It Takes Two: The Attorney-Marketer Relationship
Law firms, regardless of size, are usually composed of many departments, each responsible for contributing to the firm's success. Whether that is a single administrator who handles the marketing or a firm that has an entire department of people, the marketing side usually cannot function without the assistance of the legal side. When it comes to promoting your firm's success, or ensuring your lawyers are known thought leaders in their fields, your firm's marketing professionals become an integral part of your team. Creating brand awareness and reputation for the firm, as well as setting the framework for effective business development for each practice group is essential to your firm's success. However, this only happens when there is a productive and mutually respectful relationship between marketers and their lawyer colleagues. Establishing this dynamic can often be challenging until the marketer builds a rapport with your team of attorneys which, like any good relationship, takes time and requires an open line of communication.
August 24, 2017 at 04:12 PM
6 minute read
Law firms, regardless of size, are usually composed of many departments, each responsible for contributing to the firm's success. Whether that is a single administrator who handles the marketing or a firm that has an entire department of people, the marketing side usually cannot function without the assistance of the legal side. When it comes to promoting your firm's success, or ensuring your lawyers are known thought leaders in their fields, your firm's marketing professionals become an integral part of your team. Creating brand awareness and reputation for the firm, as well as setting the framework for effective business development for each practice group is essential to your firm's success. However, this only happens when there is a productive and mutually respectful relationship between marketers and their lawyer colleagues. Establishing this dynamic can often be challenging until the marketer builds a rapport with your team of attorneys which, like any good relationship, takes time and requires an open line of communication. It becomes critical, then, to understand the obstacles that can get in the way of building an effective partnership in order to combat them. Below we'll discuss three common challenges that occur between the marketing team and attorneys as well as strategies for overcoming them.
|Adjusting to Change
It has been 40 years since the Supreme Court issued its precedent opinion in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, No. 76-316. 433 U.S. 350 (1977),that ultimately allowed lawyers to advertise. Since then, firms have been striving to generate business through a variety of channels to stay competitive, thinking far beyond the referral model or their reputations alone to generate revenue. Further, the advent of new technology and social media as sources of business generation has brought an onslaught of options and instant publicity. However, for many attorneys, especially the seasoned ones, the current avenues for promotional growth may seem overwhelming and they can be skeptical about the ideas that marketers suggest for their business development efforts.
Given the constant changes in the legal marketing landscape, it can be especially challenging for marketers who are looking for buy-in on a new initiative. Marketers should use hard facts and data to support their rationale for certain marketing efforts if met with skepticism. For example, social media and Google analytics can track views and reach for specific posts or areas of a website, highlighting content that is particularly engaging. Using measurable outcomes will help justify attorney's efforts and also show what topics, practice areas or specific attorneys are garnering the most attention. This also taps into attorneys' competitive nature—if they see their peers creating content and engaging in business development activity that performs well, they will be more inclined to jump on the band wagon themselves. To ensure your attorneys are adapting, it helps to show, rather than tell them how their outreach and thought leadership efforts will produce genuine results.
|Lack of Responsiveness
As anyone who has worked in a law firm can attest, attorneys are swamped, especially with the billable hour still reigning supreme in most firms. Nonbillable work is often pushed to the last minute and is usually not given the same attention a billable matter receives. Constantly tracking down deliverables from attorneys to meet pending deadlines often leaves marketers feeling more like a pest than a strategic partner. Attorneys can be elusive when it comes to meeting marketing objectives, even if that's not the intent. A lack of responsiveness does not necessarily indicate a lack of interest but often is a symptom of having to meet high billable hour requirements.
To offset this, marketers have to be cognizant of, and sensitive to, attorney time constraints by being accountable and thorough. Project management is key to a successful relationship with attorneys as keeping track and monitoring what needs to get done, and who is responsible for handling each task takes a heavy load off their shoulders. Many elements of marketing and business development needs can be tackled by nonattorneys, so the marketer's job is to identify what specifically needs attorney input and what can be taken care of by someone else. In tandem, marketers can identify what projects take priority and what is more of a “nice to have” that can either be delegated to someone else or can be addressed at a later time. If the process is streamlined and the expectations and timelines are clear, then the collaboration is ripe for success.
|Conflicting Messages
Marketers are often juggling simultaneous requests from multiple stakeholders which can lead to conflicts. The agendas for various practice groups are not always functioning in tandem, especially at larger firms where departments may be siloed and cross-department communication can be limited. This can leave marketing teams feeling pulled in many directions as attorneys within the same practice area request different support and resources or attorneys across practice groups compete for the same attention. Further, one or both parties may lack the understanding of why specific initiatives are established in the first place and what the ends goals are for those efforts.
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 AllRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readEckert Seamans Snags Reed Smith Global Financial Intelligence Director
3 minute readTrending 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