Page 25 - Leaders in Legal Business - a
P. 25
Leaders in Legal Business
enhanced visibility on the Internet, providing advantages in “search engine optimisation,” or SEO, which offers
very specific verticals in the market.
Coexisting with Social Media
LinkedIn is shaping up to be a major challenger to the classic online directory in the commercial and
business market. Online social networks are efficient in exposing networks of relationships among individual
professionals, and provide clients and potential clients easy access to references and recommendations from
trusted parties. As LinkedIn’s strength is in individual profiles and their connections, the organization and
corporate profiles are subsidary, which results in some disadvantages for strategic marketing. Clear coordination
by a law firm is required to produce a thorough corporate profile with all staff and lawyers linked. Controlling the
content of individuals’ profiles and maintaining a single standard is challenging to say the least; therefore firm
websites and directory listings are more valuable in building a brand and managing reputation from a central
point.
The primary value for directory publishing in coexistence with social media platforms is in linking of
content and generating advanced optimization for exposure to Google and other search engines.
Directories’ Ratings and Rankings Methodology
There are three methods for creating ratings and rankings:
1) The oldest method is peer review, which is practiced by Martindale-Hubbell, Best Lawyers, Super
Lawyers, and others. Lawyers review lawyers, and recommend their work and practice on given
criteria through data collected via surveys and questionnaires. Individuals are reviewed in rotation
or by selection from bar rosters, or may put themselves forward for review or nomination. The
veracity of the method is the scale on which the review process takes place. Scoring depends on
crossing a threshold for a requisite number of respondents and positive recommendations. The
higher the number of respondents required, the greater the difficulty in establishing a rating.
Critique of the method normally states its vulnerability to “gaming” of the system. With good
processes and rules in place, the method is reliable in identifying accomplished standards
recognized within the profession.
2) Editorial reviews are practiced by the mainstream global directories, Chambers & Partners, the
Legal 500 series, and others. A simplified view of the method is that law firms are asked to submit
a dossier of work or deals completed in the previous 12 months, following a specific set of
questions, and are categorized into practice areas and or industry sectors. Editors and researchers
conduct fact-finding interviews by phone or in person to establish changes and developments in
the firm in accordance with editorial guidelines. Clients are approached for feedback on firms
and lawyers being surveyed. Interviews and questionnaires for clients seek recommendations and
comments on work conducted by outside counsel. The editors’ skill is in the interpretation of data
provided from both sides, and their knowledge and experience in the market. Judgment is made
according to the prescribed editorial policy. Critique of this method is normally about the
subjectivity of the process or the partiality of the data selection. However, informed professionals
like Richard Pinto, global directories manager for Shearman & Sterling, believe that “ratings and
rankings provided by the global directories are largely accurate and a very good reflection of the
key players in the market.”
3) Client feedback, which is normally provided online. The most recent method that has yet to gain
wide acceptance in legal sector innovation is the rating and commenting on lawyers’ services on
consumer websites such as AVVO.com, Lawyers.com, Yelp.com, and other consumer rating
18
enhanced visibility on the Internet, providing advantages in “search engine optimisation,” or SEO, which offers
very specific verticals in the market.
Coexisting with Social Media
LinkedIn is shaping up to be a major challenger to the classic online directory in the commercial and
business market. Online social networks are efficient in exposing networks of relationships among individual
professionals, and provide clients and potential clients easy access to references and recommendations from
trusted parties. As LinkedIn’s strength is in individual profiles and their connections, the organization and
corporate profiles are subsidary, which results in some disadvantages for strategic marketing. Clear coordination
by a law firm is required to produce a thorough corporate profile with all staff and lawyers linked. Controlling the
content of individuals’ profiles and maintaining a single standard is challenging to say the least; therefore firm
websites and directory listings are more valuable in building a brand and managing reputation from a central
point.
The primary value for directory publishing in coexistence with social media platforms is in linking of
content and generating advanced optimization for exposure to Google and other search engines.
Directories’ Ratings and Rankings Methodology
There are three methods for creating ratings and rankings:
1) The oldest method is peer review, which is practiced by Martindale-Hubbell, Best Lawyers, Super
Lawyers, and others. Lawyers review lawyers, and recommend their work and practice on given
criteria through data collected via surveys and questionnaires. Individuals are reviewed in rotation
or by selection from bar rosters, or may put themselves forward for review or nomination. The
veracity of the method is the scale on which the review process takes place. Scoring depends on
crossing a threshold for a requisite number of respondents and positive recommendations. The
higher the number of respondents required, the greater the difficulty in establishing a rating.
Critique of the method normally states its vulnerability to “gaming” of the system. With good
processes and rules in place, the method is reliable in identifying accomplished standards
recognized within the profession.
2) Editorial reviews are practiced by the mainstream global directories, Chambers & Partners, the
Legal 500 series, and others. A simplified view of the method is that law firms are asked to submit
a dossier of work or deals completed in the previous 12 months, following a specific set of
questions, and are categorized into practice areas and or industry sectors. Editors and researchers
conduct fact-finding interviews by phone or in person to establish changes and developments in
the firm in accordance with editorial guidelines. Clients are approached for feedback on firms
and lawyers being surveyed. Interviews and questionnaires for clients seek recommendations and
comments on work conducted by outside counsel. The editors’ skill is in the interpretation of data
provided from both sides, and their knowledge and experience in the market. Judgment is made
according to the prescribed editorial policy. Critique of this method is normally about the
subjectivity of the process or the partiality of the data selection. However, informed professionals
like Richard Pinto, global directories manager for Shearman & Sterling, believe that “ratings and
rankings provided by the global directories are largely accurate and a very good reflection of the
key players in the market.”
3) Client feedback, which is normally provided online. The most recent method that has yet to gain
wide acceptance in legal sector innovation is the rating and commenting on lawyers’ services on
consumer websites such as AVVO.com, Lawyers.com, Yelp.com, and other consumer rating
18
