Zen and the Art of Legal Network Maintenance

Zen and the Art of Legal Network Maintenance has Moved!

2010-05-25T14:36:00.000-04:00

Zen and the Art of Legal Network Maintenance is now "Zen and the Art of Legal Networking" and we have a new home! We can be found at http://www.zenlegalnetworking.com on the LexBlog network, so please update your RSS readers!

We're also sporting a shiny new look, thanks to LexBlog, complete with a list of our member firm blogs in the LexBlog network right on the home page. We couldn't be happier!

Zen and the Art of Legal Networking had its first post in February of 2009 and after 74 posts, I can say that we’re very excited to be joining the LexBlog network family and launching this re-design of our blog. We look forward to engaging further with YOU, our readers, and the legal community through our blog and continuing to have fruitful discussions for the benefit of our readers and our member firm attorneys. A very special thanks to Kevin O’Keefe and LexBlog for all of their help with the design, hosting and launch! Please join us over at http://www.zenlegalnetworking.com today!

ILN-terviews: Henning von Lillienskjold, DAHL Law Firm

2010-05-18T09:12:00.001-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Henning von Lillienskjold of DAHL Law Firm in Denmark.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Dahl is a full service, business law firm with specialists in all areas of business law.

Who would be your typical client?
Mid-sized and large companies from Denmark and northern Europe.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That I am commercial in my approach to giving advice and deliver on time.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
My most challenging case was a large transaction involving 140 entities and where the buyer backed off on the day of signing.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
Every time a deal is closed and my advice has added value to the client - other than just drafting documents.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
I like skiing and sailing (I have competed in many of the major sailboat classes) and otherwise, I relax in my summer cottage with my family.

What would surprise people most about you?
Probably that I can play the trumpet or that I know how to repair a car engine.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
My most memorable ILN experience is my first meeting in N.Y. and the dinner we had at Ellis Island.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
I think it would have been some kind of engineering.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Jim Carrey :)

How would you like to be remembered?
Honest and trustworthy.

Re-cap of ALM's Law Firm Marketing & Business Development Leadership Forum: The Changing Nature of the In-House and Outside Counsel Relationship

2010-05-13T14:03:00.003-04:00

On Wednesday, May 12th, I was fortunate enough to attend a couple of sessions at American Lawyer Media's Law Firm Marketing and Business Development Leadership Forum. The ILN was a marketing partner for the event, and I spoke on a panel called "Going, Going...Global? The Worldwide Marketing for Legal Services." Unfortunately, I have not yet mastered the art of tweeting from a panel I'm participating in (and so don't have comprehensive notes for a re-cap), but the first session of the morning on the changing nature of in-house and outside counsel relationships was full of great takeaways for law firms and their marketing departments.

On the panel were ILN member, Martin Beirne, founding and managing partner of Beirne Maynard & Parsons LLP in Texas, Anne Chwat, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for Burger King Corporation, Kenneth Handal, Former Executive VP and General Counsel and Head of Global Risk and Compliance for CA, Inc (retired), Bob Robertson, Chief Marketing Officer for Greenberg Traurig, LLP, and moderator Anthony Paonita, Editor-in-Chief of Corporate Counsel Magazine.

While there was a lot that came out of the panel, the overwhelming sentiment, from Ms. Chwat especially, was the importance of relationships. She let the audience know that although she does go to well-known large firms for some work, she's not going after name brands anymore. She wants a good relationship with a good lawyer, which broadens the competitive landscape for law firms.

In terms of re-capping the panel, they started with a fictional scenario of a new general counsel coming into a company and being told that she needs to significantly cut her legal budget. The GC invites in her top 12 law firms of the 100 that the company uses (which the panelists commented was on the low side for most companies), and asks them how they can work with her to reduce fees. Immediately, two of the firms say that they don't do alternative fee arrangements and leave. The panel then addressed some questions that might come up and how outside counsel can better serve their inside counsel in this situation.

Ken Handal said that it's the job of the GC to try to preserve the choice of outside counsel that they make in this new cost-cutting environment, which can be difficult because as Chwat pointed out, non-lawyers at major companies see in-house counsel who are purchasing legal fees as a cost center. Chwat advised law firms to start thinking of themselves as competing for business, because they are. She suggested that they ask themselves "how can I help my client? How can I be their partner and help them through this?" Bob Robertson agreed, saying that the attitude should be that firms need to do all that they can to help their clients. If a firm gets a letter from their client about cutting costs, they should reach out to have a conversation with them. Chwat confirmed this, saying that outside counsel build loyalty and trust with the attitude of "what can we do to help you," and this keeps in-house counsel coming back. She said that firms need to make themselves part of the team and show they're willing to work with their clients. She added that in-house counsel are "not trying to steal from you," they just want value for their dollar and help in dealing with the cost-cutting pressures that their companies are putting on them.

Chwat did caution that a need to cut costs doesn't mean she will compromise on quality. She wants her attorneys to think like businesspeople, to be thinking about how they can help their clients to save money. Practically, this can take the form of more efficient staffing on legal matters. She used outsourcing to India as another example of how firms can help to cut costs, though she admitted that Burger King has yet to do this. Marty Beirne agreed, saying that firms are in the service business, and some firms forget that. He said that they need to have a budget that works and has some predictability for their clients. Robertson added that when lawyers have done a lot of one type of work, they know what things costs and can estimate fees for fixed arrangements or budgets.

Chwat said that if a firm comes in and says that they want to work with you and they know your business, the client will keep using that firm. She told the audience that she never pays full price for anything, and for any legal services that she purchases that cost over $50,000, she automatically requests an RFP. An audience member asked how involved her non-attorney colleagues are in the decision to purchase legal services, and Chwat responded that they're not usually involved. She generally chooses the pricing structure that BK goes with, but she has to be prepared to defend it and will sometimes talk on a case by case basis with the CEO. She also talked a little bit about relationship-building, relating a story about when she first joined Burger King and a number of the attorneys in her department were out on maternity leave. She said that she seconded attorneys from an outside firm, and the firm sent her great attorneys, not the ones they just wanted to get rid of, and they didn't charge their full hourly rates. Because of this, she was not only very happy that the firm was willing to work with her, but she also developed relationships with these attorneys and now reaches out to them when she needs assistance. She emphasized that companies are willing to expand the work that they give a firm based on their relationships (so lawyers, get out there and build your client relationships!).

Another audience member asked about the role of a firm's reputation. Chwat answered that it gets them in the door, but that's it. After that, the firm has to be able to show how they're different. She echoed what we've been hearing a lot lately in the legal industry - by the time a company wants to talk to you, they already consider you talented and high quality. They want to know what else you can offer them. She focused a lot on firms being flexible in terms of fees, and said that even at the RFP level, firms must be willing to discuss them. She added that many times, she's made the point of asking about alternative fees in her RFPs, and firms will come in to talk about the business and either won't be willing to talk about alternative fee arrangements or won't be prepared to talk about them. Alternative fee arrangements are not going away, Chwat emphasized.

Someone in he audience asked Chwat about the importance of diversity and she said that it's very important to her that not only is the firm diverse, but that her matters are staffed by a diverse group - she considers women to be a part of the minority group she looks for. Another audience member asked about outsourcing some work, and Chwat admitted she's a little nervous about taking legal work to India, but said that the more GC roundtables she participates in, the more she's hearing that other companies are doing it and finding value in it. She cautioned firms again about overstaffing and Handal agreed with her. Chwat added that the more efficiently a firm staffs a matter, the more engaged the attorneys working on it are, and the more loyal they are to their firm. Another audience member asked her about recent statements by a GC that companies don't want to pay for first year associates and that they're totally useless, and Chwat said that she considers first year associates to be in training to be good third and fourth year associates. She doesn't have many staffed on matters for her, but doesn't mind it. She did point out that she will not pay $300 an hour for a first year associate, and believes that firms should look at paying their first year associates as a training cost that should not be passed along to their clients.

Paonita asked the panelists if they felt the new relationship between in-house and outside counsel is permanent or if it will go back to the way it was. They all agreed that it's permanent and said that 70% of law firms interviewed believe that the change in billing and fee arrangements is similarly permanent. This was the point at which Chwat emphasized that she's not going after name brands anymore, but that she just wants a good relationship with a good lawyer. She said it's about asking what it is about your firm that's going to make you a good part of her team. It's about chemistry. She advised firms to do their homework before meeting with a client and said that one constant that will always help a firm to get hired is when a firm is able to set themselves apart.

An audience member asked how much legal rankings mean to her when choosing a firm. She answered that they don't mean much; she cares more about relationships. The panel finished up with a final audience question about how useful GCs consider client alerts. Chwat said she does read and archive them. She told a recent story about being surprised with a piece of litigation that she didn't know much about - she had a member of her team search through their files and saw one firm's name come up in connection with that area of law, in a client alert. Because they set themselves apart as experts in that area, she called that firm and gave them the business. So client alerts do help to set firms apart as experts in certain areas.

The lessons of the panel were overwhelmingly clear: work at the in-house/outside counsel relationship by showing how you can be a business partner for your clients and show your understanding of the cost-cutting pressures they're under by offering real, valuable solutions, whether in the form of alternative fee arrangements, more efficient staffing, discounts, or outsourcing.

Is Anyone Listening?

2010-05-11T11:53:00.001-04:00

Last night, I caught the end of Neil Cavuto's show, when he told a story that made me think - he said that he was shopping for a Mother's Day gift and went into a store. Both the store owner and his wife came over to him within the first few minutes to see if they could assist him with finding a gift to purchase. He told them both politely that he preferred to look by himself, that he didn't have anything in mind, but was in a hurry, so he wished to be left alone. They did so, but only for a minute. As soon as he picked something up to look at it, they both immediately came over to him again, giving him information he hadn't asked for, insisting that the gift he was looking at must be what he wanted, and continuing to badger him. He again asked them to let him look for the gift in private, and they continued to ask him what he was looking for and let him know that the gifts in the section he was standing in could all be mailed. As he was getting more and more exasperated, his phone rang. It was his daughter in the store next door, saying that she had found a gift. So he walked out of the first store, leaving the patrons in shock. His message was that "no one is listening."

That message got me thinking - are we guilty of the same thing? Do we bother our clients or potential clients with information that they've asked not to receive? Do we help them when they need it and let them be when they want some solitude? What is our customer service experience really like for them - are we overbearing, like these store owners? Or are we facilitators, business partners, trusted advisors? Do we insist that we know what's best for them, without finding out what it is that they really want and need? Does that ultimately push them away? I think Cavuto's message is a good reminder that part of being great at our jobs, whether as legal marketers, as attorneys, or in any other field, is really listening to our clients, their needs, and even the underlying needs and wants they have that they might not be expressing. Ask yourself today, are you listening?

ILN-terviews: Michael Samuel, Miller Samuel LLP

2010-05-05T09:46:00.000-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Michael Samuel of Miller Samuel LLP in Scotland.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
A bespoke niche practice offering quality and specific services to clients at competitive rates.

Who would be your typical client?
Not easy to categorise, but we like to act for successful business entrepreneurs, medium to high net worth individuals, and for quoted and unquoted companies.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
We would like clients, potential and otherwise, to know that we care primarily about their needs and requirements, and that this is a fundamental part of our philosophy.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
I deal with private clients. My most challenging case some years ago was when I was able to achieve a result favourable to my clients, in a question of succession to an Estate, contrary to the opinion of the foremost legal authority. Simply put, he said, "you can't do it!" Well, we did it!!!!!

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
I was appointed Dean of our local Faculty for three years in 2005 - the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow (its proper Title). It has 2,000 members. What was important is you can't apply for the job - you are asked by your peers. I looked upon this as kind of a legal Oscar.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
I read as much as I can, play tennis as much as the weather permits, watch soccer, and of course, there are many family commitments.

What would surprise people most about you?
I am as old as I am.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
I have wonderful memories, but hosting the European Meeting some years ago at Loch Lomond has to be the best of these. The stunned faces of the delegates and companions that cold grey misty Friday night at Stirling Castle when the pipers and dancers emerged from the swirling mist to put on their display was unforgettable.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
I think my father earmarked me as a lawyer from birth. He was a dentist. I qualified at 21, so there wasn't much time to think about anything else. I've not really come across another career in that time which I think I might have preferred.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Billy Connolly (joking perhaps, but at least he has a sense of humour).

How would you like to be remembered?
Not for a long time!!!!!

ILN-terviews: Tore Hjelseth, Hjelseth, Kilstad & Borgen DA

2010-04-26T15:20:00.001-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.
For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Tore Hjelseth of Hjelseth, Kilstad & Borgen DA in Norway.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Our law firm, Advokatfirmaet Hjelseth, Kilstad & Borgen DA ("HKB") is a small firm having its specialisation in corporate law, particularly Mergers & Acquisitions (including cross-border transactions), stock exchange/securities law, tax, and general contract law.

Who would be your typical client?
Our typical client is a Norwegian mid-sized corporation acting in Norway and internationally, being owned either directly or ultimately by a larger foreign company and thus forms part in an international group. Our work will consist both of counselling for the Norwegian entity and for the owner (or ultimate parent), then relating to doing business in Norway through the Norwegian subsidiary.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That we, as a small and expedient law firm, are known for providing efficient services with top quality, that the internal communication within HKB leads to quick deliveries not involving a number of lawyers pulverizing the responsibility to respond or enhancing of the legal fees.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
Dealing with all legal aspects on behalf of a listed restructured company with an overseas management, carrying with it complicated inherited pre-restructuring issues, particularly related to erroneous accounts (in need of restating) dubious actions taken by the previous board of directors, hidden control mechanisms, loss making contracts and possible disloyalty. The challenges in respect of clarifying historical facts from a regime under a management no longer in place, were numerous.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
Every time I can call a client late a night (when the client has gone to bed "knowing" that the deal was off), and say the following "we have solved it - they agreed."

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
Tennis, long cooking sessions accompanied with great wine, skiing/playing monopoly with my daughters, Wilma (8) and Andrea (6) in the mountains of "Norefjell" where I have a cottage.

What would surprise people most about you?
That I am an Ayn Rand libertarian, and the compatibility I feel this has with philanthropy and social consciousness (yes, actually!).

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
I will never forget the first visit with ILN in San Francisco and the exceptionally friendly way in which we were met, and the positive energy this created.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
Teacher - love to teach and the feeling of hitting the right string with pupils/students/audiences.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
James Dean (alive!)

How would you like to be remembered?
Fair, friendly, helpful and with integrity to take on the burden to go against the majority and political correctness.

ILN-terviews: Ricardo Cordero, Cordero & Cordero Abogados

2010-04-14T10:00:00.003-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Ricardo Cordero of Cordero & Cordero Abogados in Costa Rica.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Our law firm is a general practice law firm specializing in corporate and business law.

Who would be your typical client?
International corporate clients and individuals doing business or investing in Costa Rica who require general assessment in areas such as corporate law, financial law, and insurance law, as well as real estate and development law. In addition, our firm also deals with issues related to civil litigation, labor and immigration law, competition and regulation, intellectual property, and telecom law.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That our law firm has the sufficient experience and we are professionals with strong legal backgrounds and a set of standards that will help them to achieve their goals in Costa Rica, whether for a particular investment, transaction, or a long-term business. In addition, we work closely with all of our clients in order to make sure there is a sense of teamwork and co-participation.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
Our most challenging cases have been a couple of international project finance facility projects that we have worked on during the past year. Due to the economic crisis, both lenders and borrowers are more cautious and the sources of funding have been very limited. Thus, we have had to go the extra mile and use a lot of legal creativity, long work hours, and careful strategy to be able to secure such transactions.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
I think I am living my proudest moment as a lawyer. Together with my firm's partners, we have managed to continue the expansion of our firm's practices, international clientele and exposure as one of the most renowned law firms in Costa Rica. I have also been able to achieve my personal goals as a professional and as co-managing partner of the firm.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
During my spare time, I try to have a balance between my family, traveling and playing golf.

What would surprise people most about you?
My age.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
Since we recently joined the ILN, I would have to say that the most memorable ILN experience has been the Annual ILN Meeting held in San Francisco this past June. On a personal level, I was surprised by the good environment, which seems to be the common denominator for all ILN meetings. We were greeted very kindly by existing members. On a professional level, I was very impressed by the professionalism and reputation held by all ILN members.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
I always knew I wanted to be a lawyer. However, if I had to choose another career, I probably would have chosen Business Administration/Entrepreneurship. I have always enjoyed the business side associated with the practice of law.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Tom Hanks. I think he is a great actor who has always chosen the parts he plays very well. In addition, he seems to be a down to earth, personable guy who lives his life working hard and close to his family.

How would you like to be remembered?
I would like to be remembered as someone who enjoyed life, his family and work; as someone who always tried to do things the right way in the pursuit of excellence. I would like to be remembered as someone affable, who passed on good moral values and the sense of hard work to my next generations.

How Important is Customer Service?

2010-04-12T15:04:00.000-04:00

In the legal industry, we know how important it is to keep our clients happy, to find ways to work with them that show them we understand their business and their pains. But how good is your firm's customer service, really? Generally, you're not the only one interacting with your clients, so do the other people at your firm who work with your clients give them the same level of attention and service that you do?

You may ask, how important is that, when I already work so hard on my relationship with my clients? Well aside from comments from general counsel like we heard at the LMA conference, when they said that surprises in their bills made them wonder if their relationship-partner was reviewing them at all, I have two non-legal stories that I think illustrate why good, and bad, customer service can really affect your relationship with clients.

A couple of weeks ago, I was returning from Social Fresh in Portland. For some reason, I'd chosen to take the red-eye flight, which meant that because I'd been there for less than 24 hours, I felt like it was 2:30am when we were supposed to board. The incoming flight was delayed because of weather on the east coast, and when they got there, it turned out that they were having some difficulty with the de-icing light on the plane. The Jet Blue agents at the gate made an announcement, told us what the problem was and that they didn't know how long we would be delayed. They continued to update us at regular intervals until we finally were able to board and take off (on the same plane). I slept for a bit on the plane, and woke up when they turned the cabin lights on. That was also when they announced that the de-icing light had come back on, and because of the weather in New York, we had to land somewhere that wasn't experiencing icing conditions - Buffalo.

The Jet Blue agents in Buffalo boarded the plane when it landed, explained that we were going to disembark and to stay close to the gate so that they could keep us updated. The gate agent kept telling us when he planned to update us (in 15 minutes, etc), and then he would update us at that time. Despite the possibility that we could re-board the same plane, he started immediately checking after we'd disembarked to make sure that if the plane needed parts, we would all be able to get on the next available Jet Blue flight to Kennedy. And he announced, at the time he said he would, that the plane was, in fact, grounded, and we would have to go to another gate to get the next plane.

Though I was really frustrated about the delays, I was impressed with Jet Blue. They not only kept us honestly updated, they gave us regular updates, told us when they would update us again, and then actually met those deadlines. I always knew where I stood, and very quickly, I knew what the lastest time was that I'd be departing Buffalo's airport. That service, plus having more legroom on the actual flights, will make me not only use Jet Blue again, but recommend them to friends and family. Going above and beyond to keep your clients informed, up-to-date, and well cared for not only keeps them happy and bringing their business to you, it makes them your advocates.

But then today, I had an unfortunate customer service issue. Every year, Ocean City, NJ is host to the Doo Dah Parade, a large part of which is the Boardwaddle - a parade of 500+ basset hounds. I heard about this parade a few months ago, and having a basset hound, was hoping to participate. I contacted the Doo Dah parade organizers and was referred to the Boardwaddle organizers, who I emailed back and forth with to express my interest in registering on March 18th. They promised to send me a packet, then....nothing. No packet. The parade is this Saturday, so last week, I emailed them again to find out the status of my packet. I didn't hear back from them. I learned today (because my father called the Ocean City office) that the packets are now available online, but the deadline for registration was this past Saturday. Although I am not technically their customer, the Boardwaddle does raise money for the local basset rescue, and they will not be receiving a donation from me, or any family or friends who might have sponsored us. Their lack of regular contact with me means that not only do I no longer want to participate, but now I'm telling my friends and family how disappointed I am, and how poorly run I think it is (and whether it truly is poorly run or not matters less than the fact that I believe it to be, and am now sharing that with people). Are there times that a client's email to you or one of your colleagues may have fallen through the cracks, leaving them wondering how well run your firm is and how much you really care about them and their business? I did take the time to let the Boardwaddle organizers know how unhappy I am, but how many people will just quietly give you less and less of their business because of a perceived slight?

Client service is so important, especially in an economy where the main differentiator between you and your competitors is your relationship with your clients (and of course, often cost). Are you doing all that you can to make sure your clients know how important they are to you?

Recap of Social Fresh Portland: Branding within Social Media

2010-04-12T09:15:00.004-04:00

I finished my Twitter coverage of Social Fresh Portland (because I was locked out by too many tweets!) with the Branding within Social Media Panel, with Kim Brater of Ant Hill Marketing, Steve Parker of Levelwing Media, Matt Singley of M80im, Kristy Bolsinger of RealNetworks, and Andrew Sinkov of Evernote. Fortunately, although Singley threatened to liven up the panel by making it "pants optional," the whole panel staye fully clothed as they gave the audience some great advice.

The first question was about how branding is defined in each of the panelists' organizations and translated to social media. Sinkov said at Evernote, they ask themselves, "what is the impression we want to give people?" Their answer is that they want to be a company that people trust and believe in. In Brater's mind, your brand is your business. Bolsinger said that she considers social media channels to be a way to strengthen their brand and make it something "living." She encourages using the same brand and message across all channels in marketing, including social media. Social media can also help to define your brand, because through engagement, you can learn what your customers think your brand is. Singley said that while he promised not to use these buzzwords for the remainder of the panel, it's true that branding is about consistency and engagement. To make sure everyone was listening, he suggesting using liquor to transition the Old Guard to this new media. More seriously, he said that one of the main questions he gets about using social media is how you can effectively measure it. He said that he responds by asking how you can measure the effectiveness of a conversation or a relationship - you can't. Social media requires a leap of faith. For bigger brands, this can be a little bit easier because they're used to being sued for being transparent. For smaller brands, this might be more difficult. But Singley pointed out that it's more about opportunities lost because of not being a part of a conversation, and those brands that ignore social media will lose. He did agree that at some point, it's necessary to show the value of social media and Bolsinger said that ROI can be more about what you save the company than what you bring in. Singley added that persistence and education is how you get people on board. An audience member asked if there was value in trying to measure the effectiveness of social media. Singley said yes, but he has yet to figure out how. "Metrics are a necessary evil of agency life," he commented. Bolsinger commented that if there isn't a lot of differentiation between your company and your competitors, social media can be a way to differentiate. Depending on your brant/product, you can show how social media has a better return on investment than traditional channels. For showing how pervasive social media channels are, the panel recommended Do You Know 4.0. Brater also recommended looking at Olivier Blanchard's presentation on ROI in social media.

