setting that asks you to “Review posts friends tag you in before they appear on your timeline?

You can (optionally) stop other people from posting anything to your timeline by changing your answer to “Who can post to your timeline?” to “Only Me“.  But unless you’re being tagged into other people’s sharing constantly or an outside party is abusing this feature… that solution is likely overkill.

Adding a simple moderation queue should be more than adequate to protect most professionals.

Stem Client Roundup for September, 2013


Fall is definitely here and it is getting busy again.  Over the past month, our clients have been very active, both online and off:

That’s all for now, but we’ll be back around Halloween with more client accolades and achievements.

Latest Additions to

Just a quick update on the Canadian Law Blogs List at Here’s a look at a selection of the blogs that have been added to the directory since our last round of new additions back in June:

If your site’s URL, feed, authorship, scope, etc., changes, we encourage you to let us know by using the “Update my blog’s listing information” option in the submission form at

17 Heartwarming Photos That Will Restore Your Faith In Humanity

The purpose of this post is to warn lawyers against allowing their published content to become manipulative, formulaic, and hollow. There are no photos, heartwarming or otherwise, in this article.

If you read content online these days, whether from a commercial news site or an aggregator like Facebook, you’ll have noticed a change in how that content is delivered. Startling headlines and tantalizing photos grab your attention with the promise of something uplifting, hilarious, or shocking. Clicking on the links brings you to articles that frequently deliver less than the captioned photos suggested (or to a “sponsored” story that’s little more than a product advertorial). But vertical sidebars accompanying that article feature equally arresting headlines and provocative photos of people or scenery, encouraging you to click and begin the cycle again.

If this sounds like something you’ve experienced, chances are it was courtesy of a company called, which has mastered the art of exploiting online users’ curiosity and willingness to click links. This article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek explains the techniques behind Upworthy’s remarkable success in generating page views from people browsing aimlessly at work or school. Even if you enjoy Upworthy’s offerings, you should understand how and why your manipulation is being engineered.

The science of manipulation through content is also on display at your local movie theatre (or, more likely these days, in your Netflix queue). If you’ve walked out of a major studio release recently thinking, “I feel like I’ve seen that movie before,” it’s because you have. Hollywood movie scripts have been almost entirely captured by a 2005 screenwriting guide titled Save The Cat, which lays out a step-by-step, virtually page-by-page blueprint for what’s going on and what should happen next. This article in Slate tells the story of the Script Formula That Ate Hollywood, and will probably explain why so many recent big-screen features feel like rote productions — because they are.

Now, little of this is entirely novel. News publishing has always been a more formulaic and manipulative undertaking than most readers assumed. Headlines are written primarily to attract readers’ attention and impel them to start reading the story, not to accurately convey the story’s content, while “front-page news” is the story (and headline) calculated to be the likeliest to inspire a purchase, not the most important thing happening in the world today. As for formulaic writing, anyone who has leafed through a romance novel or a paperback thriller purchased in an airport has experienced that.

But the quick-hit, rapid-fire nature of online content is escalating these forumlae and manipulations to new heights. For a succinct and brilliant analysis of this trend, read this article from The OnionLet Me Explain Why Miley Cyrus’ VMA Performance Was Our Top Story This Morning, By Meredith Artley, Managing Editor Of CNN.Com.

What has this got to do with you, the lawyer who produces content to inform readers and promote her expertise? Hopefully, at this stage, very little. The legal content market is so small, relative to the consumer market, that I don’t think it has yet drawn much attention from these tactics. But I worry that pretty soon, law firms will start getting pitches from “content advisors” who want to help drive traffic and page views with sure-fire article structures and dazzling headlines. I’m concerned that lawyers will be susceptible to these offers: many lawyers would happily outsource all responsibility for their content, and since much lawyer writing already leans towards being rote and pedantic, it’s not a long journey from there to arrive at content that’s packaged, sterile and manipulative.

