Why Even Small Complaints Can Tank a Lawyer's Online Reputation
In the legal world, first impressions have been replaced by online reviews. Today's attorneys need to understand how to delicately nurture their virtual brands in a realm where they may have little to no control over what's said about them.
March 04, 2019 at 01:24 PM
3 minute read
There may be no such thing as bad press, but there's definitely such a thing as one out of five stars on Yelp. According to the “Reputation Management in the Digital Age” panel held at last week's ABA Tech Show, the majority of would-be clients out there are researching prospective attorneys online, and reviews are among the first things that catch their attention.
Jordan Schuetzle, director of proposition strategy and market development lead at Thomson Reuters, compared an attorney's online presence to a first impression, only without the element of control. It used to be if you wanted to build a good reputation, you'd dress well and practice good manners. Now most of those initial vibes—good or not—are being delivered secondhand.
“It's a scary prospect. People out there are talking about you and you may have no control. You may not even know there conversations are happening,” Schuetzle said.
Even if prospective clients aren't taking the time to read each and every review posted on a site like Yelp, most platforms compile that feedback into some kind of an overall ranking or score that is easy to throw off balance.
During the panel, Schuetzle showed examples of firms with otherwise decent ratings that had been toppled by relatively minuscule complaints. One client was angry that nobody had bothered to return his phone call, while the local pizza delivery guy resented not being given a bigger tip. “So you have to care about those people too,” Schuetzle said.
Fortunately, there are ways that lawyers can take some control over how their brand is perceived online. Instead of being passive and waiting for commentary to start popping up online, attorneys can work on finding the opportune moments in a case to ask clients for feedback.
Solo practitioner Megan Zavieh recommended making it as easy as possible for clients to supply commentary by sending them a link via text or email. Her practice, ZaviehLaw, focuses exclusively on attorney ethics, which means that her clients are sometimes reluctant to make their association with her public knowledge. The key take away there? Ask for permission before using client feedback in marketing, even if the applicable comments go unattributed.
It's also important to ask for feedback while the case is still unfolding. Zavieh said clients are no longer invested once their matter has been brought to a close. Plus if the commentary is negative, there's still time to turn things around and potentially salvage a positive experience.
“If you know they're not happy, then try to fix it and make them happy,” Zavieh said.
Unfortunately that's not always possible and the occasional bad review might still find its way onto the internet—but there's still room to recover. Ignoring critical feedback won't make it go away and besides, Schuetzle said the majority of customers look favorably on businesses that take the time to craft a thoughtful response.
Zavieh pointed out that you're not really responding to the client who authored the complaint. At this stage it's about engaging the next client, which is why it's important to keep emotion out of the equation.
She suggested having a friend or someone with a little distance from the situation help with drafting the response. It's also critical that the message feel personalized and authentic.
“[Clients] don't want to hear back from the business manager or director of marketing,” Zavieh 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
© 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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