The panelists agreed that they're jobs are becoming more like customer service because of social media. While some people are voicing concern over this, Bolsinger said if your marketing isn't looking at customer service as a benefit of social media, they're missing out. If you promote great customer service through social media, sales will follow. Inversely, this isn't as true. It used to be that great customer service was the key product differentiator, but now it's customer service through social media.

Someone in the audience asked about translating a company's online voice throughout the whole company. Sinkov said that for them, they can do it as they grow, but for larger companies, it's a big re-education. The larger the company, the more disjointed it is. Parker said that it takes time to move everyone forward in social media, but that's why everyone was there attending the panel. Bolsinger said that although it helps to have outside evangelists, you need to do that inside as well.

The panelists then briefly discussed the downside of participating in social media. Brater said the only downside is not participating, because people are talking about you online whether you're participating or not.

An audience member asked how to not talk about yourself all the time when building your brand and Bolsinger counseled "be creative." She said "You live in an entire industry and you can talk about all of that stuff on social media," adding that promoting other people is just as important as promoting yourself. Parker said that you can also engage the customer in a way that's related to the brand. The panelists also cautioned that companies shouldn't just get a Twitter account or a Facebook page, but first understand why they want one. Bolsinger added that someone needs to be held accountable in social media also - who's measuring, keeping you focused? You need to be monitoring your brand all the time. This led to a discussion of crisis situations in social media - Bolsinger said that her best practices include having alerts set for their brand on Twitter and having a formal plan in place in case of a crisis. Singley commented that it matters if its an internal or external crisis as to how it will be handled. He cited an internal example of a bad tweet going out accidentally on Vodaphone's Twitter account (if you're easily offended, you may want to skip checking out what the tweet was, though Singley writes a great post about it). The company deleted it, but didn't pretend that it never went out. Singley suggested deleting offensive content, and then acknowledging it. There are also external crises and Singley mentioned the recent Nestle debacle as an example of this, saying that Greenpeace used to have boats - now they have computers. Brater commented that crises have always been around and they're not going to go away. Just the channel is new, so companies need to take it into consideration in their crisis plans. She added that companies need to be ready to respond to social media crises immediately and without overreacting.

How does this translate for law firms?

- You've got to think about branding: I know that branding has become a four-letter word in the last few years, but it's really not that terrible - it's just thinking about "what impression do we want to give our audience?" If you're an attorney and going to be blogging on your own, first talk to your marketing department, if you have one. While your firm's brand might be different than the practice-specific or industry-specific message you want to send, they can still be a helpful resource for identifying the tone you want to achieve in your blog. If you're responsible for your firm's blog (as an attorney or a marketer), make sure that the message is the same on your blog as it is in your traditional marketing channels.

- You can be branding without talking about yourself all the time: As Bolsinger mentioned, you live in an entire industry that you can talk about - read what other people are writing, use client alerts in your area of expertise as an opportunity to add your thoughts in a more substantive blog post, talk about other people and what they're saying or doing, write about examples of what other people are doing right. People will begin to see you as a thought leader, which has a positive impact on your reputation as well as your firm's, and they'll begin to talk about you in their own social media channels. Peter Shankman gave a great example of how this works during his keynote speech at Social Fresh - he said if he walks into a bar and two women are sitting there, if he walks up to one of them and says, "Hi, I'm Peter Shankman and I'm awesome," she would probably throw a drink in his face. But if he walks in and her friend says to her, "That's Peter Shankman over there. He's a great guy, and I think you would have a lot in common," the woman would be want to get to know him better. It's the same in business - let other people talk about how great you are instead of doing it yourself.

- Social Media is about customer service, whether you want it to be or not: Anyone involved in social media for their companies is involved in customer service. Even if you plan for your blog or Twitter stream to be dedicated to providing content, there is always the possibility that someone will ask you a question about your firm or about how to handle a case. Having a plan is key here - decide before they come up how you will handle these situations and who, if anyone, you will refer the person to.

- If you're having trouble getting internal buy-in at your company, realize that social media is not for everyone. But it might be for you: Not everyone at your firm has to "get" social media or use it, but if you want to use it to represent your firm, you have to get their buy-in. The above video, Do You Know 4.0, is a good starting point for helping them to understand how pervasive it is, but you also have to know why you want to start a blog, join Twitter, create a Facebook fan page and be able to articulate that. Find evangelists in-house who can support your push for social media. Identify what you'll be tracking to show value at a later date, but also be prepared to point out that nobody tries to measure the value of a conversation or a relationship. Let them know that the phone and email can also be dangerous time-sinks in the wrong hands, but you plan to use social media strategically and professionally.

How has using social media enhanced your firm's brand? What do you see as the unique challenges for law firms in using social media for branding?

Re-Cap From Social Fresh Portland: Corporate Blogging Panel

2010-04-09T13:18:00.000-04:00

Another great session at Social Fresh Portland was the afternoon panel on Corporate Blogging with Mike Volpe of Hubspot, Kristy Bolsinger of RealNetworks, and Andrew Sinkov from Evernote. Starting the panel off with a bang, their first question was "should you, as a business, be blogging?" The short answer was "yes." The long answer was "you're an idiot if you don't." Sinkov said that blogging is an incredibly important part of getting your company's voice out there. The panel discussed whether blogging should be considered a part of social media, or in its own category, and Sinkov commented that it's a "long form of social media." Volpe agreed, saying that a blog should be the first step in social media, before Twitter or Facebook, because you're not that interesting without it - it's your social media home base. They took an informal poll of the room showing that pretty much everyone in the audience had a corporate blog.

Volpe pointed out that blogging is not about you or your company, it's about your customers. And if they segregate, you should similarly have separate blogs. Bolsinger cautioned that from an SEO perspective though, they should all be on the same site. Sinkov added that the more content you put on the blog, the more you see spikes of people coming to it. So as soon as you have good content, put it out there, don't wait for it to stack up. Bolsinger said that in her case, she does have a calendar of certain types of posts, which helps to get people coming back and set audience expectations. She suggested Outspokenmedia.com/blog as a great blog to be reading to help audience members learn how to blog better.

An audience member asked how people find blog posts and Sinkov said through Twitter, Facebook links to the post, and media outlets who come there for news. He added that it's important to find out where your audience is and engage with them there. He went on to say that Evernote's blog has become a way for the media to get information from them because they don't do press releases. Bolsinger said that 16% of the visitors to their website also visit their blog, saying that they track everything that happens on their blog. Sinkov said that blogs have more content, but if someone acts because of a tweet that they've seen, then that's great. He doesn't think blogs are "better" than Twitter or Facebook - he's happy with any engagement with Evernote users. Bolsinger keyed in on the word "engagement," saying that 100,000 visitors to your website doesn't do you any good unless they're being converted (or your website sells advertisements). Sinkov said that the people who are reading your blog and following your tweets are the people who want to buy from you. He also mentioned that "blogging is the gateway drug." Some of those tweeting from the session disagreed with that metaphor, saying that it implied there was something bigger out there, but it seemed that Sinkov was suggesting that once you get started with blogging, engaging through Twitter, Facebook and other social media channels is quickly the next step. Volpe cautioned not to wait too long to get into social media, because those who do are not always as successful. If you wait for a case study in your particular industry, you're too late. One of the fears that established companies have that keep them from jumping in is the idea of "getting it right." But Sinkov pointed out that there is no "right" when it comes to social media. He said companies have to try, and they will probably make some mistakes. Bolsinger added that companies should never let the fear of failure prevent them from trying to get it right in the meantime, but they should have a plan for when mistakes are made. Volpe agreed, saying that you're better off doing something, screwing up, and learning from it. The great thing about social media is that when you screw up, it doesn't hurt as much or last as long as it used to. Sinkov did advise that because not everyone is a great writer, there needs to be editorial control. However, having a diverse community of voices within a company is great.

For those who are afraid to jump into blogging, Volpe said that 1) blogging is easier than you think, 2) fame is a great motivator, and 3) companies can make it a job requirement. If you have the opportunity to change the culture of your company with new hires, you can make social media a condition of employment.

But with more than one person participating in social media for a company, an audience member wanted to know, how do you bring them all together into one blog voice? Volpe said that his company isn't concerned with one corporate voice, so they publish under their individual names. He added that people understand that companies are made up of individuals, so they don't feel that they have to edit for voice or tone. Sinkov said that attribution is important, because different posts under one "voice" can be confusing. Bolsinger said that different people will relate to different authors, and compared having multiple blog authors to an orchestra with different insruments playing the same song.

An audience member asked about automatically allowing comments on posts and how to handle positive and negative comments. Bolsinger said it's a necessity to allow comments. In her opinon, blogging is part of social media, and in the social world, everyone preaches conversation and engagement. Without comments, you're saying that what you have to say is important and what the audience thinks about it isn't. She said not to delete negative comments, but to let them say their piece and address it in a classy, professional and appropriate manner publicly. She said she does review and approve the comments before posting them, for language and spam only. Volpe said that they automatically approve comments to avoid delay, especially for small businesses. He felt that delay because of moderation can lead to a loss of good debate in the blogosphere. He said that they go back and review them later, and delete any ugly or offensive ones at that time, and added that this can also be done using spam software. Volpe said that small businesses should hug anyone who comments on their blogs - and I must admit, every time someone comments on a post I write, I do want to hug them! The panelists were in agreement that if a blog doesn't allow comments, it's not really a blog - Bolsinger used Seth Godin as an example, saying "he's not always right."

Someone asked about whether or not blogging about company news should be done. Sinkov said that they asked their users if they wanted to see news, and they said no - another clear case of getting to know your audience by asking them what they want. Bolsinger said that taking something that someone else has said on their blog and adding your spin on it in a post can be useful. Posts can be inspired by a number of different things, from email listserv comments to industry changes to great conversations you've had with colleagues.

Darcie Meihoff summed up the panel perfectly on Twitter - "Lots of opinions on how to manage a blog but bottom line, there's no 'right' formula. Do what's right for your company/brand." As Nancy Myrland said the other day in a blog post when talking about what's the right social media strategy for your law firm - "It depends."

So what lessons are there for law firms?

- Blogging is important. Whether your firm is doing it or not, your clients are. Start by listening to what they're talking about and engage with them through comments or offline to show them that you care about their company and their business. Use this process to think about what you might like to write about in your own blog - are there posts that your clients are writing that you'd like to explore further through your own writing? Do you regularly write articles on industry happenings within your practice area? Search out some attorney blogs within the area you'd like to write about and see what they're saying.

- Blogging is not that scary. Of course there are questions over who's the right person to be blogging for a law firm, and potential confidentiality issues that may come up, but taking the time in advance to create a smart strategy, a crisis communications plan for social media, and identifying the right people to be the firm voices will take away a lot of the questions. There's so much out there that law firms can be talking about and sharing with their clients, potential clients, and legal industry influencers that it's worth taking the leap. Don't worry about "getting it right."

- Allow comments. As the panelists said, a blog is not a blog without comments - it's all about engaging. There's always the likelihood that someone will try to engage with you in a negative way, but that's where advance crisis communication planning comes in handy. If you're unsure of the possible scenarios, talk them through with your firm's marketing department or talk with an outside PR consultant. Identify what you would do in each case.

Blogging is an excellent way to highlight your reputation as a leader and expert in your field and it boosts your awareness among the clients/potential clients and influencers in the industry you're targeting. If you're thinking about starting to blog, what questions/reservations do you have? If you're already blogging, what has your experience been?

Re-Cap from Social Fresh: Keynote: It's Not Social Media - It's Simply Life with Peter Shankman

2010-04-08T15:45:00.000-04:00

One of the sessions I was most excited about at Social Fresh Portland was the keynote speech by Peter Shankman of HARO - "It's Not Social Media - It's Simply Life." Shankman's speech had a lot of great takeaways, and focused on the four rules he follows in business and in his life: 1) Transparency 2) Relevance 3) Brevity 4) Top of Mind. He started by saying that the smart ones are all saying the same thing - social media isn't going away; it's entering the lexicon.

Shankman learned some valuable lessons at the start of his career, which he shared with the audience. In 1995, when AOL was "the internet," Shankman was working with them and helped to found the AOL newsroom by asking "is there a better way to solve this problem?" He said that they would go into work every day and try something new - if it worked, they did it again. If it didn't work, they didn't do it again - a lesson that's applicable now in social media. Shankman commented that learning to constantly ask - "is there a better way to solve this?" - has served him well. He said that one of the best things you can ever do is to find a better solution to a problem, because if the solutions that everyone already had already worked, it wouldn't be a problem anymore.

These lessons have obviously served Shankman well, because in two years, he has created a social media company that's actually profitable, with 110,000-115,000 members and $1.2 million in ad revenue. He made the interesting point although people always tell you to make a back-up plan in case you fail, they never tell you to make a plan for when you succeed. Would you be prepared?

Shankman then got into his four rules - number 1 is "Transparency." He said that your audience, clients, and buyers are the ones that really control your company and all you can do is react to what they want, citing Amazon's move from being a bookseller to selling a variety of products. Information wants to be free, to get out, so we no longer have true control over it, or as Shankman said "Social media is a laxative. You can no longer hold in what you want to keep inside." He added "Tweet that," for the legion of tweeters in the room. Because information is so available, it's necessary to be transparent, which he joked "is the new black...or opaque." Someone will always find out about an issue, so you need to get in front of it before someone else does.

Shankman's second rule is "Relevancy" - how do you become relevant to an audience who gets their information a million different ways? Ask them how they want their information. He used himself as an example, saying that if you call his phone, his voicemail will pick up and tell you to text him. If you send people information the way that they want to receive it, you empower them to be "finders." A "finder" is a person you trust, who you want to receive email from. Those people get access and approval to be in people's inboxes immediately. People love to be finders - they're social media's version of the "cool kid," because they get access. Shankman illustrated his point by showing a video for Pedigree dog food - the people who "find" this will think it's cool, and will send it along, therefore, doing Pedigree's public relations for them. If you give your audience permission to forward your items because they're relevant and cool, they'll similarly end up doing your public relations.

Shankman touched on Twitter to illustrate his third rule, "Brevity", saying that 140-characters did not originate with Tweets, but with text messaging. He observed that 9/11 and American Idol were the two things that got Americans to understand text messaging. Because Twitter was borne from text messaging, Shankman doesn't see it as being that useful - he said that adoption of Twitter is not happening with kids and older people. He added that T3-colored glasses affect the way that we see technology and until Twitter makes money, they are Pets.com waiting to happen. He encouraged the audience to embrace the concept of short messaging, not the Twitter brand.

Although not his fourth rule, Shankman had another valuable lesson to teach the audience - "Learn to write." He said that we're asked for our attention roughly 16,000 times a day - so how do you reach people? Learn to write. 95% of all communication for a call to action comes through the written word, which shows why it's essential to learn to write well. Shankman gave a great example for why this is important - a few months ago, he received a resume from a soon-to-be college graduate. She was incredibly well-qualified, and he was hoping to work with her. Until he got to the end of her cover letter, where she wrote "I'm really looking forward to working 4 u." Her lack of understanding that in a professional context, it's not appropriate to abbreviate the words "for you" was the reason that Shankman didn't hire her (he did send her a letter to explain). Emphasizing the importance of good writing to the audience, he said "Stop hurting America. Learn to write!"

Shankman's fourth rule is "Be top of mind," because that's how you generate business. He pointed out that every day, we talk to only roughly 1% of our network, so when you consider that your audience is only paying attention to the top 1% of their network, it's essential to figure out how to get there. Shankman commented that Facebook doesn't understand relevance yet, in terms of networks, but they're moving towards it. We haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg of social media. Shankman observed that in the next 24 months, he believes that everyone will be part of a single network, mentioning pokens (basically a social business card) as a tool for this. In the future, how relevant someone is going to be to you is how relevant they are to you in your network. The more touchpoints you have, the more relevant you will be to each other and the more connected you will be online. He added that the fewer interactions you have with the guy who plays Farmville all day long, the less he will show up in your Facebook stream - unless, of course, you've already learned how to hide him.

When we move towards one network and listen to what's being said, our customer service will be generated by people who trust us. Social media is a broadcast channel for the people who receive and then spread your message. For the first time, information is flowing from inside the network out. Newspapers are failing because people are more likely to trust the people in their network rather than a publication they don't know. An audience question finished up the session - someone asked where we should be "living" in social media while there are still so many networks out there. Shankman recommended that we find out where our audiences are and go there.

Recap of Social Fresh Portland: Social Media for Small Business - A Fresh Conversation

2010-04-07T11:55:00.000-04:00

The third session of the day for me was "Social Media for Small Business - A Fresh Conversation" moderated by Ryan Lewis of Bonfire Social Media. He took an informal poll of the room, which was made up of mostly small businesses, with some agencies. Since the format of the session was a roundtable, we went right into questions from the room. An audience member asked, for a small business strapped for time, how do you find a balance between hiring an outside consultant to handle social media versus doing it in-house. Another audience member responded with a success story of how doing social media in-house has really worked for them, with their preferred medium being Twitter. There has been a lot of debate recently about this very issue, and I also fall on the side of doing social media in-house - when people engage with someone on Twitter, Facebook or other social media channels, even when they are engaging with a brand, they want to be talking to someone who represents the voice of that company, and knows the company well. There's an implied sense of trust that comes along with following or becoming a "fan" of something, and if those clients/customers find out that they're dealing with a consultant and not someone from the company, that trust can be broken with serious consequences. I talked about this issue in a little more depth with respect to ghostblogging.

Another audience member asked about who is using Facebook applications, adding that there's huge success there for those who are. Someone commented that Facebook adds a layer of demographic targeting that can be extremely useful, though it's sometimes necessary to test different advertisements to find success. Another audience member wanted to know if there was an average price point for the products that are selling, using tools like Facebook. He's found that social media tools are better for branding, because he sells an expensive product. He wanted to know if a company would be throwing money away if their product is expensive and so they're only using social media for branding. The room seemed to agree that the answer was no - even if the sales process is not happening through these tools, developing a reputation for a certain expertise is useful in leading to an offline sales process. (*Applicable to law firms)

The group then talked a bit about whether Facebook or Twitter was a more useful tool for companies. Someone commented that Twitter is a great tool for communications, but for indexing and critical mass, Facebook will become a much bigger player. It was suggested that companies incentivize their fans to join their Facebook pages, which we'd heard in the previous panel. Incentivizing them to become a "fan" of your company and product is one step, but leveraging this group to build a database is what's really important. HubSpot was mentioned again as a company who does this very well. To get "fans" to sign up their email addresses and information with a company, an audience member suggested reserving some content for release when they give you this data. Another audience member cautioned that some small businesses think you go right from getting someone to become a "fan" to getting a sale, and said that it's important to remember to build the relationships further first. (*Great lesson for law firms)

Another audience member commented that his company wants their employees to develop personal blogs that will be used to express the corporate voice. He was concerned about blurring the line between a personal and professional voice. I voiced my thoughts that I think the line is already pretty blurred and that there's utility in giving your brand a personality. As we hear so often, people want to buy from other people, not companies.

The group then moved on to discussing LinkedIn and everyone agreed that you can do a lot more with groups on LinkedIn than through individual profiles, including emailing members of a group directly. An audience member suggested that companies start with their email list of clients and then find out where their critical mass is - is it on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, maybe even mySpace? Another audience member also mentioned meetup.com as a great social networking site, though they pointed out there is a cost to form groups on there.

Lewis commented that traditional media isn't bad, it's just overpriced, which led to an audience member to wonder if companies think that because social media is "free" that it can't be good. Someone else countered that social media isn't free, because it involves an investment of time and creativity. The group also agreed that social media is not a replacement for other tools, but is just another set of tools. Marketing is an "evolution," not a "revolution" so companies should take pieces of what they're already doing and amplify these with these new social media tools.

An audience member asked how to deal with people in a company who are afraid of social media and have objections to using it. I suggested using case studies and another audience member recommended showing the results of Google searches after 60-90 days. Somebody else commented that they thought the real issue is that people want to keep their jobs, so they don't want to be pioneers. I feel that the opposite is true - in this current economy, showing yourself to be a leader by understanding and adopting these tools and leveraging them for the good of your company can make you indispensable.

The final thought from the roundtable was that there needs to be a cultural change in companies for social media to work - they shouldn't just hire a college intern to handle their social media.

Recap of Social Fresh Portland: Social Media B2B Panel

2010-04-07T10:37:00.000-04:00

The second session that I attended while at Social Fresh Portland was the "Social Media B2B Panel," with Greg Cangialosi of Blue Sky Factory, Jason Peck of eWayDirect, Adam Holden-Bache of Mass Transmit, and Schneider Mike of Allen and Gerristen. A lot of great information came out of the panel, starting with the first comment that "social media doesn't just happen." The panelists agreed that companies need to put a smart person behind the tools, and get buy-in from everyone in the company, not just the executives.

For B2B companies, their goal is to make their customers more successful than their competitor's customers. To identify what they want from a specific social media strategy, they need to start with the bottom line in mind. Cangialosi commented that social media is just an extension of every other area of the company, but that it's largely happening out of marketing departments. The panel advised that the marketing department should lead with their messages, but customer service should be involved as well, and whoever is responsible for CRM, for a more complete strategy. Peck added that B2B companies need to have communication skills and subject matter expertise to effectively deploy a social media strategy.

Cangialosi said that the true promise of social media is when you can engage with people, which the legal marketers I know in social media would agree with. When engaging, it's important to be transparent in social media channels about why you're there. If you're not planning to use it for customer service, let them know, but expect people to ask questions anyway. The panel also suggested working with a public relations team in advance to forecast out what prickly issues could come up.