The real promise of lawyer blogs, to me anyway, is the ability to open up a line of authentic communication between a lawyer and her current and potential clients — to display not just the lawyer’s expertise, but also her personality, opinion, passions, and sense of humour. Connecting with a lawyer through her online content is the first step towards connecting with her in real life, and from there, towards building a strong professional relationship. But it has to be in the lawyer’s own voice and about her own interests, and it has to be written in hope of genuine connection with real people.

The current trend in commercial online content is a million miles from authentic, and it has no interest in long-term anything: it is short-term, disinterested, exploitative, and more than a little cynical. So remember the real reasons why lawyers publish content, and learn to recognize the danger if and when the other type of content comes calling.

Stem Client Roundup for August 2013

Summer is coming to an end and the days are getting shorter.  Our clients have made good use of the longer summer days, however, and have accomplished a lot in August:

That’s all for this month’s rendition of the Stem Client Roundup.  We will be back again next month with more details on what our clients are doing.

Ghostblogging And The Persistent Problem Of Lawyer Plagiarism

The question of “ghostblogging” has been troubling lawyers for awhile now, but the topic suddenly caught fire over this past week. A post at the Virginia Lawyers Weekly blog noted that both State Bar President Sharon Nelson and Bar Counsel James McCauley agreed that ghostblogging — a lawyer retaining a third party to write blog content and publishing it under the lawyer’s name — was prime facie unethical. According to McCauley:

Essentially, holding out another’s work product as one’s own is deceptive. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with using outside and creative talent to craft a blog, a lawyer that uses a “ghost blogger” without a disclaimer, to publicly advertise the lawyer’s engagement with and competence in a particular area, violates Rule 7.1’s prohibition against misleading statements or claims in public communications about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.

This helped touch off a vigorous debate online about whether ghostblogging is a breach of professionalism or simply the application of modern communications resources. (Kevin O’Keefe’s Twitter feed is a good place to track the various arguments for and against.) My position on the subject is pretty clear: as I wrote with Steve Matthews in our new book Content Marketing and Publishing Strategies for Law Firms, ghostblogging is fundamentally a misrepresentation to the audience.

A blog is highly individualized and personal; it’s meant to be the expression of the lawyer’s own ideas in his or her own voice (the lawyer’s photo features prominently in almost all such blogs). We believe an ethical line is crossed when someone else writes almost all of a lawyer’s blog posts under that lawyer’s name, because there’s an audience expectation that the opinion and/or words belong to the listed author, not to someone else. 

There’s nothing wrong with a lawyer crediting someone who helped out on a post, so long as it’s just assistance along the lines of writing and editing described above. But if the final post is essentially the work of a different person, we think it’s problematic for the lawyer to take sole credit. “Ghostblogging” is frowned upon in online circles, and allowing it to occur within your law firm runs the risk of a serious reputation hit if it is discovered.

It’s perfectly legitimate (and in fact, I encourage law firms) to enlist the services of a writing or editing professional to support a lawyer’s blogging efforts by providing coaching and assistance along the lines of:

  • suggesting blog topics
  • enumerating bullet points (but only points) that the post could cover
  • reviewing and editing a draft
  • revising a draft, up to but not including a substantial rewrite
  • offering suggestions, recommendations and other guides to make the post better.

But I also believe that if you hire a professional to help you write blog posts, you need to fully credit that person in an upfront and transparent manner, on the blog itself, as a member of your writing team.

Now, to my mind, none of this is especially controversial. But I want to address another, more pernicious problem in the law, one that surfaces when the ghostblogging debate recurs. The most frequent argument in support of ghostblogging is that senior lawyers routinely enlist the services of juniors to write memos, documents, CLE papers and the like, and then place their own names on the resulting product (often, but not always, with a front-page footnote thanking the junior for his or her “assistance.”) If this is legitimate, the argument goes, than so is ghostblogging.

My response is: neither of these practices is legitimate. Just because law firms have always done this doesn’t make it okay. In every other field of endeavour, from academia to journalism to public office, if you take credit for work produced by someone else, it’s called plagiarism — and it has career-ending consequences. The same standard should apply to the legal profession.

