Does Your Firm's Content Say the Same Things As The Next Firm?
Does your firm say "uniquely placed," "unmatched," or "unparalleled" in marketing materials? In a noisy global market in which it is increasingly hard for law firms to stand out, a simple client-centric approach to content can separate your firm from the pack.
March 20, 2018 at 01:43 PM
7 minute read
It can be hard to be different when everyone else is trying to do the same thing. The legal industry churns out volumes of content every year, but any casual reader could be forgiven for thinking that law firms essentially say the same things. This is curious for an industry which relies on the mastery of words and their interpretation. Standing out does not necessarily require creativity with language, but it does require substantive, compelling content focused on the key audience at hand, namely the client.
Indeed, Lucy Kellaway, writing for the Financial Times, recently reminded us of the potential pitfalls of creative language geared to a wide audience, letting rip against “corporate claptrap,” a wonderfully English way of describing jargon. She ended her 25-year battle against corporate nonsense-speak with a hard-hitting article that was as humorous as it was pointed. Lucy's examples were wide ranging and entertaining, one favorite being Uber's recent admission to having “underinvested in the driver experience.” Another winner? The attempt by a professional services firm to rebrand “downsizing” into “strengthening our alumni network.”
Lucy went easy on the legal sector, reserving her laser-like attention for decades-old examples from long ago forgotten recruitment materials. I suspect most of us have never used the word “knowlivator” in a sentence, nor would we describe ourselves as “winnomats” (winners plus diplomats). In addition to its entertainment value, Lucy's article is instructive for anyone promoting law firm capabilities, as a quick review of law firm websites suggests that Lucy could have picked any firm, and used current material to make her point. Much of the content on these sites could not withstand Lucy's scrutiny.
In our warp-speed revolving door of relentless news bulletins, surprise elections, executive orders, and shifting geopolitics, describing how law firms can be relevant is more important than ever. The legal industry is built on a core premise: providing high quality legal advice that helps clients to resolve the issue at hand and achieve their objectives. It is easy to pick on websites for the purposes of illustration, but this concept should be reflected in any marketing materials. It is disappointing, then, that more than one firm claims to be 'uniquely placed' to help their clients, without explaining how they are special or the circumstances in which their approach might achieve results. 'Unmatched' makes many similarly unsubstantiated appearances as a descriptor for ability, as does my hyperbolic favorite, 'unparalleled.' Always a bit of a headscratcher for me, that last one.
Granted, I did not spend an enormous amount of time reviewing websites, but current and prospective clients don't either. Too many sites are self-referential; a history, lists of practice areas, a management team, awards here, accolades there, lateral partners everywhere. With great anticipation, I clicked on a “client focus” button on one website, to be greeted by an exhaustive list of the work that the firm had done for its clients, featuring that tired format of resume-padding favorites such as “advising x on y” or “representing y in z”. An articulation of the value that the firm delivers to their clients and why that is important was sorely missing, for the most part.
In our current era of doublespeak, fake news and tweeted policy statements, credibility is difficult to achieve and maintain. Creating compelling marketing material that truly differentiates your firm from any number of similarly high-quality, full-service or boutique firms is not easy, but it is important. Avoiding the hyperbole which has upset Lucy for the best part of three decades is only the start.
Placing the client at the center of the points of difference
The key to meeting this challenge is to position the client at the center of the points of difference. As a wise friend of mine once put it, “it's all very well to come up with great law firm marketing ideas, but you have to ask yourself the most important question; 'why would this matter to a client?'” It is a valuable test and one truly worthy of a 'client focus' button. It is also a test that translates to a wider audience. As someone who has been fortunate to practice law around the world, I understand only too well the bar rules and commercial sensitivities that come with referencing client work. That said, there is always room to move beyond rote referencing and with their permission, include the client in a more meaningful way.
Content on law firm websites and any marketing materials should focus on what clients need and write straightforward language to mirror those requirements. It never hurts to make the content visually appealing either. Reflect on how many times we see content such as “Representing America Corporate in its $1b takeover of Mom & Pop stores,” which can always be improved. Most clients think in commercial terms; is the story being told along these lines? One possibility: “The $1b acquisition of Mom & Pop stores was a key step towards achieving America Corporate's publicly stated strategy of tapping into the global growth of organic food sales outlets. There were many competing bidders and considerable market scrutiny. Our international team drew on its experience in this sector, anticipating regulatory hurdles and completing the work required in one of the shortest time periods ever achieved for this type of acquisition.” Add a photograph or two and the reader will have a greater sense of the picture.
The writer's adage of “show don't tell” holds true here. Describe how your team collaborated, including with third parties to respond to the pressure of pulling off this deal in a tight timeframe. At its core, the decision to select counsel is a very human one, based on trust. You need to demonstrate that clients can put their trust in your expertise to help them meet their goals. Those of us who have been there know that there is nothing quite as bonding as being in a conference room with a client in the small hours of the morning working towards a seemingly impossible deadline. Clients need to know that at a time when they are going to experience their own career pressures, they can feel confident that they will achieve their goals by having you and your team at the board table alongside them and the half-eaten boxes of take-out.
Lawyers are skilled and experienced and usually know exactly what their clients need, often before their clients do. That is a given. They also sell themselves short, but that can be fixed with vivid substance and results, not empty hyperbole or vague platitudes. The real mastery required is the ability to describe capabilities using simple language centered on the client experience. That will resonate not only with clients and future clients, but with a wider audience including lateral partners, hopeful job seekers, enthusiastic graduates and curious journalists. True stories are credible and persuasive. Tell them. Who knows? You might never be accused of claptrap by the Lucys of the world ever again.
Louise Muldoon is an attorney, strategic adviser and business development professional with over 20 years of experience in the global legal community. After a decade advising Fortune 500 and multinational clients in London, Paris and Sydney, she transitioned to law firm business development, using insights gained in practice to create strategies to engage clients, drive profitable revenue and create competitive advantage. Most recently, she headed up Business Development, Marketing and Communications for Baker McKenzie in North America.
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
© 2024 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 AllThe AI Pricing Dilemma: Where Client Value and Firm Profitability Intersect
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Democratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
- 2Decision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
- 3Chiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
- 42 Years After Paul Plevin Merger, Quarles & Brady’s Revenue Up More than 13%
- 5Trade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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