Someone in the audience asked how social media can help companies get to B2B decision makers. Peck said that it connects people who can connect you to them. But it's important to be there before the sale. The key to getting to decision makers is to provide good content.

As was mentioned during the last panel, many companies measure their success in social media by the number of followers that they have. But the key is in engagement. One of the benefits of social media is that when it comes to lead generation, you can now see very clearly who you're dealing with because of social data. Schneider pointed out that while everyone is talking about engaging with their audience, they shouldn't forget that they want to sell something. They still need to ask people to buy.

Another audience member asked what tools, from a content standpoint, work best for companies and Holden-Bache said "Blogging, far and away." This seems to hold true in the legal market as well, with many lawyers able to build their reputation for having a certain area of expertise through their blogs. The panel used HubSpot as an example of effective blogging because they use their posts to invite further engagement in webinars, white papers, etc. Cangialosi suggested other companies should similarly use a call to action at the end of every post. The best way to improve awareness is by generating dialogue and interaction from the blog content and then getting others to spread it. An audience member pointed out that just because someone writes content doesn't mean that anyone will necessarily read it. Schneider also cautioned that it's still important to take the online relationships offline. Instead of running "campaigns," companies should think about building relationships. That way, even when the platforms change, the relationships live beyond the tool. Cangialosi added that the database is still king though - social media may drive customer signups, but you never know which networks might disappear.

Another question from the audience was about what place Facebook has in B2B marketing. Schneider said that it's a great place to test media and can also be a conversion point. Someone else asked about timing messages to appear during business hours, and Schneider agreed that timing matters, but suggested that companies find out what works for their audiences first - do your clients read blog posts at 9am on Monday morning or at 6pm Tuesday evenings? Audience member, Nicole Donnelly, said that her company is beta testing a program called Big Ruby which can measure what time of day works best for your audience.

The panelists metnioned that companies who are doing social media "right" include Kaspersky, HubSpot, American Express, Sales Force, and Direct TV.

So how does this translate for law firms? As I've been hearing so often lately, the message was that it's all about relationships. But the panel takes this one step further to say that it's important to know your audience, what they want, where they're involved and to engage them in ways that are useful to them. This will vary from firm to firm, and for client to client, but if you identify these things as part of your social media strategy development, it will help your firm in becoming more successful in using social media.

ILN-terviews: Sebastian Laboga, Kübler GbR

2010-04-07T10:00:00.001-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Sebastian Laboga of Kübler GbR in Germany.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
With more than 230 employees and 27 locations, KÜBLER is one of the leading German law firms concerning insolvency and reorganization law.

Who would be your typical client?
Our typical clients are companies of all sizes or private individuals that are either insolvent, afraid of becoming insolvent or have business with any of these groups.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That we are one of the largest and most effectively organized law firms in Germany dealing with financial crises, restructuring and insolvency. We have the staff and know-how to literally run even very large companies in times of trouble or insolvency. In addition we are very hands on – good at producing words and paper of course, but even better at actually providing help and taking action.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
Running a mine sweeping company as insolvency administrator. Etiquette was very military and the management scheduled their meetings at 6 o clock in the morning. Attending on time was a true challenge.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
I guess helping companies to a successful restart after a crisis or insolvency makes me a little proud every time. My proudest moment though was definitely managing to attend the mine-sweepers’ meetings at 6 o’ clock a.m. AND understanding what they were talking about!

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
I have five kids – what do you think?

What would surprise people most about you?
My broad knowledge regarding movies and TV shows.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
Standing in Rome on the top of the Castel St` Angelo, looking at the illuminated Vatican by night with a glass of Champagne in my hand.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
I would almost have ended up as a Tax Adviser. But I am very happy that I didn’t.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Jeff Bridges, aka “the Dude.”

How would you like to be remembered?
Too early to think about it, really – the Dude still abides, doesn’t he. But people shouldn’t think they could get away with peeing on my rug easily…

Recap of Social Fresh Portland: Real Facebook and Twitter Results Panel

2010-04-06T10:49:00.000-04:00

The first session of Social Fresh, Portland that I attended was "Real Facebook and Twitter Results Panel." Since I know many law firms are hesitant to get involved with Facebook and Twitter, the comments from this panel might be especially useful for you in evaluating whether these platforms will work for your firm. The panel featured Justin Kistner of Webtrends, Carri Bugbee of Big Deal PR, Kevin Tate of StepChange, and moderator and panelist Shauna Causey from Comcast.

After each of the panelists introduced themselves, they focused on their experiences using Facebook and Twitter for themselves and their clients. Tate said, about starting a Facebook page, that a company can often learn as much from its failures as its successes. Kistner agreed with this, saying that his company had thought about starting a new blog, separate from their original one, and quickly realized that it would make more sense to leverage their existing web presence and audience, because they already have put their trust in you. But in addition to thinking about the external audience, when deploying a social media strategy, it's just as important to bring your internal audience in and show them the value.

Tate used the Travelocity gnome campaign on Facebook as an example of a successful use of social media to engage the audience (the panelists agreed that audience engagement should be a key goal when using a social media tool like Facebook or Twitter). Facebook users could become a "Fan" of the Travelocity gnome, and were able to interact by voting on where he would go next. This was very successful and continues to see fan engagement. Tate pointed out that once people feel that they have ownership of something, you have to be careful about taking it away - an example of this from my own experience was when a Facebook user created a Fan page for the Norwegian curling team's pants. The page was not endorsed or created by the team, but during the Olympics, it suddenly grew very popular and attracted a lot of fans and activity. Facebook realized that the page wasn't created by the team (even though they had contacted the user who started it and invited him to their next match) and they took it down, citing their fan page rules. But because so many fans were attached to the page, they launched a campaign to get Facebook to bring it back. After a few hours, Facebook relented because of the outcry. So even though the Norwegian curling team didn't start the page, the fans were invested in it and didn't want to lose it. Tate also pointed out that even when a brand creates the Facebook page, the fans really own it and define the content and interaction.

Although there have been clear successes like these in Facebook fan pages, Tate mentioned that there is a dark side to fan engagement, like the Nestle scandal. Bugbee cited this as a clear example of the need for crisis management. She said that when a company has an issue such as Nestle did, it needs to be sent up to the C-suite immediately and not handled by the community relations manager or whoever is responsible for the page. Not all fan engagement will be positive, so it's important to have a plan in place for dealing with any negative comments or coordinated attacks, like Greenpeace's. However, this kind of interaction can also be an opportunity. Causey talked about how crisis management has been effective for Comcast in terms of their customer service - she said they have been working to be proactive by notifying customers through Twitter when they have an outage. She said that they took an opportunity where a number of people were initially upset by an outage and turned it into a success by keeping them informed and updated, which their customers appreciated. Using this as an example, Causey said that it shows how our jobs have totally changed - we have to be online and accessible, because the public is and expects companies to be.

Because social media is so ubiquitous (Social media is now the fourth most popular online activity, ahead of email), companies need to be aware that the conversation about them is taking place online, whether they're involved or not. Many people feel the same way that Kistner does, that emails make him think that someone needs his attention for a long time, and they need him to spend a long time replying to them, while social media tools allow for more immediate, shorter communications. But there is also a drawback to the immediacy of this form of communication - people often underestimate how visible they are to everyone all the time, and react to what's happening, instead of carefully considering their responses and posts.

The panelists then talked a little bit about evaluating whether a social media platform is effectively working for you and your company. Tate said that the acquisition of Facebook fans has become the new metric for customer acquisition, though Bugbee later pointed out that while the number of followers may be important to some people, engagement is key. Kistner said that the first step is to build an online audience by getting fans/followers and using competitors numbers to estimate where you should be. Stage 2 is learning how to leverage them. He suggested giving a coupon out on Facebook or Twitter to encourage them to engage. For law firms, coupons wouldn't be a viable suggestion, but you can identify other pieces of information that the firm could provide to those who sign up for a newsletter or provide their email addresses for a future communication, like a relevant white paper.

The panel gave some advice on how to use social media effectively, emphasizing the importance of doing so by saying that when someone becomes your "fan" or follows you on Twitter, they've given you the right to be in their attention stream. Causey cautioned not to talk about yourself all the time, but to be generous. The panel recommended that for every tweet about your blog or your company, you should have 19 tweets that aren't about the blog or company. Kistner said that in terms of Facebook fan pages, you want to keep it simple because having too many pages can be confusing to the audience, who may think they've already "joined" but aren't getting the information most relevant to them.

Someone in the audience asked how the panelists have gotten buy-in from management. Causey suggested setting them up with LinkedIn profiles as a first step, and then showing them how to use it. She also pointed out that showing them Facebook ads, and how they can be very targeted, is something that the C-suite can understand and buy into. When asked about the value of social media, one way to answer is to ask if they've done studies on whether they should use phones in the office, or email. The answer is no, so why question social media's value as a tool?

The panel finished up with some key takeaways including not to fragment online efforts, but to keep them simple and value your followers. Causey said that social media should be an everyday part of your business, and to get internal buy-in, you can highlight articles written about the company's social media efforts. The panelists agreed that these tools can be valuable for your company when used and leveraged effectively.

ILN-terviews: John Verrall, Verralls Barristers and Solicitors

2010-04-01T12:13:00.001-04:00

Social Fresh - What Did I Learn About Social Media?

2010-03-29T23:53:00.000-04:00

Today, I attended one of the Social Fresh conferences, which took place here in Portland, Oregon - for those of you wondering what Social Fresh is, it's a conference about social media, focused around case studies, and it takes place in some "underserved cities," as the conference website describes them. Although it's not a conference focused around the legal field, I felt that broadening my social media education to find out what other companies are doing and what works for them would be useful in my own professional social media efforts, as well as for the law firms we work with.

Like LMA 2010, I'll be posting re-caps of the valuable sessions that I attended today over the next few days, but I wanted to get a quick post up about my thoughts and the key takeaways from today's conference.

The theme that I took away from today's panels and presentations was two-fold - 1) know your social media objectives and 2) know your audience. In terms of the former - it's not just enough to jump into social media, to create a Twitter profile or a Facebook fan page (in terms of your company or firm's brand - I still think there's utility in experimenting for yourself to learn about the tools). You have to ask yourself why you're on there, what you want to get out of it, and what you're prepared to do with it - have a strategy. There were a lot of comments that although marketers may be handling a company or firm's social media efforts, customer service is still a large part of the job. So even if you enter into social media for the purpose of getting content out there, you must be prepared to answer questions and deal with customer service-type issues. This is true even in the legal industry - for law firms getting involved in social media, you have to be prepared to deal with questions coming up that border on a client-attorney privileged relationship, possible issues with complaints against the firm, etc. The overwhelming answer on how to deal with these issues today was "have a plan." Before entering into social media, decide who will be behind the efforts, what happens if a person or group starts flaming your Facebook page, what steps are taken if a crisis arises - think about the possible issues that may arise before they happen. Everyone agrees that social media is just another channel for the same types of marketing that companies and firms have always been doing, so some of this will just be an extension of an existing crisis communications plan your firms have, but it's essential to discuss strategy and possible roadblocks before releasing a corporate social media strategy.

In terms of audience, this was another topic that was mentioned again and again today. Speakers emphasized finding out about your audience to determine what social media channels make the most sense for your firm to participate in. The way to find this out is by asking them. One speaker used the example of an animal rescue organization that he had donated to - following his donation, they sent him a lovely coffee table book. Unfortunately, he had no use for this, since he doesn't own a coffee table. He commented to them that it would be useful for them to follow up with their donors and ask how they would prefer to receive future communications. They initially said that they already knew their audience, and because of their age and make-up, they knew that they preferred to receive things like the coffee table book. But they took his advice and started to follow up with donors - an overwhelming number said they preferred email communications, and the organization ended up saving $500,000 in printing costs. The message was clear - no matter how well you think you know your audience, talk to them anyway and find out what works best for them. If they're overwhelmingly on Facebook, create a fanpage. If they prefer LinkedIn, develop a group. Connect to them. If they're on multiple channels, connect with them on all of them.

Some firms might be concerned about getting "out there" on social media because they don't want to deal with the conversation that's happening about their firm or their competitors - but the point was made today that the audience is talking about them whether they're involved in the conversation or not. So finding out where your audience is and getting involved in the conversation by listening and engaging (make sure you have the right people in these roles) is key.

There may be those out there who see social media tools as only a flash in the pan and everyone's interest in them akin to "shiny new toy syndrome." But social media is not going away, and will only become more and more ingrained in our everyday lives. It can work for law firms as easily as it does for other companies, with the right planning and execution that takes the legal field's special characteristics into account. Social media is the fourth most popular online form of communication - AHEAD of email. There was a time when many people believed that email wouldn't catch on, and now we can't imagine our lives without it - social media is the same. It's evolving, but it's where conversations are happening and great opportunities still exist.

Social Media in Asia: Where are the Emerging Opportunities?

2010-03-25T16:01:00.001-04:00

Last night, I had the opportunity to attend a socialmediatoday webinar on "Social Media in Asia: Where are the Emerging Opportunities?" (For the webcast and slides, visit: http://www.socialmediatoday.com/webcasts/184500) What follows is a re-cap of the highlights, but the key takeaways that came out of the webinar are the following:

- Culture is hugely important - In order to succeed in Asia, you must have people on the ground who understand the social meda ecosystem for that country and can help you to navigate it.

- Mobile devices will be the primary source of access for a lot of people because broadband access is not always available. So compatibility with mobile devices is hugely important.

- Face-to-face interactions are still paramount.

The speakers for the webinar were Thomas Crampton, Asia Pacific Director of 360 Digital Influence for Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, Peter Auditore, head of SAP's Business Influencer Program and a Senior Fellow at the Society for New Communications Research, and Robin Carey, CEO of socialmediatoday. They began with comments from Crampton on scale - he said there are 338 million "netizens" (citizens of the net) in China versus only 62 million in France (as of a report from 2009) and also greater than the population of the United States. However, the top social networks in China are not the familiar ones in the West - Qzone has 183 million users, Xiaonei has 40 million, kaixin001 has 30 million, while Facebook only has 0.4 million. Crampton observed that the government is very savvy in China - Twitter is blocked, but Google Wave is not. He also noted that Friendster used to rule Asia, but now Facebook is "romping across the nation."

Even within Asia though, the digital ecosystems are very diverse. The US may be seen as the home of Web 2.0, but Asians are more involved in using social media in their daily lives in a way that we're not, with Korea leading Asia in terms of actual social media engagement/involvement. Crampton has found that there's no useful distinction anymore between the online and offline worlds in many of these markets. He added that Chinese people have been using the online space for a long time now, mostly on blackboards.

Carey handed the floor over to Auditore, who talked about some research he recently conducted in terms of the purchasing process in China. He said that they found that customers will have the most influence over the next 12 months, with vendors having the second highest jump in influence. The research also indicated that boards and public relations/media people are losing influence. People will look online in a big way when doing their research on purchases. However, Michael Pranikoff commented via Twitter that the chart indicated that blogs and microblogs seem to have a low influence in China in regards to channels for purchasing decisions. Auditore added that the things that are hot in China right now are online events and colleagues/peer networking online.

Carey asked the panel whether China becomes isolated because they ban sites like Facebook and Twitter. Crampton said that as more sites are blocked in China, domestic replicas of these Western tools are being created. China is creating its own ecosystem of social media tools. Crampton added that despite the ban, there are people in China who are still using Twitter, citing a tweetup he had hosted the night before that was only publicized through Twitter and was well-attended.

The discussion then moved to talking about the ways that Asian countries are using social media, and Crampton said that even if Korea is the most wired country in Asia, they are still resistant to using social networks for commercial purposes. In Malaysia, there's more use of it, but it's considered to be a political space, so companies have been pushed out. This was one of the first key indicators of the webinar that culture, and having someone local, are extremely important when attempting to deploy a social media strategy in Asia, so that factors such as these are understood.

At this point in the webinar, Carey introduced a poll so the attendees could vote on which country they were most interested in hearing more about during the session. The attendees agreed they would have liked to have been able to vote for more than one, but the results showed that of those who voted, 45% were interested in China, 30% in Japan and 18% in India. The panel continued to focus on China, but because of the requests from Tweeters, they also included comments on some of the other countries in the region.

With respect to China, the panel commented that they've been able to build a great broadband infrastructure there, and they lead in internet users as a percentage of the population in Asia. India hasn't been able to develop the same level of broadband infrastructure, so the mobile device is becoming the primary way for people to go online. Because this is also true in other countries, social media tools need to be easy to navigate on mobile devices. In Japan, mobile phones are already a huge part of people's online lives, and it's heading that way in India and Indonesia, because it's the only way to get online there. Crampton mentioned that Orkut is the largest social network, in terms of visits per month, in India.

Because of the increasing importance of social media around the world, Carey commented that "global corporations need to realize that they're really social media companies." She asked if companies realize this and how it affects their business. Crampton said that the digital diversity in Asia can make it difficult for companies to replicate the social media efforts that they're using elsewhere. He added that in Asia, people are much more willing to pass on brand messages if they find value in it for themselves.

Auditore asked whether government intervention in China will prevent the evolution of social media peer groups. Crampton said no, because the Chinese government is very practical about what they block. They see the internet as a "motor for the economy" and so would be unlikely to block these types of groups. He also mentioned that in Korea, he sees a bursting of the dam in terms of companies using social media, because there's such a high level of involvement there already.

Amitha Amarasinghe asked from Twitter about the opportunities for entrepreneurs in Asia, specifically in the BPO sector. The panel agreed that BtoB opportunities for entrepreneurs do exist, and used Alibaba as an example - they're a giant marketplace in China, and are an example of a great use of social media to connect buyers and sellers. Alibaba beat out eBay in China and Crampton commented that "China is the graveyard of Web 2.0 initiatives from the Western World." In terms of BPO in India, there are also entrepreneurial opportunities, such as for round-the-clock services and mobile application development. Crampton noted that it's essential to understand Asia and the differences, and cited local insight as being key. Anina Abola agreed on Twitter, saying that "it took a while for culture to come into the conversation. VERY important thing in Asian market."

Carey asked the panel how Western-based companies can use social media to market to Asia. Crampton answered that it's necessary to have people on the ground on both sides, and still meet people face to face. Auditore recommended moving slowly - listen first, build communities where the growth is, and provide value where customers need it. "Sell without selling," he added. Crampton agreed with him and said that culture and context are both extremely important. He emphasized that you "can't execute a social media strategy in Asia remotely." It's important to be agile and able to adjust your strategy, and to understand that the importance of social media in people's lives is different in Asia than it is elsewhere.

If you're interested in learning more, Thomas Crampton said via Twitter that he often posts statistics and trends in the region on his blog.

So what does this mean for law firms? The takeaways from this webinar say it all - local knowledge is essential, and not just that garnered from webinars and research. The ILN has favored that approach since our inception, as we're modeled on the idea of having strong local firms in our Network who understand how to do business in their regions and what their clients want, both culturally and professionally. Law firms interested in developing a social media strategy in Asia should work with their local affiliate firm, if they have one, or a local consultant who can help them to navigate the various digital ecosystems and learn what will be most effective.

Another key piece of advice imparted by the panelists was Auditore's suggestion of taking things slowly. While I'm a proponent of playing around with some of the new social media technology to get used to it and start to understand how best to use and leverage it, it's equally important to listen - both domestically and abroad. Find out what people are talking about and find the right places to connect. In the US, it might be Facebook and Twitter, as well as through blogging, but in India, it's Orkut, and in China, Qzone. Listening also helps to give you an idea of what the social norms might be for that country and social networking platform in particular before you jump in and start connecting with people.

But for any social media strategy to be effective, it's important to take it offline. As I mentioned following the Legal Marketing Association conference, relationships are key. We've heard time and time again from our member firms in Asia that face-to-face meetings are very important to them, with one of our Chinese attorneys going so far as to say that he wouldn't refer business to someone that he hadn't met in person. So any social media strategy for business must take that into account - for a great post on how to build a rapport with your clients, see Heather Milligan's most recent post. Social media technologies are not just tools to build a database of casual acquaintances - they're a jumping-off point for developing meaningful professional and personal relationships that can lead to new business when leveraged correctly.

ILN-terviews: Lorna Patajo-Kapunan, Kapunan Lotilla Garcia & Castillo Law Offices

2010-03-24T10:00:00.001-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Lorna Patajo-Kapunan of Kapunan Lotilla Garcia & Castillo Law Offices in Manila, the Philippines.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Our firm is a medium-sized law firm with 17 lawyers and support staff totaling 20, all committed to our vision of "quality legal service with competence, integrity and courage."

Who would be your typical client?
Our typical client would be the good guys -- good corporate citizens who aspire for a level playing field, aggrieved individuals who still have faith in the justice system.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
I want my clients/potential clients to know that I eat my enemies for breakfast, that I will fight even against overwhelming odds, that I can and do walk the extra mile.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
As an advocate for women's rights, my most challenging and high profile case was defending a male against a female for allegedly taping a sex video of the sex act and purportedly distributing it to the public. My legal position (to the horror of the women NGOs) was that the male was the victim.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
My proudest moment as a lawyer was when our firm was judged by the Bishop/Businessmen's Council of the Philippines as the only law firm in the country deserving of the ISQ (Institutional Spirituality Quotient) award - this is equivalent to a "good housekeeping seal" at the workplace.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
I have many "hats" -- dedicated father/mother (I was widowed 9 years ago) to my 5 boys, 2 grandsons, 9 dogs; volunteer Trustee on the Boards of several foundations/socio/civic groups, such as the Philippine National Red Cross, World Wildlife Fund, Cultural Center of the Philippines, Rotary International, Zonta Foundation, UNIFEM, National Heritage Society; devoted daughter to my father (94-year-old retired justice of the Supreme Court) and mother (87-year-old retired dean of one of the biggest nursing schools in the country); confessed shopaholic -- my "cure-all" remedy for my stress is shopping.