Senior lawyers who oblige younger practitioners to draft a document, and then pass off the work as their own, are crossing many professional lines. They are denying the younger lawyer the opportunity to develop her own portfolio of work and take credit for a job well done (and make no mistake, the junior will be required to take responsibility if the document contains an error.) They are exploiting their position of influence over relatively powerless juniors and damaging those relationships. Most problematically, they are misrepresenting to their clients and colleagues that they wrote something when they did not. They are being intellectually dishonest.

As ethical abuses go, I’ll readily admit that this one is nowhere near the top. But it’s a bad habit that lawyers developed in a bygone era, back when it was considered fair to appropriate the efforts of less experienced colleagues in exchange for the privilege of a position and the promise of future promotions. That is not the profession or the society we inhabit today. If a lawyer, regardless of rank or position, did the majority of work on a document, that lawyer should receive top billing (in both senses of the word) for it. It does our profession no credit to perpetuate the equivalent of a legal writing hazing ritual.

What the present controversy over ghostblogging really means is that lawyers’ pernicious practice of taking credit for the work of others has now spread beyond the confines of the firm and the courtroom, and the results are circulating across the internet and throughout the entire legal marketplace. It’s time we called this practice what it is — plagiarism — and moved to eradicate it from lawyer culture.

Why I’m a Big Fan of Twitter Lists

I keep promising myself that I’ll make better use of Twitter lists.  It’s probably my favorite feature on the network, and to be honest, one that I underutilize.

Here are a few reasons why I think so highly of them:

  1. You don’t have to ‘follow’ a user on Twitter to track what they are saying. Twitter lets you add users to a list without following them individually, and without having to add more congestion to your timeline.
    [An aside...  I find this technique is great for monitoring subjects that don't necessarily fit with my online persona. For example, I love soccer and enjoy lurking in on conversations regarding my local football club. I use a list to monitor that group of individuals, but don't follow them -- thus keeping my timeline a little cleaner, and a little more 'legal' in focus.]
  2. You don’t have to create each list by hand! Lists are public. So when you’re scoping out the people you know on Twitter, check to see if they have any lists. If you click on “subscribe“, their list is added into your account and available for you to monitor. You can’t edit it, of course; but if you wanted that much control, you’d make your own.
  3. You can see who has added you to their Twitter lists on your memberships page. Located under your profile name, like this:
  4. If you block someone on Twitter, that will stop them from adding your profile to any of their public lists. It will also eliminate them from any other form of Twitter interaction, so I’d use this one with caution! (Otherwise, there really isn’t any way to stop people from adding you.)
  5. Twitter lists help us know who to follow.  IF you trust the person who built the list, you can often find interesting people within the group’s members. Each list has two alternate views: Tweets and Members. If you click on the tab marked Members, you’ll probably see more than a few people that you recognize.

Once you start following more than a hundred people, most Twitter users feel the need to manage their participation. No one should ever feel compelled to read every tweet published — Twitter is a river, after all.  But having a few filters up can help us catch the important topics, or conversations among certain peer groups. That’s valuable.

At one point in time, I solved this problem by using Tweetdeck.  Which worked fine, but as time passed I found myself gravitating back to Twitter’s web and app interfaces. The UI on Twitter’s core products had improved, and I couldn’t find a good reason to log into another product… Part of that transition back was my increased use of saved searches (which maxes out at 25) and lists (which now caps out at 1000).

I can’t see myself using Twitter lists as a replacement for an RSS reader, as Tim Baran suggests, but I do want to invest more of my time building and subscribing.  What RSS Reader technology delivers in terms of monitoring publishing, Twitter lists can clearly deliver for monitoring individuals and companies. Using the same technology for both situations (publications vs. ideas & voices) doesn’t work for me, but both are important tools.

Regardless, whether we’re trying to segment groups of people (by interest, industry, geography), or wanting to isolate the latest news feeds from key companies, Twitter lists is one of those social networking features that is worth investing more time in.