The June 2007 issue of Law Practice, the magazine of the Law Practice Management section of the ABA launched a new column, "What Really Works," which discusses law firm marketing communications. This month's column, by Ross Fishman, entitled, "Identity Update for a Full-Service Firm" talks about the importance of establishing a unique identity and marketing message for your firm. Fishman talks about how to make your marketing - and your practice - stand out from the crowd.
I agree with what Fishman says, and I teach lawyers the same priinciples - establish a marketing goal, make a plan, be sure that plan includes differentiating yourself from everyone else in the marketplace that does what you do, and then implement the plan. Differentiation is one of the essential components to marketing success.
But as I was reading Fishman's article, the recently revised New York ethical rules came to mind. DR 2-101(c) states in part:
An advertisement shall not: ...(5) rely on techniques to obtain attention that demonstrate a clear and intentional lack of relevance to the selection of counsel, including the portrayal of lawyers exhibiting characteristics clearly unrelated to legal competence;
The phrase, "the portrayal of lawyers exhibiting characteristics clearly unrelated to legal competence" could be a big obstacle to differentiation in New York.
The Fishman article discusses a firm in Chicago that uses pictures of a man in a suit jumping for joy and a man walking through a doorway into the clouds. Although there is no indication in the photographs that the people depicted in the photographs are lawyers, one has to wonder whether this is the type of marketing that the rules were seeking to eliminate. If so, it's too bad - these are the kind of marketing materials that resonate with clients and that show a firm's unique personality.
And what of the websites and marketing materials that depict real lawyers from the firm doing what they enjoy doing, whether it be motorcycle riding, volunteering for a local charity, or engaging in sporting activities? Would those representations be considered a violation of the rules, even though it could be argued that teamwork, social consciousness, a sense of community and an understanding of the client's perspective are all characteristics related to legal competence, even though they aren't directly related to technical legal skill?
Lawyers have taken a long time to realize that marketing isn't a bad word - it's essential for business. And they're finally letting their own individuality shine through in their marketing. That is what attracts clients, and more importantly, it's what cements good relationships.
Trying to put all lawyers in the same box does a disservice to both lawyers and clients. It's no surprise that those that are writing the rules don't yet see how they're harming both the clients and the profession itself.
Connecticut's rules going into effect July 1 are just as stifling. Imagine. You are a former prosecutor, judge or policeman, for example. Be careful how you use these words in your advertising in the event they lead your potential client to believe you may have an 'inside track' and they hire you for this perception. Yet, in the same breath we are told the best advertising is that which just 'lists the facts." Which facts?
In addtion, Connecticut has now lumped blogs in with websites by claiming if you have a URL, it's covered. This is all the more disturbing because the average lawyer doesn't seem to understand what she is losing by her lack of knowledge about the power of blogging to promote her business yet she is acquiescing due to this ignorance. So, you ask a great question. How IS one supposed to differentiate themselves, position themselves as the only solution, create that relationship with their client through their marketing message if they can't express themselves in a way that isn't 'stereotypical' and quite often off-putting?
Posted by: Susan Cartier Liebel | June 26, 2007 at 10:34 PM