What would surprise people most about you?
People are surprised that I can be a softie -- that despite the Dracula fangs, I have a heart that beats/bleeds.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
My most memorable ILN experience was when our former Firm hosted the ILN Regional Conference in Cebu in a distant past. It gave us the opportunity to showcase the typical Filipino hospitality. Looking forward to hosting another soon.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
If I weren't a lawyer, I'd like to be a CNN/BBC Anchorperson -- reporting news when and where it happens, or a professional tennis player, earning some 6-7 digit figures while having FUN.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
My favorite movie is Casablanca -- but I identified more with Humphrey Bogart rather than Ingrid Bergman. I need to sort out my fantasies first.

How would you like to be remembered?
I'd like my epitaph to read "She lived, laughed and loved!"

Law Firms: Change or Die?

2010-03-23T14:56:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned yesterday, I've been following along as attendees of Georgetown's Law Firm Evolution Symposium have been tweeting the conference highlights. Rachel M. Zahorsky of the ABA Journal was in attendance, and wrote a great article that summed up a theme of the conference - BigLaw must change or die. She quotes several speakers, who make ominous statements:

- Patricia Gillette, Orrick partner: "It is a mistake to think of change in terms of silos...Change must be sweeping. If you do not change, you will die."

- Susan Hackett, Association of Corporate Counsel vice president & general counsel: "The window is open for another year to year and a half for firms before clients start walking and looking at firms they've never looked at before...Whenever a firm says [it] can't hold to a budget number because of unpredictability, the GC still has a busted budget. It's not unpredictable. It's unforgivable that they don't know and unforgivable that we haven't held them to that."

- Robert Ruyak, managing partner and CEO of Howrey: "Partners must be willing to sacrifice some short-term profitability for greater success and profit in the long-term. That's something many partners don't want to do, but we have to. There is no choice because some firms will, and they're the ones that will be eating our lunches tomorrow."

But some are saying that there are firms that think that the legal industry will soon be back to the way it was, and so they don't have to worry about changing.

Mid-sized law firms, like those in the ILN, often find it easier to adapt than BigLaw because their size makes them more nimble. But even though this is the case, clients are asking all of their firms to more strongly consider their needs, focus on strengthening their relationships. As was said at the LMA Conference this year, clients have always had the power, but now they know it.

So what are your firms doing to adapt to the siren call of change? How are you providing your clients with better service, more value, strengthened relationships? And how are legal marketers supporting their attorneys to make these changes possible?

Or, on the flip side, are you one of those who believes that the legal industry will rebound, and so there isn't any need for change?

The Future of Law Firms

2010-03-22T13:32:00.000-04:00

Last week, I wrote a re-cap on a panel I attended at the Legal Marketing Association's Annual Conference on Alternative Fee Arrangements. The panelists said that the law firms that are "pyramid-shaped," with the larger part of their firms being made up by associates, would have difficulty adapting to the make-up needed to accommodate alternative fees. They said that those firms that are "diamond-shaped," with the majority of the firm being made up of experienced partners would be more successful, implying that firms may be heading in this direction in the future.

However, during Georgetown's Law Firm Evolution Symposium (whose Twitter stream can be followed here), Jeff Haidet of McKenna Long says that "the pyramid will be replaced with the rocketship, associates hired to perpetuate partnership, more efficiency." Firms will need to redesign entry level assessment and paths to partnership and leverage different resources, not just high-cost lawyers.

Howrey's Managing Partner, Bob Ruyak said (also at Georgetown's LFES), that firms need to change almost everything about how they do business, including bringing in non-lawyer professionals, lowering costs, and lowering prices. He said "The risk of uncertainty has to be shared," and that firms have to change how success and productivity are measures, from revenue per partner to productivity of every resource. But later, Mari Sako of Oxford said that lawyers mistrust of non-lawyers means that partnerships are reluctant to cede control of work decisions to clients. Professionals distrust non-professionals' competence and ethics. So what does this mean for the changing law firm and what future law firms will look like?

What do you see the law firm of the future looking like?

Ghostblogging - The Death of Social Media?

2010-03-22T10:51:00.000-04:00

One of the important messages in terms of social media that came out of this year's LMA Annual Conference is that "you cannot be a proxy for someone else's relationship - the lawyers have to do it themselves." But in the busy world of attorneys, where time is quite literally money, what about ghostblogging?

For the uninitiated, ghostblogging is much like ghostwriting, where someone else is paid to blog posing as you or your company. Aside from the usual concerns about liability, which I would say are magnified when discussing the idea of having someone else pose as an attorney, it seems to go against the very idea behind social media, which is to use these new technologies to form personal relationships with people, sometimes for business and sometimes not.

Reading "The Death of Social Media" this morning, I had to agree with Mitch Joel when he asked "Can we stop the madness?" He says:

"I'm being naive (I know), people will say, 'someone writes the speech for the President' or 'if people like it and connect to the content, who cares who writes it?' I dunno, I do. People have lost faith in marketing (just like they have lost faith in those who serve the public office and celebrities). We allow things that shouldn't be... to be. Saying that ghostwriters have been around for years doesn't make it right or authentic. Times have changed, and these platforms are (or should be) celebrated for the human and real side. Can you imagine that some Blogs, Twitter and Facebook feeds that you follow are not the real person, but the musings of someone else who simply interviewed the person you thought that you were following? Sure, there's a place for ghostwriters, but maybe Social Media isn't one of them? If we keep heading down this road, doesn't Social Media become nothing more than a boring, traditional mass media channel?"

I'm curious to hear what those in the legal community think about ghost blogging, and how lawyers can manage the balance between their valuable time and pursusing social media (Disclaimer: I'm a strong believer that lawyers spending time creating relationships through social media and then taking these offline is a valuable use of their time.)

LMA 2010 - The Digital Firm 2015 - The Changing Face of Professional Services Marketing Communications

2010-03-19T14:07:00.000-04:00

For my last session of the conference, I attended "The Digial Firm 2015 - The Changing Face of Professional Services Marketing Communications," with opening remarks from Anthony Green, President of Concep, moderated by Dwain Thomas, Managing Director of Concep, and panelists Susan M. Snyder, Senior Consultant at Hay Group, Jodie Kaminsky, Vice President of J.P. Morgan Asset Management, and Royal Simpkins, Firmwide Communications Manager at Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP. The panel looked at new marketing channels and how they impact marketing professionals in a fee earning environment. When the room was polled, we learned that a lot of the audience is using social media in their communications mix. Jeannette McGarr wondered on Twitter what her attorneys would say about social media becoming the norm in firms.

The panelists went into three case studies of firms using digital strategy with Concep, starting with J.P. Morgan. They needed a reduction in cost, which for them, meant getting away from paper. They were looking for both strategic and tactical recommendations to help them to migrate their current contact strategies to digital, and used their competition to convince naysayers to get into social/digital communication tools. It took 2-3 years for them to switch entirely to digital communications, and now their marketing plans are much more integrated with digital media and have the same messages across platforms. At the start of this process, they had 15 different databases, and have since merged all of them. When all data repositories begin to communicate, the power is exponential for intelligence and relationship management.

The next case study was Hay Group, who wanted to use the web as more of a lead generator/sales device. Concep helped Hay Group conduct an audit of their website and came up with a new one which introduced registration to collect information. Additional goals for their website included SEO and tactics like streaming video and engaging the customer. They worked to really make it about their audience, which prompted Stephanie Thum to comment via Twitter "Tie feedback into the things clients require of you. How accurate are we at [meeting] workflow requirements?" From Hay Group's website, they link to social media and make sure their bloggers are sending out consistent messages. Their social media campaigns include those on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and their blogs, and they've gotten solid work from their web inquiries. Gina Rubel commented via Twitter that "Lawyers need to understand that websites are the front door to their businesses - this message has been validated 100xs over."

Hay Group builds their business off of thought leadership and uses client feedback to change the way they interact with their clients. Their Twitter account is very active using key messages around the globe, with a centralized message approach and management. The rhetorical question was posed to the audience "Are you proud of sending people to your website? A bad site is like showing up to a meeting wearing an ugly suit. It's all part of your brand."

Green commented that internal audiences are just as important as external ones, which we've always considered to be true at the ILN. For the Hay Group, most of their internal people were using Blackberries, so they stages a mobile campaign to talk to the consultants. The results of this were better internal communication and increased online sales.

The next case study was Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP. Simpkins said that their attorneys had more time, but a lack of marketing resources, after the economic downturn. They also had a slow turnaround on distribution. The marriage of e-marketing and CRM benefits them because it feeds their business development efforts by providing data for a variety of uses. Heather Milligan asked from the audience about what other information the firm measures, and how that translates to ROI, and Simpkins responded that they're still mostly tracking "opens" and clickthroughs, so it sounded like more comprehensive analysis/tracking is still needed. Simpkins discussed some of the barriers they faced to implementing the system, such as cost and showing its value to their decision makers. However, they've shown a 30% decrease in printing costs, both because of this system and other changes they've made. The firm wants to deliver relevant content to the right people - they can't yet identify that work comes directly from an email, but targeting is useful. Simpkins called HTML "voodoo" - as a former programmer, I can say that HTML is the easiest of the programming languages, and with a good reference tool (you can find these online) anyone can learn it. He said that through Concep's tools, anyone can create and deliver professionally-branded HTML alerts, invitations, newsletters, etc. They consider full CRM integration to mean seamless, end-to-end data management, which is the key to successful communications. They get a much greater response when they send out relevant information. However, Simpkins cautioned that with speed comes errors. Jon Holden, via Twitter, suggested the "one hour rule. Produce quick, then proofread slow, by multiple eyes."

When asked to identify a company using social media effectively, they used Accenture as one example, and provided a slide with their social media efforts as evidence.

LMA 2010 - General Session: What We Love Most About Our Lawyers - A Client Panel

2010-03-19T12:53:00.001-04:00

The client panels held during the LMA conferences always provide a wealth of useful information for legal marketers to bring back to their firms. This year's panel was no different - moderated by Michael B. Rynowecer, President and Founder of The BTI Consulting Group, the panel featured Eric Hilty, Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of Apartment Investment and Management Company (AIMCO), Carmel Gill, Corporate Counsel, Legal Department of Level 3 Communications, Jeffrey K. Reeser, Vice President and Secretary of Newmont Mining Corporation, and Julie DeCecco, Associate General Counsel and Director of Litigation at Sun Microsystems, Inc. The session was titled "What we love most about our lawyers," and the panel started by saying that in order to stand above the competition and become a prefered provider, firms need to step up partner engagement and have a proactive knowledge of their clients' business. The clients listed a few of the law firms that they consider top of their lists, and one included ILN member, Holland & Hart.

So what gets a firm "on the list?" One of the panelists counseled that lawyers shouldn't make them jump through legal hoops, but should do as much for them as they can, so that they don't have to do it themselves. Another said that lawyers should identify the obstacles for their clients, think two steps ahead to the solution and articulate it. Their impressions of firms come from their experiences with the attorneys of that firm, reinforcing the theme that it's all about relationships. The panelist admitted that she thought saying service was the most important thing to her might offend the audience, but as Kate Haueisen said via Twitter "we influence service too!" The panelists suggested that firms have a dialogue with their clients about their expectations for communication, workflow, and sharing the work burden and they agreed that they are trying to isolate the firms that they have good relationships with and save some money.

The panel moved on to talk about alternative fee arrangements (AFAs), and a few of them admitted that they were skeptical of them at first. One panelist said that she wondered who would end up with the short end of the stick, but after using AFAs for a while, she can now see the value. Another panelists said that she also feels more satisfied with the value after using AFAs for a few years. DeCecco commented that almost all work being handled for Sun Microsystems is now done on an alternative fee basis. A panelist added that firms proposing alternative fees are automatically seen by clients as trying to bring value from the start of their relationship. They appreciate the predictability and proactive nature of these proposals. When alternative fees haven't worked, it's because the client can't tell what the firm's motivation is, and trust is not there. The panelists felt that alternative fee arrangements work best with firms they do a lot of business with, and therefore have established relationships where there is trust and a "safer" risk.

The panelists said that when they're reviewing whether to use a firm or not for a piece of work, they first get referrals and then go to the firm websites. Because of this, they warned that if an attorney doesn't list all of their areas of expertise in their bio, they assume that they don't handle that type of work and move on. They also agreed that because they're spending time to check the firm's website, they don't need "marketing slicks with the same content." Instead, they want to know how you'd approach a matter. Another panelist comment that she thinks there's "nothing worse than a cheesy bio" and doesn't want "flowery language," like "cases are not won on luck alone." A client's hiring criteria is 1) expertise, 2) do they have the time, 3) cost, 4) likeability/do they care about me, and 5) politics. A GC commented "It's almost like speed dating...we want to like the attorney."

In terms of formal RFPs, the panelists advised putting a lot of work into customizing them - and they emphasized a LOT of work - and reflect on how the firm would approach the case. They don't want firms to just mention that they're open to working with a client on alternative fees, but to actually tell them what the firm has in mind. The panelists admitted that firms competing in the RFP process might get knocked out for not including a budget, though there are some cases in which if the skills and chemistry is there, the client might ask them for more instead of immediately dismissing them.

Another interesting takeaway that came out of the panel was that clients don't think that firms are less qualified because they discount rates. Bills were also a point of contention, with a couple of the panelists talking about how they've had surprises on their bills, which indicates to them that their relationship partner at the firm isn't reviewing them first. The clients said that they like law firms that help them in other ways too, such as inviting them to conferences or introducing them to their counterparts at other companies. Since many law firms don't do this, it's a way to set yourself apart from other firms. They suggested that firms take the time to talk to their clients about what's going on, without charging them. They appreciate when their lawyer asks them questions outside the scope of the matter being handled, and clarified that this doesn't mean small talk, but discussing what else is going on at the company. However, they did caution that when a firm "stalks" them with too much repetition of what they've seen in the news about them or on their website, it does make them uncomfortable.

Rynowecer then asked the panelists to give one piece of advice to law firms. They said the following:

Develop long-term relationships at the partner level and come to the table with creative fee structures
Don't just show the "hoop;" show how to get through it, or better yet, get through it yourself without involving the client.
Give legal marketers a raise. Put yourself in the client's shoes - envision what they're going through and how to meet their needs.
Relationships are key - meet people, but not for the purpose of selling. Find out where clients are and be there.
Partners should be thoroughly reviewing all briefs and bills, despite any time crunches imposed by the client.

LMA 2010 - Creating and Implementing a Sales and Business Development Culture in Your Firm

2010-03-19T11:41:00.000-04:00

The first session on Friday was another session that delegates were excited for, and the big room was packed. Moderated by Patrick Fuller, the Managing Account Director at Hubbard One, the presenters included Twitter favorites like Melanie Green, Director of Business Development and Marketing at Baker & Daniels LLP and Tim Corcoran, Senior Consultant at Altman Weil, as well as Robert D. Randolph, Jr., Director of Marketing and Business Development at Bryan Cave LLP and Steven B. Bell, Chief Client Development Officer at Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.

Tim started the session by saying that the difference between business development and marketing is that marketing is the tactics to build awareness and identity, while business development is what you're doing to further that relationship. Steve wondered why there should be a distinction between marketing, business development and sales, saying that "we all want to ring the cash register." He said that everyone in the room is engaged in the buying process every day, and it's marketing's role to create awareness. Anyone can take their own lessons from the things that they buy - buying legal services is no different. Buying is emotional and justifying a purchase is logical, though he clarified that an emotional purchase doesn't mean it's illogical. He emphasized that companies don't make purchases, individuals do. So you have to understand the individual. As we all know, clients buy services from peope they trust, like, are capable, and understand their business. This isn't an illogical process, but they have to trust you. Lawyers sometimes think that they can't do this business development "stuff," but it doesn't have to be a close relationship. They just need to build a relationship of trust. Lawyers also think that they need to explain their capabilities in the buying process, but most clients are not even considering you if you don't already have the skill set they need.

The panel cautioned that it's important for marketers to understand the difference between sales and business development, so that we understand what we're asking lawyers to do in growing their relationships. The data says that the key attributes for clients in hiring firms are client focus, value for money, a willingness to help, and understanding the client's business. Relationships matter. The panel asked the audience what their lawyers know about their clients and their budget reductions in the current economy. They encouraged the attendees to tell their lawyers to ask their clients how their budgets have been affected and to learn what they're going through up front. Tim said that he asks lawyers whether they know their clients' budget changes from the previous year, and they generally don't. Since clients live and die by their budgets, it's a key factor in the relationship.

The panel said that we have a new buying equation, and so legal marketers should be leading lawyers and firms to the discovery of this equations. Find out if your clients are experiencing these budget cuts across their company and look for ways to help them. Tim added that as law firm providers, we can look for other ways to please our clients that doesn't involve doing their legal work. Melanie talked about a sales program that her firm has for their associates, taking them from 1st year associaties through partnership to educate them on how to work with clients. She said that they do use the term "sales" and Rob added that from his perspective, all the lawyers in the firm are salespeople. They coach their attorneys to have business conversations with their clients, because casual conversations won't bring in business. Tim commented that sometimes the firm thinks they have a solid relationship with a client, but if it only relies on one attorney's contact with them, versus many to many, you're in jeopardy. Steve commented that there is a natural role for non-lawyer salespeople to initiate a conversation with a potential client and Nancy Myrland added via Twitter that "this is a very typical model in other professional services firms. Bus[iness] Dev[elopment]/Salespeople pave the way." The panel mentioned that because you don't know how many "touches" you'll have to have in order to push a relationship with a potential client to the next level, lawyers often get impatient. Business relationships can be kept alive by always identifying what the next steps are.

The panelists observed that while some firms are basically silos who share overhead, there are others where the partners actually want to work together and seek out work to help their other partners. Tim said that when seeking out opportunities to have fellow partners brought into the equation to help clients, it's good for the firm. Melanie said it's important to be able to break the relationship manager from thinking that the client doesn't need anything else from the firm. To help this process when lawyers are hoarding clients, one option is to use client interviews to bring in someone else. Through these interviews, the firm can identify the needs of the client and how to meet those needs. Another way to identify what other work a firm can be doing for a client is to do a White Space Analysis from Bill Flannery, which is a client/workspace matrix. It puts the clients on one axis and the work being done on the other, and then looks at where they don't overlap for opportunities to target. Tim said that legal marketers can help with targeting because of their marketing training.

The panelists then talked about the culture shift at clients' companies, and Steve said that this is being driven by a shrinking budget - the market is not abundant. Tim commented that demand hasn't necessarily disappeared, but the budgets to meet that demand have. So the question becomes what are the sustainable changes versus just a blip on the radar. Tim doesn't see spending increasing again when times get better, because when budgets were reduced, firms still managed to get the work done. And when Chief Legal Officers said, "We can't predict our legal budgets," the CEOs and CFOs called them on it. Melanie sees these changes as an opportunity to adapt her firm's internal culture - to showcase and highlight their message to make it more strategic and focused. Steve said that at his firm, they leverage the lawyers' competitive nature in a sales contest to drive lawyers without the hammer of compensation. They have an inter-office Sales Contest, and when asked what the winning office gets, Steve answered that it doesn't matter because the competition itself is the reward. Melanie said that although she looks forward to a time when the compensation structure at her firm changes, she can't wait for that to drive her lawyers, so she, too, looks for work-arounds. She publishes success stories and "wins" across the firm, which raises awareness of the process.

The panelists then talked about lawyers' fear of the sales process because of the word "close." They agreed that there's no reason to be afraid of it, because "closure" is just the agreement between the client and the lawyer to move to the next step - they don't have to become like hard-driving car salesmen. Lawyers only need to do a good job of matching their services to the client's needs in order to get closer to the "close." As Tim said "A close is just a confirmation that you are the right lawyer to take care of my needs." So when meeting with a client, lawyers should think through the different skills, tools, etc. that they have that can come up in the conversation. Tim cautioned that law firms shouldn't think customizing a pitch extends to putting a prospect's logo on it. Melanie suggested that marketers do opportunity coaching with their attorneys before a meeting with a potential client or existing client to help the lawyers learn how to get the close. She agreed that the legal market won't go back to the way it was, and said that if lawyers think it will, it's a problem. She reiterated a statement that seemed to be another theme of the conference: new business is going to come into firms by taking it from others. Steve said that clients have always been in charge, but didn't know it. Now they're in charge and they know it.

A question came from the audience as to what nonmonetary rewards the panel would suggest for their lawyers. Melanie said that telling and publicizing success stories has been very useful for her firm. Rob commented that he's never seen a problem with lawyers being motivated to pursue work, only problems with them doing it the right way. They added that attorneys simply knowing that someone is watching their sales process can be very effective. Steve said that lawyers don't always know how to manage their clients well, but marketers do and can help them learn. Tim commented that lawyers shouldn't apologize for being premium-priced. They just have to learn how to provide reasons why they're better. He also suggested that lawyers remove their clients' influence on things like how to staff a matter by pleasing them on other metrics and said that during the sales process, create your own category that differentiates you.

LMA 2010 - Social Media Strategies for Small to Mid-sized Law Firms

2010-03-18T20:04:00.000-04:00

The second social media panel of the day was one that we tweeters had been waiting for, since our friends and fellow "tweeps" (as people who tweet are often referred to) Heather Milligan, the Director of Marketing for Barger & Wolan LLP, Jayne Navarre, the Director of Law Gravity LLC, and Russell Lawson, the Marketing Director at Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, P.C. would be presenting. The topic was Social Media Strategies for Small to Mid-sized Law Firms. Jayne began by introducing the attendees to the term "social web" as a catchall for technologies like Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and blogging. Russell commented that entering social media is "like drinking from a fire hose," echoing sentiments from the earlier panel. Because of this, he said that he did research before engaging online. Jayne asked them what their greatest challenge in social media has been - Russell said that it is getting people to engage frequently and Heather answered that it was finding champions in her firm who are willing to speak up in and about social media. She added that legal marketers would be surprised at who the champions at their firms can be. Laura Gutierrez commented via Twitter that educating attorneys about social media and time are her biggest challenges.

