Familiar ALSPs Are Risking Unfamiliarity With Name Changes. So Why Rebrand?
Legal service providers can benefit from updating their brand name to reflect the opportunities and problems that dominate an ever-changing legal market, but leaving behind an established brand will always have its risks.
February 18, 2020 at 01:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
It can be hard to remember all the different brands floating around the legal market, especially when they keep changing. While some alternative legal service providers may be moving away from that moniker altogether, others have taken what might be considered an even greater leap and rebranded not only the descriptor they ascribe to, but the name above the door.
Take the company formerly know as Axiom Managed Services, which officially rechristened itself as Factor in January. Conduent, a tech-led business process services company that some may remember as Xerox's legal and business services arm, underwent a similar identity swap after splitting with its parent company back in 2017.
But is printing all of those new business cards worth it? The answer may depend entirely on the company in question. For some, a fresh name is the chance to reestablish solid footing in an industry where the technology, needs and expectations of clients have shifted rapidly over the last several years. Meanwhile, others could be jeopardizing invaluable brand recognition for a name that sounds good but ultimately doesn't do much heavy lifting.
"There is an increase in providers and a more crowded market space, so within that framework having a name that kind of helps identify where you fit and how you might be able to help is helpful," said Jason Brennan, Luminance's president of the Americas.
Standing out, for instance, was important for Chris DeConti, head of strategy at Factor. "It's always been true that we have this unique niche. I think one of the things our recent rebranding just allowed us to think about is how to articulate it in as straightforward [a] way as possible."
However, changing a brand is not a decision that companies may be able to make lightly, or without a great deal of market research. A clean slate is also a blank one, potentially wiping away any progress that companies have made in getting its name into the ears of potential customers.
DeConti said that ahead of the Factor rebrand, the company spent a lot of time on a communication plan to help get the word out about the name change, redoubling efforts with media and publicity and working their way through a database of close to 10,000 historical client contacts. "In some cases it was in-person meetings, in some cases it was phone calls, in some cases it was email, looking to reinforced [the new name] in various ways," he said.
Per Brennan, the risk a company takes with regards to a name change may depend on just how well-known its brand is in the first place.
"You probably wouldn't see Luminance changing its name now just because we feel that we've put a lot of effort into the brand on a global basis. People know it. People know what we do."
But Luminance also has the advantage of being a relatively young company, having launched in September 2016. Other brand names circulating in legal may have accrued a bit more mileage, finding themselves saddled with a name that no longer accurately reflects their business model or services.
"We've seen a lot of firms or organizations that were traditionally in a specific service area such as litigation that are now seeing that there's evolution in the market and they don't want to be left behind," Brennan said.
Joey Seeber, CEO of Level 2 Legal Services, indicated that when the company first launched 11 years ago as Level 2 Review, there were very few businesses specializing in document review on the market. As that service became more common and the company increased its own portfolio of offerings, a midlife rebranding began to make sense.
"Because we were performing more value-added services for our clients, we thought, 'Well, [Level 2 Review] really limits us and its not very descriptive,'" Seeber said.
He recommended that companies who are considering taking on a new name give careful thought to their brand equity. For example, a company that has recently gained a new service or offering as the result of a major acquisition could stand to benefit from an identity that calls attention to its enhanced scope.
Seeber expects to see more company name embellishments on the horizon, even if it's just pivoting away from hyper-specific descriptors such as Legal 2 Review.
"With the consolidation that we're seeing and the clients who have begun to call upon us to do more, then yes, you'll see changes in the way that is described," Seeber said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Landlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules Landlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2024/07/lease-agreement-767x633.jpg)
Landlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules
4 minute read![State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/11/Fee-Dispute-767x633.jpg)
State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation
5 minute read![Return to Work Mandates Among Current Mental Health Stressors for Legal Professionals Return to Work Mandates Among Current Mental Health Stressors for Legal Professionals](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/96/29/eb515cc14d2287895f23c199c345/spd-headshot-1-767x633.jpg)
Return to Work Mandates Among Current Mental Health Stressors for Legal Professionals
1 minute read![Internal GC Hires Rebounded in '24, but Companies Still Drawn to Outside Candidates Internal GC Hires Rebounded in '24, but Companies Still Drawn to Outside Candidates](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/corpcounsel/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/02/Cunningham-767x633.jpg)
Internal GC Hires Rebounded in '24, but Companies Still Drawn to Outside Candidates
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250