Legal Unprecedent: Is It Time for Your Law Firm to Rebrand?
Unparalleled industry shifts, such as changing client expectations, new technologies, and increased competition, are forcing firms to reinvent themselves, often best accomplished via rebranding.
May 28, 2020 at 12:16 PM
5 minute read
The legal profession is notoriously slow to embrace change. Risk-averse legal practitioners are steeped in precedents, and, as a result, law firms historically have not been under immense pressure to modernize. Unparalleled industry shifts, however, such as changing client expectations, new technologies, and increased competition, are forcing firms to reinvent themselves, often best accomplished via rebranding.
Rebranding is integral to marketing efforts of just about any business. A modern law firm cannot rely on basic marketing tactics, produce the same predictable marketing messages, images, and content, and expect to leave an impact. To continue to thrive, firms must adopt new branding tactics that resonate in today's media landscape. But, before considering rebranding, it is important to understand what a firm's brand actually is and why it matters.
What Is Your Brand?
It is easy to believe that "branding" is simply a name and logo. Though both are crucial to a brand's success, they are simply branding tactics. Branding tactics include consistent use of colors, typography, graphics, and messaging in brand communication. But, these are not the brand itself. A brand is the distinct feeling a product or business evokes.
A firm's brand is the sum of people's perception of the firm. It encompasses everything that the firm is, and wants to be, for its contacts. It is the value the firm provides to clients. It establishes authenticity, trust, and credibility. A law firm's brand is the soul of the organization.
As a result, brands evolve over time, and successful businesses rebrand to symbolize this evolution. As the legal industry progresses, so must a firm's brand to reflect the current marketplace. While modern firms rebrand, thus evolving their communications and marketing strategies, traditional firms who remain stagnant will end up losing their competitive edge.
|The Decision to Rebrand
When should a firm consider rebranding? Typically, the goal of rebranding is to influence and transform clients' perceptions about services offered. Rebrands are initiated and shaped by business goals and industry evolutions. By overhauling a brand, a firm can set itself apart from competitors, update an antiquated identity, or highlight an expanded business service or market.
- Rebrand to differentiate in the marketplace.
In a competitive landscape where work and often clients are similar, the same images and messages do not attract attention or create distinction. Even when a firm offers superior legal services, that alone is not enough if clients cannot distinguish it from others. This is where a strong, distinctive brand is crucial and helps a firm showcase what it stands for and how it surpasses competitors. A successfully executed rebrand can build and sustain goodwill, bolster loyalty, and improve recognition. And, an enhanced brand ultimately keeps relationships strong and provides an extra edge over competition.
- Rebrand to breathe new life into your brand.
Perhaps the most obvious reason to rebrand is that the current brand has simply outgrown its effectiveness. Though the earliest incarnations of a logo, website or messaging may have once been innovative, it is possible the outdated brand is dragging business down. Design styles, color combinations, fonts, and images from a few years ago are likely out of date and, though once modern and compelling, now come across as stale and obsolete. By adapting a firm's visual identity, it shows that the firm's business is an authority in the space, rather than a relic.
Similarly, trends in legal marketing evolve, and failing to adapt can affect a brand's perceptions. People see a brand that seems outdated and perceive the firm to be out-of-touch with modern practices. Ultimately, a rebrand not only portrays to customers that a firm is contemporary and relevant, but also that it is connected to the reforming industry. Nobody wants to retain a firm that is seemingly behind the curve.
- Rebrand as your services grow or change.
Does the firm's brand accurately reflect the full scope of services it offers in 2020? Has the firm increased its geographic reach or introduced additional services? Successful firms avoid stagnancy, continuing to grow and develop to better serve their clients' legal needs. Smart law firms should consider rebranding if their current brand is not an accurate reflection of the current company.
Knowing when and how to rebrand is a challenge. It is crucial that a rebrand acknowledge the firm's legacy and foundation while including a progressive look and feel signifying the firm's success in recent years. But, rebranding does not just involve new logos, revamping websites, or changing marketing materials. At a fundamental level, rebranding is the inward process of recreating the way that a firm expresses its identity to the world. Thus, for successful rebranding, a firm must examine its core services, values, and image in today's market with the purpose of transforming, inspiring and elevating current and prospective client perceptions and expanding communication to new audiences.
Shanon Lazarus is an attorney and the director of marketing and business development at Bressler, Amery & Ross in Fort Lauderdale. Contact her at [email protected].
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 AllData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readNavigating Florida Property Insurance Claims in a Post-Fee-Shifting World
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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