In terms of strategy, Jayne advised that social media should be part of your day - it's important to integrate it into your work flow and carve out the time needed to make it effective. She said that social media tools are things that lawyers are already using, just reinterpreted through technology. The role of the legal marketer is to help them transform what they're doing into the 2010 version. At the heart of it, social media is about engaging people, and if you're not doing that, you're wasting your time. The panel pointed out that social media doesn't require that lawyers stop other kinds of business development, like attending alumni events, only that they consider it as another tool they can use. Russell talked about his firm's use of social media, saying that he is having a tool built that will allow him to feed attorneys topics daily, which they can then write about on the social web in blog posts. He already sends a social media tip out twice a month to his attorneys, and his firm has started @sociallawyers to help educate other lawyers as to what his firm thinks works in social media. To get buy-in from the attorneys within his own firm, they write an internal document called "Look Who's Famous Now," which shows the exposure that lawyers are garnering online. He said, "We think clients want firms who understand social media."

Heather talked about her firm's experience with their blog, saying that they want to seed the conversation that they want to have out there, to help them to be perceived as experts. She added that once you write on something three times, you're generally considered an expert. Jayne agreed and cautioned that knowing your objectives are important in developing any strategy - don't just grasp a tool without knowing why you're doing it. She added that you can't just write a blog and think people are going to read it. I commented on Twitter that I thought there was some value in experimentation, and I do, but it's important for marketers to keep in mind that whatever you say online lives there forever, so, as with your own personal social media efforts, you should still promote yourself professionally even while learning about the tools. Adrian Lurssen added some examples of strategic objectives via Twitter, which included revenue, education, and branding. From the podium, Heather included getting the firm name out there for Google searches and expanding into key areas. She said "a blog is a living tool," and talked about linking posts to attorney bios on the firm's website, which shows where interest and exposure is (someone asked how to link the bios, and Heather is currently doing this manually, but it is also feasible to use an RSS feed). This also helps with search engine optimization (SEO). She told the audience not to discourage any lawyers from blogging, but to encourage others to write more.

Russell said that their online social media plan includes a networking component on LinkedIn and Martindale Hubbell, as well as blogging and Tweeting. They plan to add Facebook into the mix this year, along with YouTube. He said that it's all about teaching our attorneys how to be in the top three results through SEO and keywords. Someone in the audience asked whether his firm purchases keywords, and Russell said that they do it organically by looking for niches where there isn't competition. Gina Rubel added via Twitter that "YouTube is a fabulous SEO tool when used right and [you] can't forget that it's owned by Google."

One of the biggest takeaways from the session was when Jayne said "Your online footprint is your new bio." She polled the room to find out how many people had Googled themselves, and everyone raised their hands. Gina added on Twitter that when you ask lawyers the same question, less than 10% have. Jayne then asked how many people can say they account for 9 out of the 10 results of the first three search pages. If you don't, or don't like what your Google search is turning up, you can change this by "owning" name through social media participation.

Having and correctly engaging through a blog is one way to increase your ownership of your name's search results. The panel discussed branding of blogs, and whether they should be the same as the firm's website, or separate. Heather said that her firm's blogs all look similar, but with different colors, to reinforce the firm's visual identity. She talked about how the hits to her blog come from different sources and encouraged expanding your exposure by repurposing your content and publishing and publicizing it everywhere. Laura tweeted that although her firm's blog is completely separate from the blog's website, it's the number one referrer to the site. Jayne asked Heather whether Twitter drives traffic to her blogs, and she agreed wholeheartedly. Jayne also mentioned Lance Godard and his 22 Tweets interviews on Twitter as a way to highlight lawyers and their social media profiles. The panel agreed that when a firm's attorneys get the spark of interest in blogging, it's important to move fast and use their energy. Additionally, don't let the blog "go" - keep updating it to continue interest. Attorney Donna Seyle talks about blogging as an attorney and "How to Find Time for Social Media Engagement and Be a Lawyer Too" in her latest post, which includes some great suggestions.

The panel recommended ensuring that your identity and/or your firm's identity is consistent through all social media channels, by using the same important keywords in all of your profiles. Because social media is such a personal and individual thing, the panelists added that although they assist their lawyers with finding topics to blog about as Russell mentioned earlier and Heather indicated, it's not a marketer's job to write their lawyers' blogs. Heather said that she will go through her RSS reader and send interesting topics to relelvant groups within the firm so that they can blog on it.

Jayne asked the panel how they have handled disclaimers, and Russell said they've embedded behavior metrics in their social media policy. He also suggested that firms follow and monitor their attorneys' social media activity. In addition to being an opportunity to see where you can assist them in adjusting their social media efforts, it's also a great way to keep involved in what's on their radar screen and what interests them. Jayne asked the attendees how many firms have added personnel for social media marketing. Very few people raised their hands, and Sonny Cohen mused on Twitter that "that will change (when they get serious)." In the meantime, it shows that marketing professionals are handling the burden of learning and adapting social media to their firm's strategies. The panel suggested that in addition to monitoring your attorneys, it's important to pay attention to what your audience wants to read on your blog - you can do this by looking at your analytics and then providing content based on their wants.

Those attending agreed that Heather, Jayne and Russell are talking about these tools and how to use them through their blogs and Twitter streams, so it's helpful to follow them and learn from them!

LMA 2010 - Leveraging Social Networking - Real World Applications of Web 2.0 That Have Led to New Business

2010-03-18T13:55:00.000-04:00

One of the most well-attended panels of the conference was "Leveraging Social Networking - Real World Applications of Web 2.0 That Have Led to New Business." On the panel were John M. Byrne, Director of Communications at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and John J. Buchanan, Chief Marketing Officer at ILN member firm Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin. The panel was moderated by Darryl Cross, Vice President of Client Profitability at LexisNexis.

Though the irony of attending a panel on social media at a conference without any wifi for the attendees was not lost on those there, we made do Tweeting from mobile devices and using internet cards on laptops. The panel started by saying that social media is a way to collaborate, and firms should do it to serve their clients and get closer to them. Cross gave some statistics that lend credence to the idea that social media is a "trend" that is not going away: there are currently 400 million people on Facebook, 60 million on LinkedIn, and 50 millions Tweets per day. 91% of the users of social media connect through their mobile devices. Though many lawyers are reticent to join social networks for privacy concerns, Cross pointed out that there is Sermo, an online community of 130,000 physicians who share and deal with highly sensitive medical information thorugh social media. The message was that if doctors can do this, surely lawyers can figure out how to engage with social media. Cross also mentioned Martindale-Hubbell Connected, which is an online network for legal professionals (If you'd like to connect with me there, you can do so here).

There are many reasons for lawyers to get more involved with social media, not the least of which is that corporate counsel surveys show that in-house counsel clearly see the benefits of online networking, and join legal networks on social media to get information that they can't get elsewhere. Kate Haueisen wondered in a Tweet "how to introduce the soc[ial] media concept to lawyers who pick it apart for liability issues," and since it seems her questioned wasn't addressed too comprehensively (due to the difficulty of constantly Tweeting and listening!), I'd be interested to hear some answers from those more involved in social media.

Another important message that came out of the panel was that you cannot be a proxy for someone else's relationship - the lawyers have to do it themselves.

Next, the panel talked about the ways that legal marketers can use social media in their professions. Buchanan cautioned that these are just tools, not a silver bullet, so it's critical to have the basics already firmly in place and working well. He added that firms can't expect 100% adoption of these tools because different people like different tools. Using Howard Rice as an example, he said that the firm encourages the use of LinkedIn, but still only 75-80% use it. However, that being said, they're asking all new attorneys at the firm to join LinkedIn and expect 100% participation within a year. Howard Rice also encourages their attorneys to blog and gives them the flexibility to write and use these media. Additionally, the firm has a Twitter page that they use as a news aggregator. The firm has a social media policy in place, a LinkedIn group for alumni, and is planning to redesign their website in the next 3-4 months and develop a more robust Twitter page. The panel recommended that to get more attorneys using social media at the firm, it's important to get a few lawyers to become champions, find some successes and then use those to encourage additional participation. Jon Holden commented via Twitter that his firm has focused on transitioning new associates to LinkedIn and Twitter, and has seen participation in LinkedIn go from 18 to over 200 in a month.

Cross commented that the "last mile of business development is social networking" and then passed the floor over to John Byrne. He said that his job is to work on the firm's visibility, and his lawyers want to know "why social media?" In his opinion, the vast majority of the AMLaw 100 isn't doing anything with social media and said that its success depends on how much time and money you want to devote to it. He sees social media as another pipeline for the firm to deliver its brand and gain visibility, and said you have to use the right tool for the right job, so he cautioned against "shiny new toy" syndrome. For Drinker Biddle, Byrne focuses on fan pages, alumni presence, recruiting and events to enhance their visibility through social media.

He then talked a little bit about his experience with legal marketers learning about these new tools and commented that because marketers need to become experts in these new areas in addition to their current responsibilities, it's stressful to be doing more with less. He mentioned that he'd even seen a Tweet saying "I'm tired of Twitter." But marketers need to understand that these are tools that everyone can use, and firms are looking to their marketing departments to help them understand social media. As Nancy Myrland commented via Twitter "It's our job...it's marketing." Buchanan agreed that his firm would likely be hiring someone with social media experience soon, and said that this person would need to have their feet both in IT and social media. This new media is another extension of the synergy that's necessary between marketing and information technology at firms, and it's valuable for those who understand social media to go into firms and help them understand how to overlay this with their current activity. The person who can implement social media technically and strategically will become very important in larger law firms.

The panel suggested that firms get their feet wet in social media with a listening policy first - read others' blogs and comment on them. But they, and those Tweeting in the room, cautioned that it's important to be active, not passive with social media. Byrne commented that because there's a "firehose" of new social media tools that keep coming out, it's important to figure out how to use them and which ones work best for your firm. He admitted that he doesn't fully understand social media, and while this concerned a number of attendees, I would agree that it's true that because the tools are so new, we're all still social media students, not experts. And because the tools are so new, the advantage is that you can get away with playing around first with them.

Byrne commented that 31 of AmLaw 100 firms have Facebook fan pages of some type, but only 13 are updating them. Cooley is the AmLaw 100 "rockstar" on Facebook with 426 fans (at the time of the presentation, they currently have 465). However, Nancy later brought up an important point - social media is about engaging, not followers or fans. So a better evaluation would be to look at how many of those firms are engaging with their fans, not just using their pages as a one-way news distribution channel. 426 fans doesn't mean much if none of them are engaging with the firm, particularly if another firm has only 5 fans, but regularly communicates with them and can leverage those relationships. Sonny Cohen reiterated this sentiment via Tweet, saying "Fans is not a valid metric of success. Interactions is a metric of success." Melanie Green from another session reminded the group not to limit their social media efforts to clients either, saying "Don't forget influencers, amplifiers and thought leaders in your industry. " Gayatri Bhalla also commented via Tweet that your brand is a big part of social media as well, and that it can be important to speak in your brand voice. This tied into the panel's next comments on developing a social media policy. Byrne said that his firm's Tech Committee is working on it, and adapting it from their policy on how to talk to the press. Byrne offered to post a copy of the firm's social media policy on his blog, at http://thebyrneblog.com/.

Though the social media policy discussion continued, Byrne made a controversial comment at this point that "no one is yet listening on Twitter and Facebook when it comes to lawyers' use of social media." Those Tweeting in the room were quick to disagree, with Kevin O'Keefe of LexBlog saying that his statement was "very uninformed," and Adrian Lurssen of JDSupra saying that he disagreed, "our numbers daily show that they are." Melanie added "I venture the MAJORITY of people on social media networks are JUST listening!" Even Buchanan said that his firm is seeing business as a result of their social media efforts. So although some people may be wondering "who's listening?" the key is engaging - for those bloggers, tweeters, LinkedIn and Facebook users who are looking to get the most out of social media, it's important to start by listening and engaging with those influencers, clients and contacts that you want to connect with. Begin to build relationships with them, and in turn, they'll be listening and engaging with you on your own blog, tweetstream, Facebook page, and LinkedIn group. Like any other business development efforts, you get out of it what you put into it.

Byrne continued to talk about his experience with his firm's social media policy and commented that the first reaction to employee's ability to use social media at Drinker Biddle was to "turn it off," which seems common to many firms. However, it's more sensible to address social media and its potential issues at the firm than to attempt to ban it altogether. Byrne said that if employees are using Facebook or other social media tools too much, this is a human resources disciplinary issue, and not a social media issue. The firm's social media policy is "to be nice to each other, and not to be stupid." Social media policies are like casual Friday policies in law firms, and Byrne said that insurance providers are driving some of these policies because of the liability risks. Nancy suggested that legal marketers in need of a sample social media policy go to Doug Cornelius' blog, where he has aggregated many SM policies. Sonny asked Bob Ambrogi to comment via Tweet on whether there has every been a disciplinary action against an attorney for answering questions online and I think there are a number of legal marketers who would be interested in hearing his response as well. Jon then asked via Tweet how firms are measuring ROI for their social media, and it would be great to have some comments from those well-versed in social media at their firms as well.

As with all business development efforts, the panel emphasized that social media should be driven by clients. They commented that more than 50% of Facebook's US members are 35 or older, and used that statistic to say that social media can be understood by Boomers as well as Millenials. Byrne pointed out that someone who went to Harvard should be able to understand Facebook, and added "If my 88-year-old grandpa can be on Facebook, your lawyers can learn to do it." In terms of using social media in a smart way, the panel cautioned that users should not put anything in writing unless they want to see it on the front page of Above the Law. Even with privacy controls, it's wise to consider anything you put online as in the public domain. With lawyers becoming journalists through their blogs, there is also a need to proactively train them on how to talk to the media. Because of the immediate nature of blogging, the time period for dealing with the media has changed, but not the nature of the interaction.

Cross then posed the question of where do we start with social media. Via Tweet, Sonny answered "where you have content and an interested client base." Buchanan said that he had really encouraged his firm's lawyers to engage with CRM early on, which made it easier for them to get their heads around the technology side of social media. The panel encouraged firms to be strategic about which lawyers they're engaging. They also emphasized that it's essential to have the mananagement committee behind any new media initiatives and hopefully have them as evangelists of the tools. The panel finished with a top ten list that firms can do:

1) Stay connected with top clients to retain present business. Buchanan suggested using LinkedIn, while Nancy encouraged everyone via Tweet to use all of the tools for this.

2) Form groups, which can be private/confidential, on LinkedIn and Facebook. This can take the shape of a client team infrastructure and support.

3) Create and maintain and alumni network, which is often done through Facebook, but LinkedIn can be useful for this as well. Get other departments involved in this.

4) Use social media to connect with your existing networks - Buchanan mentioned Howard Rice's membership in the ILN, which has a LinkedIn group for all of its current member firm attorneys.

5) Use these tools to cross-sell specific practice groups - form groups incorporating more than one practice area.

6) Maintain deal/matter contact groups.

7) Use social media to maintain networks post-events, particularly your own events - ask their opinion, converse, etc.

8) Leverage law firm affiliate networks, like the ILN.

9) Validate and verify laterals/mergers when recruiting.

10) Screen prospects to find an "in" to a company/client.

Nicole Kramer added another tip through Twitter, suggesting that speakers "Monitor Twitter during your panel (ahem) to see what your audience wants covered." Adrian also commented that there was "a question not asked: are my clients on Facebook? Answer: absolutely. Conversation is one way to connect. Content another." The panel finished up by saying that by 2015, they see social media having more integration and better tracking. Firms will be creating more mobile applications in coming years, and social media will only continue to grow.

LMA 2010 - Examining the Current Use of Alternative Fee Arrangements

2010-03-17T15:59:00.000-04:00

My second session on Thursday, March 11, 2010 was "Examining the Current Use of Alternative Fee Arrangements," with presenters Lindley J. Brenza, a partner at Barlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP and Reed S. Oslan, P.C., a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and moderator Gabriel Miller, general counsel at Sokolove Law. Because this is a hot topic in the legal industry, the session was well-attended and spawned some interesting conversation.

Oslan started by saying that Kirkland & Ellis have been doing a lot of alternative billing, and believe there will be even more in the future. Brenza agreed, saying that at his firm, they do nothing by the hour anymore for new matters. To clarify for everyone, they put up a graphic of the four types of legal fees - hourly, fixed, contingent and hybrid. Brenza said that his firm doesn't do hybrid billing arrangements, because they are too problematic. Interestingly, he added that the ABA considers non-hourly billing more ethically sound and client-focused than hourly billing. The panel agreed that because of financial constraints in this economy, clients are willing to take more risks with their lawyers on how fees are structured - this was borne out in the general counsel panel the following day by clients who admitted to being reticent to use alternative fee arrangements, but felt pressured to find the most economically efficient way to handle legal work.

One of the panelists pointed out that despite the industry's seeming fear of moving away from the billable hour, hourly billing rates have only been around for the last sixty years. When they took an informal poll of the room, most of those present were from firms doing some type of non-hourly billing. Oslan said that it has taken his firm some time to get comfortable with the idea of alternative fees, and observed that clients aren't always ready to take that route. Brenza agreed and said that although his firm does work entirely on an alternative fee basis, clients come to them for their skill, and not their fee schemes, and it often takes some time for them to become comfortable with it. But at heart, the panel said that basically, clients want less expense and more certainty. Law firms can't say that their work is too unique for a budget - it may be a leap of faith to handle work on an alternative fee basis, but other vendors are already doing it.

That being said, the panel agreed that the discussion over alternative fees is actually a lot bigger than the demand for them. There are a lot of downsides to discounts, which the attorneys don't always consider as part of alternative billing. Oslan pointed out that most firms are pyramid-shaped, with the majority of the lawyers being associates, and billable hours are rewarded. These types of firms can't easily do alternative fees. Firms built for non-hourly billing are structured differently - more diamond shaped with the greatest number of attorneys being experienced partners. To be able to do alternative billing at a firm shaped like this, the partners doing it must be supported by the firm.

The key takeaway from this presentation was that although the demand for alternative billing arrangements isn't as high as it's hyped to be, clients are looking for less expense and more certainty in their billing and firms will have to be able to adapt to best service their clients.

LMA 2010 - Recovery: Refocusing the Inside Counsel/Outside Counsel Partnership to Maximize Profitability

2010-03-17T15:17:00.000-04:00

For the first session of the day, I was in Track One - the Business of Law: Recovery: Refocusing the Inside Counsel/Outside Counsel Partnership to Maximize Profitability. Presenting was Harris E. Berenson, Esq., the Assistant Vice President/Chief Counsel for Liberty Mutual and Senior Counsel for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. His presentation focused on the idea that inside and outside counsel have a partnership, and he started by saying that a partnership, at its core, is nothing more than a relationship. However, although this is a simple concept, the challenge comes when trying to execute it. Relationships, both personal and professional, must be built on trust, support, consideration, respect, caring and the mutuality of responsibility. Inside counsel are looking for a long-term partnership - similar to what people are looking for in a relationship as they get older. They don't want someone who just wants to be "on the list;" they want a true business partner who knows their business and understands industry issues. Because of this, they'll often go with their gut instinct and recommendations from trusted friends and colleagues. Berenson said when looking for outside counsel, he checks with his counterparts, industry peers, and internal teams - when later asked, he emphasized that he does not look at directories and rankings lists for outside counsel and said "they don't matter."

Once the decision is made to work together though, how do both sides get the most out of the relationship? Berenson said there needs to be a "mutuality of expectations." As an example, he said that if the client needs the firm to be available 24/7, the firm needs to be able to articulate how they will do that, not just that they can. He said there must be "mutual hand-holding," similar to being in a romantic relationship, but he clarified that by "hand-holding," he didn't mean constantly taking people to lunch or asking for their business, but showing the client that you're a valuable business partner. He also said that lawyers should show their clients that they can do what they said they could do, to suit up and show up, and to keep their promises. Berenson said that each side comes with their own baggage, and it's up to each side to figure out what that is, and how they can learn from each other.

A key takeaway that Berenson emphasized is something that I've heard from inside counsel over and over again: "I hire lawyers; I don't hire law firms." Because of this, he recommended that firms market the people, because that's who builds the relationships. Along these lines, he cautioned that firms should think about who they're putting forth, because that's who inside counsel look to as the face of the firm. What "wows" them is an understanding of the business - this is not limited to what the client says to his lawyer, but what his lawyer has proactively researched about his business. Berenson took it one step further, adding that outside counsel not only need to know their own clients, but also need to know their client's clients, and show a willingness to partner. Inside counsel want a commitment from their lawyers and for them to be a counselor, not a lawyer. Berenson said that even in this economy, if a firm is giving him service, value, and a good relationship, he doesn't mind paying top dollar.

He talked a little bit more about his expectations for outside counsel, saying that his main concern is whether an attorney can get the job done, not whether he likes them. He advised that lawyers should be accessible, respond promptly, learn the business, never say no, and listen to feedback - in Berenson's opinion, outside counsel are just like any other vendor: if he doesn't like you, he'll find someone else. Because of that, he expects nothing short of excellence from his attorneys. Like with every relationships, the inside-outside counsel relationship takes work on both sides and doesn't end when you're on the list. The overwhelming theme I got from Berenson's talk is this: it is even more essential in this economy for outside counsel to sit up and take notice that you need to work at your client relationships or be replaced.

Berenson then took some questions from the audience. Someone asked how many firms come to him with client satisfaction surveys, and he admitted that it's not as many as he would like. He thinks that surveys show an interest on the part of the firm in how they're doing and he appreciates that. There was a final question about what challenges he faces in today's economy, and Berenson said that the cost of legal services is a big challenge, so many of the attorneys he works with are doing more work in-house than before.

MoFo Law Firm Launches iPhone App - Mistake?

2010-03-17T10:32:00.000-04:00

This morning, I was reading about Morrison & Foester's launch of their free iPhone app, the first to be developed by a corporate law firm. Reviews on this article in The Lawyer seem to be mixed - some think it was an expensive mistake, while others commented that they would be interested in it. The app, which will have four function areas, will allow users to search MoFo attorney bios, read firm news, find information on the firm's offices and nearby attractions, and even includes a maze game.

What are your thoughts on this? My initial question was whether they'd interviewed their clients to find out what would be of use to them in an application. The article says that the app came about after "noticing that the lawyers at the firm used their phones and handheld devices as 'portable offices.'" but doesn't make mention of finding out why their clients would want to use it. I can see how it would be useful for clients to be able to search attorney bios on the go and perhaps easily locate the firm's address and contact information, but how can the firm make their app relevant to their clients on a longterm basis?

Are any of your firms working on deploying iPhone applications? Do you think they have any value for clients aside from making a firm appear cutting edge?

ILN-terviews: Ioana Racoti, Zamfirescu Racoti Predoiu

2010-03-17T10:00:00.001-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Ioana Racoti of Zamfirescu Racoti Predoiu in Romania.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
I am a business lawyer assisting a broad spectrum of clients, particularly in the corporate and financial sectors, in M&A, Banking & Finance, Energy, and Capital Markets matters.

Who would be your typical client?
Local companies and multinationals with business interests and business activities in Romania, no matter the industry area they focus on. We offer a full business law service and this enables us to support our clients in all areas of operation.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
ZRP always meets and exceeds a client's expectations, by delivering flawless and outstanding legal services. We are always one move ahead and know how to play the winning game.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
Every project has its own particularities and characteristics, involves and develops different skills. Starting with approach, vision, innovation, legal work, team structure, capabilities, client relationship, set objectives all the way to how these objectives are achieved, make a project unique and challenging.

Still, there is one project I would like to share with you: the IPO listing on the London Stock Exchange of one of our clients - it was the first project of its kind on the Romanian market, involving a multidisciplinary team of over 10 lawyers. We worked with prestigious law firms and financial companies, and it was a great opportunity to share experience and knowledge.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
The set up of my law firm in 1996, at the age of 26, in partnership with my colleague Catalin Predoiu, at present Minister of Justice in Romania.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
Travelling around the world. And wandering through the streets of New York at least once a year.

What would surprise people most about you?
I usually deliver bluntly my ideas and opinions, my likes and dislikes. This could sometimes take other people by surprise.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
The Annual 2007 ILN Conference in New York, where I had the chance to meet extraordinary people and outstanding professionals.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
I would have probably been a biochemist.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Definitely Uma Thurman.

How would you like to be remembered?
Professionally, as an outstanding lawyer. Personally, as a reliable friend and travel companion.

LMA 2010 - Keynote Event - Insights Into the Future

2010-03-16T16:52:00.000-04:00

During the first morning session of the conference, the attendees were treated to a presentation by Andrew Zolli, founder of Z+ Partners, curator of PopTech, and exploration fellow at National Geographic. His Z+ Partners bio says:

"Andrew Zolli is an expert in global foresight and innovation, studying the complex trends at the intersection of technology, sustainability and global society that are shaping our future. His firm, Z + Partners, helps senior leaders at some of the world's preeminent companies, institutions and governments see, understand and respond to complex change. Andrew is alsothe Curator of Pop!Tech, the renowned thought leadership forum and social innovation network. Andrew serves as a Fellow of the National Geographic Society, where he is leading development of a global initiative to envision new scenarios for a sustainable world in 2030 and beyond. He was also recently named the first Business and Society Fellow of the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship."

In a presentation that was "engaging, clever [and] funny," according to Lance Godard, Zolli focused on future trends affecting us both personally and professionally. Using demographics as evidence, he showed the audience that by 2025, there will be more elderly people and children at the same time than ever before in history. Additionally, the "Boomers" will be in the workforce even longer, which will cause "intergenerational chafing" between them and Generation X. Those who were born after 1970 are likely to take care of their mothers longer than their mothers took care of them. We are also seeing a shift in education, with statistics showing that the most educated man in the United States is 56, while the most educated woman is 28. These ambitious women are having a hard time finding ambitious men, and there are more single women buying homes.

This personal side of demographics is important to marketing because knowing your audience is key - their culture, ethnicity, and generation matter. Zolli pointed out that as legal marketers, we are selling risk insurance and its our job to put a face on that risk that motivates clients to buy. He said that we're living in a "sea of sameness" in terms of companies and what they offer and how they offer it. This is the "Tyranny of Choice" - as an example, Zolli said that we can only pay attention to 160 choices in the grocery store and everything else is just noise. As you add more choices, there is a certain point at which satisfaction does not continue to increase. Zolli added that because of this, it's possible that you can get exactly what you want, and hate the people who gave it to you. So it's equally important to look at what consumers say no to, not just what they say yes to.

Obviously from what Zolli said, the key is differentiation, as it has always been - how do we keep our companies and firms from being just "noise" to potential clients? And how can we tap into our customers to find out who they are and what they really want? One tool is social media, but Zolli said that although we have the ability to go after the right people through digital tools, we're getting it wrong because we're "change blind." We don't understand who the critical people are that we need to talk to, and though social media is "out of the lab," very few people understand networks. Zolli used a graph to illustrate a network and asked the audience who they would choose in the network to deliver a message to everyone if they could only talk to one person (this graph is an approximation, not an exact copy of the graph that Zolli used):

Almost the entire audience chose #4, the person in the middle of the circle who appears to be the most connected, but this wouldn't be the most effective. It turns out that it would be person 9, who would only have to tell person 3, 4, and 8 to spread the message to everyone quickly and efficiently. Understanding your network is one piece of how to effectively communicate your message.

In addition to knowing how your network works, experience is important. Zolli used the example of flying Jet Blue versus United Airlines. Jet Blue has created an enjoyable customer experience, with big leather seats for everyone and slightly more leg room. This has made flying their airline so appealing that even after they had an issue with their landing gear on a flight, resulting in the landing gear catching fire during the emergency landing, people would still rather fly Jet Blue than coach on United, with its limited room and uncomfortable seating. He left us with the idea that experience, behavior and communications are equally affecting companies' brands today, whereas in the past, one or two of those factors would have greater importance than the others.

After Zolli's presentation, he was joined by a panel of law firm experts to give their thoughts on the future. It included Bruce McLean, the Chairman of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Bruce James, CEO/Managing Partner of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Katherine D'Urso, Chief Marketing Officer for King & Spaulding, and Peter Zeughauser, Chairman of the Zeughauser Group, and moderated by Ashby Jones, the Legal Editor for the Wall Street Journal. The panel started with discussing differentiation, saying that 15 years ago, marketing a firm as "full service" was the strategy to use. Today, however, there is a greater focus on marketing core practices instead, though it's a fine line, because firms still want their clients to know that they are full service. The panel emphasized the importance of firms talking to their clients to ask them why they see their relationship with the firm as special, and why they hire one firm over others. They agreed that having the skills to handle the work is a requirement, but doesn't differentiate a firm - how a firm handles the relationship is what differentiates them. Again, it's all about relationships.

The panelists also agreed on the notion of the "customer experience" for clients, saying that lawyers haven't been able to align what they do with what the firm brand says its customer experience is. Part of this is because lawyers value independence and trust their own experience over conforming to a firm brand. Bruce McClean commented that "there is a DNA defect in lawyers to get them marching in the same direction" while another panelist said that it is hard enough to get lawyers to agree on what day it is, let alone a brand strategy. Law firms are facing a T-shaped branding challenge, having to market vertical industries as well as general broadness. The panel was asked if they thought the recession had made this harder or forced marketers to reinvent the way they market and think about marketing. They agreed that it had, in a few key ways. First, they said they believe that firms will only be able to grow by taking market share away from their competitors. One of the ways that they can accomplish this is to use social media, which is a more economic way to get specific in your marketing. Firms need to adopt low-cost, high value communications vehicles and can change the industry by understanding how content flows today. Firms should build competency in these new tools now so that they don't lose the "first mover" advantage of using them - Nancy Myrland addresses this more fully in her post here. The panel felt that there are social media "stars" who are "bubbling up" in every industry, and that law firms should follow suit (John Byrne presents some interesting thoughts on why law firms might be slow to adopt these new tools in his post here). The panel cautioned that those who don't understand Twitter and Facebook now need to know that in the future, decision makers will rely more on social media and Peter Zeughauser commented that if you don't position yourself, the market will position you. Like any other tool, it's necessary to learn about social media and how it might apply to the firm's strategy or risk missing out on opportunities that are available. For smaller firms, social media can help to level the playing field with larger firms because it is so inexpensive.

Another way to compete is to understand that opportunities for growth are not in the United States and in Europe, but in emerging markets. Firms need to be more multicultural, though the panel cautioned that this didn't mean necessarily opening up an office in Shanghai. It's more that the client face will change, and firms should be more open to opportunities coming in from these new markets. The panel also pointed out that smaller firms can expand by industry domestically, because they are more nimble and able to re-orient practices to meet the changing needs of their clients.

Two final important thoughts from the panel included advising firms to talk to their clients - to ask how firms can help clients solve their problems and not how clients can help firms; and that consistent, customized and creative experiences for the client will help to distinguish the law firm brand, not just marketing communications.

It's About Relationships

2010-03-15T15:23:00.000-04:00

I just got back from the Legal Marketing Association's Annual Conference and I'm still trying to process the whirlwind of sessions and networking opportunities that I was able to be a part of. I'll post a series of re-caps from the individual sessions over the next few days, but I wanted to start with my feelings about the conference as a whole. For me, the main theme of this conference was relationships. Perhaps I'm biased to look for that as a theme, since that's an essential part of our ILN conferences, but I was struck by how important it was during LMA10.

One of the things that's been drilled into me during client panels since I joined the ILN five and a half years ago is that "clients hire lawyers, not law firms," essentially saying that it's all about relationships. This was backed up once again by the client panel on Friday morning when the panelists talked about how important chemistry is when choosing a lawyer to hire. But this principle doesn't just apply to law firms - everyone makes purchasing decisions based on chemistry. For example, if I'm looking for a new web designer for our group's website, I'm going to want to work with someone I trust, someone who understands my personality and how I work, as well as what I want to communicate through the site. If I'm interviewing people for that work, I'm already going to weed out anyone I think doesn't have the appropriate skills, so it's assumed that the finalists will all be talented. So it comes down to chemistry - who can I work with? That applies both in my personal and my professional life and I've talked to others who feel the same, so when working with my own clients, I always try to think about how I would want to be approached.

But why wait until you need to hire someone to network and form relationships with people in your own industry? I have gained and continue to gain so much from the relationships I have formed with other talented, passionate people in the legal marketing industry and last week's conference showed me that very clearly. Social media also played a large role in enhancing my experience, and was best explained by Heather Milligan over on her blog. By connecting with people through social media like Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook and then taking those relationships offline by meeting my contacts in person, I am able to build friendships that inspire me professionally, support me personally, and give me a collective expertise to draw on among people I already trust.

I've come away with a lot of good ideas and excitement about future projects thanks to the LMA conference and the people I interacted with there. But overwhelmingly for me, my greatest takeaway was about the relationships - whether you're connecting online through social media, in person at a conference or cocktail party, or over the phone, it's all about engaging people and finding that right chemistry. Not only can it lead to business (and it doesn't have to), but it enhances my life in many other intangible ways. Nancy Myrland's video about connecting with legal marketing Twitter contacts does a great job of summing this up.

I'll also mention that relationship-building doesn't end when you get back on the plane to come home - you've got to continue to connect and follow up with the new contacts that you've made. Heather talked about that today and has some great tips for what to do when you return from a conference.

**(Photo from Nancy Myrland)

ILN-terviews: Andrey Zelenin, Lidings Law Firm

2010-03-10T10:00:00.004-05:00

LMA Annual Conferences - Sessions I'll Be At

2010-03-05T13:54:00.000-05:00

As I prepare for next week's Legal Marketing Association Annual Conference, I'm revisiting the list of sessions I'll be at and tweeting from. Heather Milligan over at The Legal Watercooler will be posting a list of which attendees will be tweeting from which sessions if you'd like to follow a certain "tweep" (as people who tweet are referred to) or session. I'll be attending the following sessions (all times are local to Denver, Colorado) and you can follow me on twitter at http://twitter.com/lindsaygriffith:

Thursday, March 11, 2010
9:00 - 10:30am: Keynote Event
11:15am - 12:45pm: a) Recovery: Refocusing the Inside Counsel/Outside Counsel Partnership to Maximize Profitability and b) Examing the Current Use of Alternative Fee Arrangements
2:30 - 3:30pm: Leveraging Social Networking - Real World Applications of Web 2.0 That Have Led to New Business
4:00 - 5:30pm: Social Media Strategies for Small to Mid-Sized Law Firms

Friday, March 12, 2010
9:00 - 10:00am: Creating and Implementing a Sales and Business Development Culture in Your Firm
11:30am - 1:00pm a) Managing Your Professional Reputation and b) The Digial Firm 2015

I'll also be attending the general session on Friday, "What We Love Most About Our Lawyers - A Client Panel" and may tweet from there as well. In addition, I'll follow up my tweets with posts about the sessions, so if you prefer not to jump into the twitter stream, you can see the re-caps here.

ILN-terviews: Toomas Taube, Tark & Co.

2010-03-03T10:15:00.004-05:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Toomas Taube of Tark & Co. in Estonia.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
As the head of the corporate & commercial practice group at Tark & Co, my work involves a broad range of corporate and commercial matters. I am also active in litigation.

Who would be your typical client?
Most of my clients are companies and a large part of them are multinational corporations that plan to have, or already have, a subsidiary or investments in Estonia. I have assisted many foreign clients from the very beginning of their business in Estonia, and in many cases, the relationships have developed into a long-term, full range cooperation.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That I really value my clients, and I want to be of value to them. If a client is happy, I am happy.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
There have been many challenging cases during my practice. One of them was a major and complex litigation matter that has lasted for six years, and the case has been heard and reviewed in different court instances a total of nine times. I expect that this "court marathon" is close to its end soon, and the result is so far, and expected to remain, positive for my client.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
Positive results make me feel good and proud of myself.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
Live my private life, which includes some sports, some shorter and longer trips, some friends, some books, one girlfriend, many thoughts, lots of feelings...

What would surprise people most about you?
Other people should be the ones to say that.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
All of the ILN events that I have participated in have been memorable for me - well-organized, nice places, and friendly people. Maybe one of the more memorable ILN experiences was my first ILN meeting (in Stockholm in 2001). I was a young lawyer and did not know any of the other participants, but I was impressed at the close friendships most participants had with each other. Such friendships are one of the real values of the ILN network.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
I have never considered an alternative career. Probably a good sign concerning my almost 15-year career as a lawyer.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
I think my life is yet too short to make a movie of it. Let's wait at least some 25 years, then it would be easier to pick the right characters and actors to play me. Meanwhile, I will try to live so that it would be a really interesting and exciting role for that actor!

How would you like to be remembered?
As a very good friend to all my close ones, and as a good person to all who know me.

ILN-terviews: Dato'Anad Krishnan, Anad & Noraini

2010-02-24T10:40:00.001-05:00

ILN-terviews: Can Natan, Ozcan & Natan

2010-02-17T10:00:00.000-05:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Can Natan of Ozcan & Natan in Istanbul, Turkey.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Mainly working on corporate commercial matters.

Who would be your typical client?
Medium-sized and large foreign invested corporations.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That we are a team of legal consultants with a strong, solid background to "make things happen."

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
I think it's impossible to pick one. Each case/transaction is more challenging than the previous one.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
When we set up Ozcan & Natan Law Firm with my partner.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
I enjoy traveling, reading, watching any kind of sports, playing football and going to the movies.

What would surprise people most about you?
I guess nothing!

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
My first ILN meeting in Paris that I attended as a guest. I was amazed by the warm welcome of the members and by the friendly atmosphere of the meeting.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
I'd loved to be a football manager.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
I think it's too early to think about that.

How would you like to be remembered?
As a good lawyer.

LMA Attendees

2010-02-11T11:36:00.039-05:00

It's that time of year again - the LMA Annual Conference rolls around in just a few short weeks! It's a great opportunity to make new friends and renew relationships, so I thought I'd keep a list of those attending as I'm advised, as well as their Twitter names (so anyone interested in the conference who can't attend can follow along). Also, don't forget to follow #LMA2010 and #LMA10. Heather Milligan will be posting information about a tweetup only on Twitter:

Lindsay Griffiths (@lindsaygriffith)
Nancy Myrland (@nancymyrland)
Heather Milligan (@heathermilligan)
Nat Slavin (@natslavin)
Gail Lamarche (@gaillamarche)
Lance Godard (@lancegodard)
Jennifer Schaller (@natlawreview)
Nathan Darling (@nathandarling)
Megan McKeon (@meganmckeon)
Leigh George (@leighgeorge)
Caroline Baynes (@senyab)
Andre Mazerolle (@redbeardandre)
Russell Lawson (@Russ23229)
Jayne Navarre (@jaynenavarre)
Larry Bodine (@larrybodine)
Gina Rubel (@ginarubel)
John Byrne (@johnmbyrne)
Jeff Yerkey (@JeffBob)
Rebecca Wissler (@rebeccawissler)
Felice Wagner (@felicewagner)
Stephanie Thum (@stephaniethum)
Jennifer Johnson (@jjohnsonnyc)
Jonathan Groner (@jgronerpr)
Brian Pitts (@chicagoprpro)
Lydia Bednerik (@lydiabednerik)
Jill Clark Rako (@aceismyname)
Jon Holden (@holdencalgary)
Sally Schmidt (@sallyschmidt)
Ritchenya Dodd
Josephine Pope (@popejosephine)
Sonny Cohen (@SonnyCohen)
Marc Hollander (@marcthollander)
Nancy Slome (@nancyslome)
Alli Gerkman (@gerkmana)
Lisa Simon (@legalmediagirl)
Adrian Lurssen (@jdtwitt, @jdsupra)
Bill Ferdinand (@zunpartners)
Meghan Freeman (@meghanefreeman)
Corey Garver (@coreygarver)
Betsi Roach (@betsiroach)
Melanie Green (@melaniegreen)
Denise Dewling (@ddewling)
Kate Scoptur (@katescoptur)
Mark Elliott (@elliottmarkc)
Kevin Houchin (@kevinhouchin)
Jamie B. Field (@jaimiefield) *Not attending, but would like to get to know LMA members better!
Susannah BG (@susannahBG)
Alin Wagner-Lahmy (@alinwagnerlahmy)
Craig Levinson (@craiglevinson)
Mike O'Horo (@salescoach)
Patrick DiDomenico (@lawyerkm)
Caitlin Fisher (@caitlinmfisher)
Lindsay Weber (@lindsayweb)
John Stanley (@johnlstanley)
Patrick Fuller (@pjfuller)
Steve Bell (@stevembell)
Tim Corcoran (@tcorcoran)
Paramjit Mahli (@scglprnetwork)
Jeff Roberts (@jeffreymroberts)
Laura Gutierrez (@duetsblog)
Chris Fritsch (@crmsuccess)
Kate Haueisen (@kateh32)
Rachael Loper (@rachaeldc)
Chris Whitmore (@chris_whitmore)
Jenn Bullett (@hubbardone)
Tamara Bigford (@bsocialllc)

I'll add other attendees and their Twitter names as I'm advised of them!

ILN-terviews: Anita Lovell, Nigel Harris & Partners

2010-02-10T10:00:00.000-05:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Anita Lovell of Nigel Harris & Partners in the Channel Islands.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
I'm a private client lawyer, in private practice, running a full service Family Office staffed by solicitors, accountants and investment advisers supporting members of a HNW family at a personal level and advising their international companies in complex, cross border transactions.

Who would be your typical client?
A high net worth family, probably based in Europe or the Middle East, but with business interests just about anywhere, looking to preserve and enhance the family wealth.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That my legal firm is embedded in the largest, independent trust company in the Channel Islands (Hawksford International) and is uniquely placed, outside the UK but within a well-regulated and sophisticated jurisdiction, to suit the demands of international families. And I bet not many would know that Jersey has signed an exchange of information agreement with the USA (and lots of other countries too) and is firmly on the OECD "white list."

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
My most challenging case was defending the legitimacy and governance of a very big family trust against a disappointed widow who claimed it was a "sham." We won the day, she settled and remained disappointed!

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
Representing all the English Solicitors practicing in Jersey as President of our Association.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
You need to ask a woman what she does with her time when she's not at work? Running my home and my family takes up most of it! But as I am trying to work part time now, I can indulge my love of travel and taste for good food and wine. They say the former broadens the mind, but, sadly, the latter does the same for the waistline.

What would surprise people most about you?
Probably that my office has a lovely garden with rabbits, squirrels and pheasants running around it.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
That's a tough question because all the ILN meetings have been memorable - Christopher and I have seen some amazing places and met some brilliant people. If I have to choose...it would be taking a (slightly shaky) helicopter ride around the Iguacu Falls in Brazil with Robert and Adrienne Bijloos. I still can't quite believe I did that.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
Well, a lady of leisure sounds good. Failing that, I would have liked to be a garden designer.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Someone terribly glamourous please! But with a talent for comedy too - a young Kathryn Hepburn would have been wonderful.

How would you like to be remembered?
Preferably as the world's oldest woman.

ILN Scam Alert

2010-02-05T11:18:00.001-05:00

Recently, the ILN was alerted that fraudulent lottery winnings letters and checks are being sent to individuals in the United States. Someone is using stationery with what appears to be the ILN letterhead to advise them that the ILN held a drawing in November for over $200,000, which they have won. The letter also includes a check that they are to deposit and information on who to call to verify the claim.

These letters have NOT been sent or authorized by the International Lawyers Network or its members and represent a fraudulent attempt to elicit funds from individuals. A message has been posted on our website warning anyone receiving a similar letter not to deposit the checks, provide any information, send any funds, or respond to the letters falsely claiming to have been sent by the International Lawyers Network. Further, individuals should not follow any instructions contained in these letters to "confirm" their winnings. This "Advance Fee" scheme is similar to email scams often referred to as "phishing" that seek personal data and financial account information that enables another party to access an individual's bank accounts or to engage in identity theft.

The ILN is working with the United States Post Office Fraud Division to investigate this matter and disrupt these scams. If anyone receives any letters such as the aforementioned, or experiences similar attempts by someoen portraying themselves as the International Lawyers Network, they are requested to notify the United States Post Office Fraud Division and/or their state or local police.

ILN-terviews: Sueli Avellar Fonseca, Nehring e Associados, Advocacia

2010-02-04T10:30:00.001-05:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Sueli Avellar Fonseca of Nehring e Associados, Advocacia in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Presently, I work basically on Commercial Agreements, National and International Agreements. In the past, I was essentially a litigator and then worked on Corporate matters.

Who would be your typical client?
Companies are my typical clients.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
I would like clients to know that I have very good experience in litigation, which makes me a strong negotiator. Moreover, I have a great deal of experience in wording various kinds of agreements and it is easy for me to build relationships. I am a perfectionist at what I do.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
I cannot say one case is more challenging than others. The challenge is always to achieve the objectives of the client.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
I have had many good moments in my career, which make me proud, but one I remember most was when I was a very young litigator and during a hearing, a Judge stopped and asked me how long ago I had graduated. He complimented me in front of the lawyers of the other party, for the questions argued to more than 5 or 6 witnesses.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
I love to read, to go to the movies, to listen to music, to travel.

What would surprise people most about you?
It is very difficult for me to surprise people. I easily show who I am, what I like or dislike.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
ILN brings me many friends, all around the world. This is fantastic. But the most memorable is that some friends have become a family!

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
I would be a lawyer! As a secondary career, if I had time, Decoration could be a choice.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Meryl Streep.

How would you like to be remembered?
Someone who was able to achieve her teenager's dreams for life, with her own work and studies; a good professional; a good daughter; a special mother and a good companion.

ILN-terviews: Gustavo de Jesus, Richards, Cardinal, Tutzer, Zabala & Zaefferer

2010-01-05T11:02:00.001-05:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Gustavo de Jesus of Richards, Cardinal, Tutzer, Zabala & Zaefferer in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Mainly assisting clients in their day-to-day operations in commercial matters (corporate, contracts, etc.) and working on mergers & acquisitions of companies.

Who would be your typical client?
Big and mid-size multinational companies.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That I always do my best to render first class service at a reasonable price.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
There have been many challenging cases. It is difficult to pick one.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
I always feel proud when I see that the client's interests have been protected and when the client recognizes my work.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
Playing sports and spending time with my family.

What would surprise people most about you?
Perhaps that I am not as serious as I look.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
I could not pick one isolated experience. I have always enjoyed the friendship and warm treatment that I receive at all the ILN meetings.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
I would have probably chosen architecture.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
I really cannot imagine somebody playing my life in a movie!! But if I have to say a name, I would pick Robert De Niro.

How would you like to be remembered?
As a good husband and father and basically as a good man.

The Economist's General Counsel Roundtable Session Review: The GC, the board and governance issues

2009-12-07T09:05:00.002-05:00

The fourth session of the day at The Economist's 7th General Counsel Conference focused on "The GC, the board and governance issues," with a panel that included moderator TK Kerstetter, President and Chief Executive Officer of Board Member Inc/Corporate Board Member, Marty Wilczynski, Senior Managing Director at FTI Consulting, Stephen Cutler, Executive Vice-president and General Counsel of JPMorgan Chase, Bruce Vanya, Partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, and Ed Knight, Executive Vice-president, General Counsel, and Chief Regulatory Officer at NASDAQ OMX.

Kerstetter introduced the panel by saying that there are multiple topics that they could talk about surrounding the issue of governance, but he would start with the SEC. He said that people thought Mary Shapiro would be just a placeholder, but she's been upfront, particularly with enforcement. Cutler, having worked at the SEC in the past, had a unique perspective and wanted to give the audience a sense of where enforcement is going. First, he said there is a more prosecutorial bent than ever before, because of the personnel makeup. He said this would change the shape of the SEC and make them more attuned to cooperation, such as rewarding the first person in the door. He also said it meant they would be rapping people hard and would be less attuned to what securities enforcement defense lawyers have paid attention to for a living. As a result, there would be more negotiating room around the edges. Secondly, there will be an emphasis on speed. Over the last few years, they have let cases drift, tempered by what Judge Rakoff did with the Bank of America case. Third, there will be more power of and to the staff, which means less checks & balances. Fourth, there has been a move on the part of the enforcement division to specialize and fifth, there is more of a focus on individuals. Before, they used to hold companies responsible, but not individuals, which is changing. Cutler pointed out that the SEC will now see everything they do through the prism of Madoff and Bear Stearns, as well as from an agency that wasn't sure it would even exist anymore nine months ago. Wilczynski said that with respect to the current environment, it's fair to say that they'll be active in the next few years, but he's seeing mixed signals. With the reorganization taking place, slots aren't being filled aggressively. So though they're active, the reorganization is slower than expected and there is an impact offset by the public record. In the last five years or so, the number of formal orders that the commission issued was about half of the 450 orders that have already been issued in 2009. It doesn't feel that busy, but in public, they seem to be fully geared up, while in reality, there are still reorganization issues slowing things down. 2010 will be much busier.

Kerstetter said that he planned to cover both enforcement and compensation during the discussion, and asked what preventative things GCs could do and the practical side of what happens when the SEC is investigating the company. Knight said that there's four things to focus on. The first is the relationship between the GC and the internal auditor. The GC wants someone in that position who is independent, experienced and tough, so they can prevent problems from getting out of hand. The internal auditor should be as tough as the SEC would be. Secondly, accountability. There are rule-driven markets because of technology, so in his company, they take every rule and assign it to a human being. It takes time and budget, but people need to feel as though they own that rule. Third, the GC relationship with the board. GCs should work to build that, because even though it's hard to make the time, it will serve them well when there's a problem. The most important piece is fourth, having the right tone at the top. He encouraged the GCs to make sure that the people who run the organization get it and demonstrate that compliance is a top priority. Agencies look at whether a problem is endemic or isolated. Vanya said in terms of when there's an investigation, he would talk about how things have changed. In particular, he said there's no longer much difference between the Department of Justice and the SEC, except that the DOJ can send people to jail. He talked about the things that could flow from changes at the SEC, including amnesty for individuals, which could create a whole new species of whistleblowers. In the past, there have been two types: innocent employees who find out about an issue and report it and those who are disgruntled former employees. Now, there will be those who are involved who want lenience/amnesty as the first to report. This could be problematic for GCs, who won't likely know about these people until they hear from the SEC. A second issue that may flow from the changes is a risk of less control over what's presented to the SEC. With the new kind of whistleblower, they will likely bring documents directly to the SEC versus having the GCs prepare them first and present their story. Third, in the past, the informal request for document production could be delayed. But now, they're on a tight schedule, so GCs will have to be geared up and prepared to move. Now, if the informal request is delayed, they can issue a formal request. Fourth, there will be more non-traditional procedures being used, which will have an impact on internal investigations. Historically, the SEC has encouraged internal investigations, but now, Vanya thinks that will change and the SEC won't put much weight in what an independent committee would find. Lastly, the Bank of America case was briefly mentioned earlier and Vanya said that Judge Rakoff talked a lot about "the lawyers." It wasn't clear if he was talking about just outside counsel, or also GCs. Cutler asked the question of whether the prosecutorial bent would still be as strong 2-3 years from now and said that companies should have a human face.

Mike McAlevey said that historically, enforcement has been a priority for the SEC and he worries about changes to the Securities Act, like aiding/abetting liability having the word "reckless" added to it, which expands it. He asked if the SEC enforcement division felt that they needed to do that. Cutler said yes, that it has been on their wish list for a decade. He said that they should pay attention to the Dodd bill, that there are a "lot of ornaments on that Christmas tree."

Kerstetter then moved on to the topic of compensation, saying that it's a lightning rod topic this days and nobody is happy without a pound of flesh. He asked what GCs should do to help committees weather this storm. Knight advises them to think about the coming changes and which ones they can get out ahead of. Cutler said that he's been having a lot of conversations about how compensation will induce excessive risk and how to prevent that. He also talks about how the concept of how risk is affected by the compensation process. At his company, for those whose compensation is disclosed, they must be the leaders of the business units and he's seen companies trying to manipulate those. He also said that GCs should pay attention to who they consider proxy-eligible because agencies will be paying close attention. Vanya suggested that they make sure the committee is funded to hire independent consultants, counsel and a PR firm. Cutler added that whatever lull there is in terms of legislative activity, forget about it come January when bonuses are announced. Wilczynski said that in an environment with a backlash from the public, companies need to be prepared, do their due diligence, and have consultants, counsel and a process to point to when questions are asked.

Kerstetter finished with a final question to each of the panelists about what concerns them the most. Wilczynski said keeping track of the internal compliance program and making sure that it's as airtight as possible. Knight answered that tight restrictions affect capital formation process, which is at the heart of job creation, so legislators should think about the real impact of the changes. Cutler echoed Ed and said to think back to two years ago and reform was about the competitiveness of the US - that issue still lurks and people shouldn't lost sight of what's happening in bills in private litigation. Vanya said that his concern is that there's an overreaction to what happened, so legislation could be overbearing and put companies through hoops. He expects to see some ridiculous legislation.

The Economist's General Counsel Roundtable Session Review: The election of directors: Could 2010 be the perfect storm?

2009-12-04T08:34:00.001-05:00

After a short networking break, we reconvened at The Economist's 7th General Counsel Conference for a panel discussion of "The election of directors: Could 2010 be the perfect storm?" The panel included moderator TK Kerstetter, President and Chief Executive Officer of Board Member Inc/Corporate Board Member, Michael McAlevey, Vice-president and Chief Corporate, Securities and Finance Counsel of General Electric, Peggy Foran, Vice-president, Chief Governance Officer, and Corporate Secretary of Prudential Financial, and Shelley Dropkin, General Counsel, Corporate Governance of Citigroup.

Kerstetter asked the panelists to start by commenting on their biggest concerns as the proxy season gets started. Dropkin said that it's a combination of losing 452 on directors and majority voting, which could have unintended consequences. Now there's a great concentration of institutions, activists and investors in the vote and she's concerned about the degree to which they're influenced by proxy advisors. Dropkin asked how responsible would institutions be in exercising their vote. She foresees a lot of strange results that could occur and have magnified impact because of the reduction of the retail vote. McAlevey said that he is concerned about a couple of things. Tactically, for a company like his, they have a significant retail vote, so this is meaningful and they need to come up with a way to encourage them to vote. They'll need to look at the discretionary vote and do the math, so that they can see how it will affect them. He suggested hiring a proxy advisor firm to find new ways to contact and remind people to vote. His more seismic point was that much attention is focused on giving more weight to shareholders without making adjustments, but the economic crisis in 2008 was also the shareholders responsibility. The steps being taken may empower shareholders even more and encourage short-term interests. Foran believes there will be directors who are not elected. She said that activists kill what is already dead. Agreeing with the others, she shared that she was afraid of the impact on the boardroom. They'll need courageous directors for the future, because those doing the right thing may get voted off. She feels it will be important for directors to communicate and engage, to tell their story before someone else tells it.

Kerstetter then asked about the election slate, saying that companies will spend millions of dollars to do proxy solicitations, which adds an expense to their budget. Foran said they have more confidence in their institutional investors. She said that getting their top investors to meet with the board works better than paying for proxy solicitors. She knows that in some cases, the company will have to hire proxy solicitors to show the board that they care, but there are more effective ways to accomplish the job. Kerstetter asked if it was taking a risk to do that. Dropkin said it's necessary to have a combination of both. It's important to have a dialogue with the institutions to understand what they think about the issues, but proxy solicitors help them to reach the investors that they can't. Foran asked what percentage do vote and asked for suggestions for creative ways to encourage voting, without getting the SEC after them. Dropkin said she didn't have the answer for how to incentivize people, but she was thinking about the ways that Publishers Clearinghouse gets people to open their envelopes and look at their content. She said that encouraging people to vote electronically works better for her. What the SEC has unintentionally done, she thought, was to disenfranchise the voters and she felt it was unfair that a whole group of people won't realize that they're not voting anymore. They've spoken to the SEC about voter education and hopefully, over time, it will change, but she doesn't know how to incentivize voters in the meantime.

McAlevey commented that his comment about proxy solicitors wasn't about institutions. Most big companies have a relationship with their top 25-30 institutions already. Instead, it's about the retail vote and how to get that vote represented. The SEC missed an opportunity and they're coming around again to consider some alternatives. They need to look at the rules and figure out ways to level the field. Foran added that modeling can help. Go in with the numbers, show what Risk Metrics control and influence and superimpose this year's requirements. Look at what would happen if the vote went against and recognize that the contests will come down to influence. She suggested talking to the boards about it and simplifying it so that they know what's different this year. Kerstetter commented that courageous board members have changed because of Risk Metrics, saying that someone may be trying to do the right thing, but they've violated a Risk Metrics proxy guideline, so it's a different playing field. Foran said that board members can do what's right and communicate it. They can't just do the right thing; they also have to talk about it. Kerstetter said that CDNA is almost too late, and requires too much reading, so he asked how they can get the information out there before legalese proxy? McAlevey said that boards will have to be more aggressive about managing themselves. He said they'll need to look at age limits, term limits, skills, activity levels and actively manage the population. If the board doesn't, someone else will, and in an embarrassing way. Speaking to Foran's earlier point, Dropkin said that the board can't go out and announce their decisions and that investors should evaluate on the company's performance and decisions. On one side, she's responsive to the idea of finding out what really qualifies directors, but she's concerned about the holes that can be poked and the legal issues it raises. She said it would take some time for this to be read and the directors real qualifications to be identified. Dropkin added that it's hard to talk about real skill sets, like people who are able to synthesize arguments. Explaining that is very difficult. Because they're getting ready to legislate, it's something that should be talked about. Foran agreed with Mike, saying that boards now are one of many, but now the question is why you? They'll have to figure out ways to manage directors who will be low-hanging fruit.

Bart Schwartz, Chief Legal Officer at Assurant, asked about the logistics, wondering who they go to and the relationship between the portfolio manager and the proxy people, and in the company, how they approach the relationship with IR. Foran answered thatthey need to find out who, because different funds allow the portfolio manager to vote. She said it's important to see Risk Metrics before things get crazy, and that they're fairly reasonable people. She suggested planing the seed early, going with a board member to explain. They're looking for the long-term stability of the company, and though that's difficult to communicate, it's important to try to start the discussion. She boiled it down to basic human relations and showing long-term instead of short-term, because they don't have the time. Dropkin said that one is IR and has an ongoing relationship with the folks on their side. She suggested reaching out through IR to proxy solicitor to get contacts at mutual funds and institutional investors. Foran mentioned that there is a list on the internet of these contacts. She said there's tremendous pressure on mutual funds for voting with management, and they're getting dinged if they do that. The other pieces that they need to know are to see it in the statistics, where the union sites will rate them. McAlevey said that for corporate legal departments, they're entering a phase where voting was a 1-person shop, and now, to protect the companies and the board, it will require an investment of time, people, and travel. Foran aded that sometimes you can meet a larger number of people at an industry meeting. She also suggested talking to the activists, which can pay dividends.

Kerstetter asked if they could share the conversations that they plan to have with their boards, and what do GCs say to them to benchmark what they're doing. Dropkin started by saying that GCs should make it a habit of involving them in the approach to proxy statements, keep them updated on changes to the rules, and apprised of proxy access, 452, and interactions with institutional investors. She said it wasn't different to other years in strategy, just in the challenges and keeping up with the rule changes as they happen. McAlevey said that it's education and setting a context of why it's happening and preparing them psychologically. Foran said it's important to let them mourn the good old days. She said education is key and thinks it won't be as bad as they predict, but there will be companies taken by surprise and directors will lose seats. She emphasized again that modeling is important, and encouraged GCs to look at where they're vulnerable. She said it's better to think about things before they happen and prepare for them. She also said that it shouldn't take up much of their time.

Another audience member asked a question about Risk Metrics, saying that they seem to have an inherent conflict in their model, so is it necessary to use them? Foran said that they do consulting work and in past years, with a stock plan, they would run the numbers through their black box model to see if it cleared, though there were no guarantees. She doesn't think there's a conflict, but she's not sure that she'd use them again, though she does think you have to use them. She said in the interest of full disclosure, she's on their advisory board. McAlevey said that there is a potential conflict. The way that they manage it isn't completely transparent. He said that the thing that's frustrating is that as predictable as they think management is, Risk Metrics is as predictable. They are always driving towards more independence. He also mentioned that if someone has sat on another board that had trouble, they can use that against them on another board. Dropkin mentioned that it's necessary to engage with them because they influence a large percentage of the institutional base. She won't comment on the issue of a conflict, but companies should be aware of their policies and engage. She finished by saying that they won't necessarily agree, but it's important to factor them in as companies evaluate.

The Economist's General Counsel Roundtable Session Review: Balancing the growth imperative with escalating risk

2009-12-03T10:08:00.002-05:00

The second session of The Economist's General Counsel Roundtable was a panel on the topic of "Balancing the growth imperative with escalating risk." Matthew Bishop, the US Business Editor for The Economist moderated the panel, which included John Lynch, US General Counsel of BP America and Deirdre Stanley, the Executive Vice-president and General Counsel of Thomson Reuters.

Lynch started with his view of the role of the general counsel in risk management, based on his own experience. He feels there's an element of getting ahead of governance and reporting to the Board, but the role of the GC is different for each company, based on its needs. The answer to the role of the GC lies with the unique factors of the company, subject to risk, which is a broad topic. He then defined what he sees as the four different types of risk: compliance risk, legal risk, function risk, and event risk. Stanley said that at Thomson Reuters, it is lightly regulated, so their strategies and processes aren't tied up in a lot of regulation. She sees the role of the GC as risk identification and risk environment identification, which she defined as the point at which they trip up on a new regulation that wasn't applicable before. As the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act seeks to become increasingly global, the articulation of risk itself is important, because changing operations increases the risk that they might not have otherwise identified. Mitigation is the third part of a GC's responsibilities and requires the close integration of legal with operations.

Bishop then asked, with the push to be more global, how do they help managers to understand how to do business in China, for example. Lynch answered that they tell them that risk management is what they see in the case law around governance, not what Seth Harris described about deciding whether to comply. Bishop followed up by asked about the trade-off between growth and risk management. Lynch agreed that he feels that there is a trade-off, but they're trying to prevent it at BP. He said that to grow, they can either access a new country or become more efficient, which is tougher. To grow, they need to identify the risks, a mitigation plan, and how to fund it. Stanley said that she doesn't see it as a trade-off, but as a balance. As in any business, without risk, there's no reward. The challenge is how to grow in a greater risk environment, so she works to instill risk management awareness in managers and encourages leaders to be involved in all incremental changes. Lynch added that it's important to have legal and compliance in the same complement as the business is expanding, and not after or towards the end of planning.

Bishop asked about their experiences in safety and health that could be generalized into lessons for other GCs. Lynch said that he looks at the refinery section of BP from a distance, but has seen how the company has changed the process of how they identify and manage risk. Now, risk is into the business and away from the assurance functions and he's trying to change the culture to get everyone thinking about compliance. Bishop asked about putting profits over compliance, and Stanley said that they don't have a separate risk function at Thomson Reuters. She said there needs to be more ownership in the business and giving them the resources they need, and said that over time, there can be financial recourse for those who don't take compliance into account. Lynch said that the BP America Board has changed governance and oversight of the Board. Stanley said that they thought about having a risk committee as part of their Board, but felt that they didn't want another committee and wanted the Board to see the risks that the company faces. Since risk aligns with strategy, it seems unfair to put it in a committee that has no tie-in to funding. She said that it's a different environment now, because there is more funding for enforcement because of the assumption that companies won't do the right thing. They are expecting new regulations, but they're taking time, which is ominous. Lynch agreed, saying that after having had a negative outcome with enforcement agencies, it has riveted people's attention, so BP is self-motivated to comply.

Bishop then asked if the trend for more legislation in the US makes it less competitive. Stanley said that looking at antitrust, where they are expecting additional scrutiny going forward, it is more of a catch-up with Europe. Though there's less regulation in developing countries, there is still other kinds of risk. She thinks that just looking at the regulation piece is too narrow, and that the competitiveness of the US over time is a complicated issue. Lynch said that there are regulatory regimes around the world, and where there aren't, they have often been asked to provide them. He sees this as an opportunity for GCs. Bishop questioned whether they as GCs would talk to the lobbyists, and Stanley said that their lobbyists report to the GC. Lynch agreed that he would talk to them, but said they don't report to the GC.

As it was opened up to the audience for questions, TK Kerstetter, President and Chief Executive Officer of Board Member Inc/Corporate Board Member asked about balance. He said that he worries about how companies split out risk and compensation, because the strategic planning process is where risk belongs. He worries that they're focused on independent things, like legislation mandating risk committees, and so much transparency, and wondered if it was over the top. Stanley agreed, saying that risk shouldn't be isolated. She does think it's different because of transparency and activities in the past weren't as highlighted as they are now with the internet. But that's the environment, so the real question she asks her managers is to think about whether their actions are something they want to end up on the front page of the New York Times. Lynch said that Kerstetter was right about risk management being a part of strategic planning. In terms of transparency, he said that when they train people, they tell them to assume that any action will show up on the front page of the paper. He said that this has motivated people to do the right thing. Margaret McLean, Vice-president, Chief Legal Office, and Corporate Secretary for CH2M HILL, said that their audit committee used to handle risk, but that they ran out of time in their meetings to effectively deal with it. So her company created a committee to elevate it to the senior managers' focus. She said that risk is an everyday job, like safety, and for some companies, a risk committee is a good idea.

Bishop asked the panel what proposals most alarm them in terms of the company devoting money to the right things, instead of what the regulators want. Lynch said that for them, it's more about business risk than compliance/legal risk. Stanley would agree, her concerns are what impacts their business models. Lynch said that they make a compliance and ethics leader part of the business functions, and have found this to be useful. He said that they have a network of these leaders across the company. Kerstetter then clarified his earlier point, saying that a lot of public companies with risk committees have done well, but that it was the mandating of committees that people are concerned about. Someone then had a question about Secretary Geitner's policies. Stanley said that there have been a lot of discussions around executive compensation. She said that there is a need to balance the short and long term, and disclosure will drive that. Bishop added a final question, asking about the perception that the Obama election was a victory for trial lawyers. Stanley said that they love all lawyers at her company. Lynch agreed and said that BP has always had a fairly constant litigation portfolio, and doesn't think that will change.

The Economist's General Counsel Roundtable Session Review: How Will the New Regulatory Environment Impact the GC?

2009-12-02T13:32:00.001-05:00

On Tuesday, December 1st, the ILN participated as a marketing partner in The Economist's 7th General Counsel Roundtable in Washington, DC. The theme of the conference was "navigating through the new regulatory landscape," and the morning kicked off with a session with Seth Harris, the Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Labor, entitled "How will the new regulatory environment impact the GC?"

Moderated by Matthew Bishop, the New York Bureau Chief and US Business Editor for The Economist, Harris gave a brief overview of the current unemployment situation and talked about the Recovery Act. Bishop asked him for his thoughts on the outlook for unemployment, and Harris started by saying that when President Obama took office, 700,000 jobs were being lost a month and the economy was frozen and declining. Though the US hasn't dug its way out entirely, there is some improvement, with recent job loss at 180,000 a month. Jobs lost claims are the lowest they have been since September of 2008 and banks are doing better. The Administration is working to turn job loss into job creation. Harris observed that the 2.8% growth in the GDP during the last quarter, which should continue, will likely lead to job growth as well, which generally lags behind by a couple of quarters. He added that he hopes the workers will see a share of growth next year. That being said, he cautioned that there will be continuing rates of unemployment for a long time, and that the economy will take a long time to recover. Though it's not an utterly jobless recovery, Harris would like to see more growth.

Bishop moved on to the topic of compliance and enforcement at the Labor Department level, and Harris said that the agencies have developed principles to target the most serious compliance offenders. He added that it's an impossible task, given their resources, to police all workers in all companies, so he encouraged the audience to get involved with their compliance officers, as well as safety and health officers, in pre-emptive compliance. Harris indicated that there is a group of employers who calculate the benefit of complying versus the cost of complying times the likelihood of being caught and the penalty if caught and encouraged the general counsels (GCs) in the room not to think this way. In terms of compliance violations, some are individual while others are systemic. The Labor Department wants to remedy these situations and prevent them going forward, and hopes to enlist the GCs or internal compliance office to ensure compliance. Bishop asked Harris what the Labor Department considers to be the most serious violations, and he said that they focus on hazards that will kill or hurt workers, and on the regulatory side, they're interested in pensions. There have been heated comments about the card check proposal, but the Administration won't back off. The health care debate is causing a wait for the Employee Free Choice Act, but Harris said it would be a topic for debate in the early part of 2010. He believes there is a majority to pass the legislation, but doesn't know for certain.

Bishop then opened up the floor for questions and started with one of his own, asking if there is an agenda for pensions. Harris answered that there is a multifaceted agenda, which also involves other agencies. They want to be more transparent and require participants to opt out if they don't want to participate. He emphasized that the theme for the Obama administration is transparency, so that's the Labor Department's theme as well. John Graham, the senior Vice-president and General Counsel of XL House, asked what the Labor Department's priorities are on behalf of US workers, so that workers have the skills to succeed in the US. Harris said that they are looking to reauthorize the act that assured that workers who don't get the skills in elementary and high school can get them so that they succeed. He said that they are also working with the Education Department to get workers into community colleges. He feels that it's their job to get workers ready and they are investing a lot of effort in that. As a follow up to Graham's question, Bishop asked what the Administration's stance on outsourcing is. Saying that a lot of policy is wrapped up in that question, Harris answered that the economy has transitioned and there are categories of work that are now being outsourced. He feels the US needs free trade agreements and a skilled workforce, so that the sound investment is to invest in the United States. He cautioned that not every job will be in the US, but those that are will stay here and those workers will succeed.

Margaret McLean, the Vice-president, Chief Legal Officer, and Corporate Secretary of CH2M HILL, asked what role the Department of Labor plays in the Recovery Act. Harris said that every agency that received any money is engaged in the process of disclosing how that money was spent. The government has created http://www.recovery.gov, so that any taxpayer can look at a map to see the projects, money spent, and jobs being created in any neighborhood in the US. The Labor Department went to grantees, contractors and loan recipients to get the information, and all but one provided the information they requested. Harris said that transparency changes behavior, so they want to translate this to the other organizations that they work with.

Mike McAlevey, Vice-president and Chief Corporate, Securities and Finance Counsel of General Electric, said that as the economy experiences unemployment, it seems that the stimulus is starting to take effect, but there is still very high unemployment. He asked whether the government was thinking about another stimulus or more government spending in the future. Harris said that he doesn't think unemployment will remain at 10-12%, but that it will peak in a month or two, and then there will be stability or decline. He did caution that it will likely be over 8% through 2010. To deal with that, they will aggressively implement the Recovery Act, and as the pace in spending picks up, there will be a move in jobs. In the next report, Harris anticipates an accelerated pace of job creation. There have been discussions of job creation packages for a lot of the jobs that have been seen before in these types of packages. It may be the time to do something like that now, versus at the beginning of the recession. He said that now, with GDP growth and stabilizing product markets, it may help with job growth. Harris finished by saying that he's optimistic that in a year, unemployment will be lower.

ILN-terviews: Jeff Shapiro, Arnstein & Lehr LLP

2009-11-23T10:26:00.001-05:00

ILN-terviews: Johan Vanden Eynde, Vanden Eynde - Legal

2009-11-17T10:27:00.001-05:00

ILN-terviews: Bruce Feuchter, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth

2009-11-09T12:14:00.000-05:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Bruce Feuchter of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth in Newport Beach, California.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
A flourishing emerging growth corporate securities practice, consisting of start-up to public companies, both medical device and technology companies.

Who would be your typical client?
Venture Capital-backed medical device companies with exciting technologies.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
I know their market, I understand their needs, and how to solve their problems. I enjoy working with entrepreneurs.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
The most challenging transaction that I have ever been the lead attorney for was the acquisition of an aerospace company back in 1991. The company was into many defense programs, some of which were highly classified. Since they were classified, we could do no due diligence on those programs or even know about them. An example of such a program was the exhaust system for the Stealth Fighter. The transaction required a layer of venture capital for equity, and three different levels of debt with four different lenders. It was undertaken during the time of the great downsizing of the aerospace industry in Southern California. Eleven years later, the business was sold, again a difficult transaction. The result for the owners was a good return, not a great return.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
On January 1, 1985, I became a shareholder in my law firm and on January 21, 1985, I became a father for the first time. What a change in life that time was.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
I am only now learning golf, the children are now gone. I ski a little each year, and I seem to go to a great number of charitable events.

What would surprise people most about you?
That after 30 years in Southern California, my passion is still skiing, not surfing. I do not do it often, but a little snow cat skiing or a little helicopter skiing can make my year.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
I travel and visit members of the ILN in different places in the world; getting to know them fills me with wonder, finding how similar we are and how much we think alike on a number of topics.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
A CEO of an energy efficiency company or an alternate energy company.
If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
No idea today. Thirty years ago, I would have said Robert Redford and recently, I would have said Harrison Ford.

How would you like to be remembered?
As a person who was interested in so many different things. I like to think of myself as an interested and trusted advisor to many entrepreneurs.

ILN-terviews: Santiago Mejia Ortiz, Mejia-Armenteros & Abreu

2009-10-28T10:00:00.003-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Santiago Mejia Ortiz of Mejia-Armenteros & Abreu in the Dominican Republic.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
As a small "family comprised" law firm trying to position itself internationally without losing the small firm approach.

Who would be your typical client?
Individuals and medium sized companies doing business in the Dominican Republic, although we've served big companies as well.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That despite being a young lawyer in a young firm, clients can be sure they'll be getting top class legal services from me and my firm.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
I think it was representing a big client in a substantial concession contract with a multinational company in a cross border transaction, because I was the counterpart for very experienced and well-known old lawyers, looking down to me because I was younger than all of them. It was challenging and rewarding at the same time.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
Every time I make my client feel satisfied with the result of my work.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
Mostly, I love spending time with my family and especially with my soon-to-be 5 year old son. Also, I am an Amateur Radio Operator as well. Ah, I've opened a coffee shop business too!

What would surprise people most about you?
That although I can seem shy sometimes, I tend to have a great sense of humor...(everyone reading this must be thinking "What?! Really?? Wouldn't think so!").

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
Without any doubt, my first meeting in the Bahamas presenting our firm! And the immediate acceptance and friendship I've received from everybody, making me feel welcome right away. Regional and Annual Meetings are such a great experience - in each of them I've been given the chance to know great people and really initiate friendships that hopefully will remain.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
Maybe an entrepreneur or an industrial engineer.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
If it was my call...Al Pacino. But probably the casting crew will pick Jim Carrey.

How would you like to be remembered?
By everybody: as an honest man with a good heart and a good sense of humor. By my family: as a worthy role model.

ILN-terviews: Scott Guan, Jade & Fountain PRC Lawyers

2009-10-21T10:02:00.005-04:00

ILN-terviews: Philip Dimitriou, D. & F. Dimitriou Law Firm

2009-10-14T09:53:00.001-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Philip Dimitriou of D. & F. Dimitriou Law Firm in Athens, Greece. Philip and his colleagues at the firm recently hosted the 2009 European Regional Meeting in Athens, but his ILN-terview still gives undiscovered insights into who he is.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Versatile and...addictive!

Who would be your typical client?
Small and medium sized businesses.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That no matter the issue to be resolved, they are dealing with a highly trustworthy, flexible and efficient law firm.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
My very first case as an attorney - which is still the biggest case I have ever handled! It started as a complex inheritance issue and ended up being an all-inclusive tough litigation issue, involving four countries, over 25 different lawsuits with even more trials, all types of law, a few deaths in between...and some parts still go on.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
When I solved, in an amazing way, a complex corporate case in two months, when a previous (bigger) law firm couldn't do it for five years.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
Studying law!

What would surprise people most about you?
The fact that, using imagination and a non-ordinary way of approaching the case, you can end up "getting the job done" efficiently.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
Our gala dinner in the Madame Tussauds' waxworks attraction in 2004. I have a great photo of the ILN team in my office since, only to discover a few months ago...a very funny scene in the background (no more comments)!

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
Can't remember anymore!

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Robert De Niro maybe?

How would you like to be remembered?
As a guy that did something good for this world.

ILN-terviews: Antonello Corrado, Corrado Ferrari Mainieri Pedeferri e soci Law Firm

2009-10-07T10:00:00.002-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Antonello Corrado of Corrado Ferrari Mainieri Pedeferri e soci Law Firm in Italy.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Thirty years of practice and few boring days.

Who would be your typical client?
Medium and large corporations, 50% Italian and 50% international.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That with me, they will always find a dedicated team of lawyers and staff sharing friendship and mutual understanding, and having a pleasure working together.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
Many years ago, my first assistance as the client partner for a US multinational company in the acquisition of an Italian company. It makes a lot of difference to be the first or second pilot, especially if you want to have a safe flight, a soft landing, and be retained as the Italian pilot for the client in the future.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
When we incorporated our new law firm in 2005, in partnership with colleagues with whom we had been sharing 10-15 years of practice in other law firms.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
Often sailing and rowing, for fun and for competitions.

What would surprise people most about you?
My teaching activity for the education of lawyers and judges, in under-developed and developing countries. In 1992, I was one of the first Italian instructors in Albania after the fall of the communist regime in 1990.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
The contribution given by our firm to the European Meeting in Rome in 2008.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
Explorer/teacher

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Marcello Mastroianni

How would you like to be remembered?
For my capability to contribute to the growth of the team spirit of lawyers and staff that form a law firm.

ILN-terviews: Luis Lavalle Moreno, Martínez, Algaba, De Haro, Curiel & Galván-Duque, S.C.

2009-10-02T09:03:00.002-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Luis Lavalle Moreno of Martínez, Algaba, De Haro, Curiel & Galván-Duque, S.C. in Mexico. Luis has been a valuable member of the ILN for many years, and embodies not only the excellence that the ILN requires of its members, but also the spirit of friendship that bonds the Network together.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
We are a medium size law firm (in terms of Mexican size), providing litigation and corporate services for our clients.

Who would be your typical client?
Our typical client ranges from a major bank or insurance company or a high tier company to an individual or medium size company searching for high quality legal services for ordinary or complex transactions.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That we are one of the few law firms in Mexico combining litigation and consultation services, giving our clients a unique service in terms of quality and attention.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
One of the most challenging cases probably was advising Citibank (together with several other members of the firm) in the acquisition of Banamex.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
There isn't a particular one, but my proudest moments as a lawyer are when clients and counterparts publicly acknowledge and recognize our job in closing dinners or parties of closed transactions.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
I try to spend time with my family or also I try to play golf with friends or do exercise.

What would surprise people most about you?
I have no idea what would surprise people about me...

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
There is not one memorable ILN experience, but a conjunction of several moments. For me, it is the particular group that has been formed and the relationship you have with each and all the members, which is particularly enriched through the meetings organized (trips). This relationship goes beyond referrals or meeting colleagues - it is a true friendship.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
If I wasn't a lawyer, I probably would have become an oceanographer or a doctor.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?
Robert De Niro

How would you like to be remembered?
As someone trying to do good on each and all of the activities performed.

ILN-terviews: Jack Pruellage, Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, L.C.

2009-08-31T15:49:00.006-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose longtime ILN member, Jack Pruellage of Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, L.C. in St. Louis, Missouri. Jack is a tireless proponent of the ILN, an excellent lawyer, and valuable member of our Network, so he was a natural choice for our next ILN-terview.

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Never dull.

Who would be your typical client?

Large corporations.

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?

I try to provide the best legal services in an efficient and economical manner.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?

My first and only trial for four days representing a habitual criminal (I was appointed by the court) who was caught at a liquor store by police in response to an alarm with a pistol, a bag with all the money from the cash registers and another bag with 40 cartons of cigarettes. He was charged as a habitual criminal with armed robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon. After three hours of deliberation, the jury found the defendant "not guilty."

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?

What do you do when you're not practicing law?

I play golf, hunt, cook and travel.

What would surprise people most about you?

My extensive knowledge of and passion for collecting wine and cooking food.

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?

Australian and Eastern European Conferences and related travel.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?

Investment banker.

If a movie were made out of your life, who would you want to play you?

George Clooney.

How would you like to be remembered?

As an excellent lawyer.

ILN Business Development Webinar Series: Review of How to Increase Results from Speaking, Writing and Networking

2009-08-05T15:40:00.005-04:00

The fourth webinar, How to Increase Results from Speaking, Writing, and Networking, took place on April 29, 2009. Jim described the session: "For some lawyers, speaking, writing and networking are very successful marketing techniques. Other lawyers give speeches, write articles, and/or go to networking meetings, but never seem to get enough business from them. This presentation will review how the most successful rainmakers use audience targeting, follow-up, and other tactics to increase results."

Some of the highlights from the session included:

* Jim started off by letting the audience know that these tactics are not for everyone. He said that the best sales people understand their strengths, and find the right fit, so he encouraged the audience to focus their limited marketing time on their strengths.

* Speaking: In terms of speaking, Jim emphasized the importance of choosing a specialized topic that has business potential. Once a topic has been chosen, it is essential to find the right audience. Jim discussed the process for doing this, as well as how to gain a speaking invitation. In terms of writing speeches, he encouraged the audience to follow emerging business trends and to keep folders with articles, quotes, and data to draw from. If speakers and writers do this consistently, they will always have source material to draw from. He added that these source materials can also be used as excuses to build relationships with contacts. Jim also went into detail on tips for the actual speech, as well as how to effectively follow up. He said that although speeches won't directly generate business, they can help to build relationships.

* Writing: Similar to speaking, Jim said it was important to find the right publications to target. He gave tips on how to do this, as well as how draft a query letter. He went into a list of the types of articles that are more attractive for publications, and therefore, more likely to be accepted. In addition to writing for publications, publishing a white paper on their firm's website or association websites is another way to attract attention through writing. Jim also listed blogs as another means of publication, but cautioned that he thinks these are overdone by lawyers. He also discussed how it is possible to network while writing, saying that authors can call people to interview and follow up with them with a draft, as well as using published articles to keep in touch with clients and prospects.

* Networking: Jim started by giving the audience Bob Burg's (of "Endless Referrals") Golden Rule of Networking, which is that "Clients do business with people they know, like and trust." He said that if you help others succeed, they will help you. Networking takes patience and perseverance, and case be a time waster if it's done with the wrong people. Jim then discussed how the audience could consider their personal network, and gave some advice for how to make the most of a networking meeting. He also spoke a little about having an "elevator speech," including its definition, the goals, how to develop one, and testing it.

* Jim ended with a few comments about social networking, listing some of the many options available. He felt that there are some powerful tools out there, but there is a need for caution.

The webinar recording and materials for this fourth session are available to ILN member firms at a low cost- please contact me for more information.

ILN Business Development Webinar Series: Review of How to Find New Clients: From Prospecting to Closing

2009-07-29T13:40:00.013-04:00

- How to get referrals: Jim detailed the four steps for how to get referrals, which include asking at the right moment, following up immediately, thanking people repeatedly, and keeping them informed. He went through each step to explain to the audience the best way to achieve success and emphasized the importance of always framing the requests in terms of the needs and desires of the people that they're asking.

- How to cross-sell: Again, Jim encouraged the audience to think in terms of meeting the needs of both the other partner at the firm and the potential clients. He recommended that they start by looking through their own client lists to see which clients might benefit from some of the other services the firm offers and then offer to share these clients with a trusted partner. Jim said the next step was to aim for a few small successes, by giving the clients advice that saves them money or better meets their needs. He called this "integrity-based cross-selling," a term coined by Larry Smith at Levick. Jim added that Mark Greene of Nixon Peabody had identified four key factors in cross-selling success, which are communication, compensation, competence, and control. He went through these in detail to explain how they aid in successful cross-selling.

* Advance the Relationships: Jim went through the next section quickly, reiterating that an advance is any action that moves a sale forward. Since less than 10% of face to face meetings lead to a decision (either positive or negative), it's important to plan what the next advance will be. Jim suggested that the attorneys plan their primary advance, their secondary advance, and a list of questions to ask before every meeting.

* Close the Deal: While some people think that selling is all about closing, Jim likened a focus on closing to teaching a gardener how to pick tomatoes. It's more important to teach them how to grow tomatoes, and then picking them is easy. Jim adapted Robert Kimroy's tips for insurance sales into something he calls the "Zen of Selling by Not Selling," which focuses on building relationships over time. Part of this involves keeping in touch with a fair number of prospects over time, and Jim suggested that attorneys aim for quarterly contact with their prospects to stay top of mind. Newsletters are one option for this, but Jim said that the best systems require little lawyer effort, provide value, and most importantly, are personal to the recipient. He ended with a few common sense tips from How to Win Friends and Influence People, including agree, don't criticize or complain, give sincere appreciation, become genuinely interested, smile, be a good listener, and talk about the other person's interests.

* What Should You Do?: Jim suggested that most lawyers start small and define an action item that they are likely to perform. They should set a deadline, and follow up. In terms of group action plans, Jim emphasized the importance of supporting both high performers and the motivated. He recommended that groups respect individual differences, and treat action steps as pilot tests, so that if something doesn't work, they can move on to something else. Then, they can refine their tactics to fit the firm culture, and publicize successes. Jim ended by discussing the three steps to business development success he had written about in one of his books, along with the thirteen steps to new clients he had identified in another book.

* Jim summed up by saying that selling is a skill that anyone can learn. He challenged the attorneys to start today by defining their action items, using the worksheet he had made available in the handouts to the participants.

The webinar recording and materials for this third session are available to ILN member firms at a low cost- please contact me for more information.

ILN Business Development Webinar Series: Review of How to Protect and Increase Business with Current Clients

2009-07-21T14:35:00.009-04:00

In coordination with Jim Hassett of LegalBizDev, the ILN put together a series of five educational webinars available to member firms on a monthly basis. Jim is the founder of LegalBizDev, which helps lawyers to develop new business by applying best practices from other law firms and professions through coaching, webinars and workshops, retreats and much more. Jim comes highly recommended by the Legal Marketing Association, who regularly relies on his expertise for their conferences and webinars. More information about working with Jim and his colleagues can be found on their website.

The second webinar, How to Protect and Increase Business with Current Clients, took place on February 25, 2009. Jim described the session: "Although lawyers equate marketing with finding new clients, marketing experts agree that the best place to start marketing is with the clients you already have. Relationships with current clients are especially critical in the current economy with threats to your practice coming from two directions: from hungry competitors trying to steal your clients, and from budget cut-backs by the loyal clients who remain. This presentation will describe how to protect and increase business by assuring that current clients perceive you as a trusted advisor who is providing high value."

Some of the highlights from the session include:

*Everything attorneys need to know about business development could be summed up in seven words: Meet the right people, advance the relationships.

* In the case of current clients, Jim said that the attorneys already know the right people. He went on to cover three points, emphasizing that client satisfaction is urgent, asking how satisfied the audience's clients are, and calling them to action.

* Client Satisfaction is Urgent: To make this point, Jim referred to studies by BTI Consulting in 2008, ALM Research in 2006, and the Rainmakers Toolkit. He explained the current clients are the best source of new business and that research shows that 2/3 of revenue increases come from current clients. Additionally, the chances of new business are 1 in 2 with existing clients, 1 in 3 with past clients, and 1 in 8 with new prospects. Focusing on current clients has become even more important in the current economy, which Jim called "defensive marketing." He said that with competitors trying to take current clients away and leading firms focusing on delivering more value, long-standing client relationships may be threatened by financial pressures. Jim quoted Steve Barrett, the former CMO of Drinker Biddle, who said that it can take five years to get back in with a client once you've lost the trusted advisor role.

* How Satisfied Are Your Clients?: Once the audience sufficiently understood the urgency of client satisfaction, Jim moved on to ask how satisfied their clients are. He asked them to choose a top client or, in the case of litigators, a referral source, and to rate on a scale of 1-10 how satisfied their client might be, with 1 being a client who was extremely dissatisfied, but hadn't yet gotten rid of the firm, and 10 being a client who was so satisfied, they couldn't wait to go home and tell their partner about all the wonderful things their lawyer had done for them that day. Jim cautioned that for those rated 8 or lower, they were in the danger zone, because 60-80% of clients who leave say that they were satisfied. For those who rated their clients at a 9 or 10 for satisfaction, Jim asked them to consider whether they were sure about this, because many clients find it hard to respond negatively and some people overestimate satisfaction. To illustrate this point, Jim showed a chart from Inside Counsel's 2008 survey of large law firms and clients, who had each rated the performance of the firm on an A-F scale. While 42% of lawyers gave their firms an A, only 17% of clients did. Jim then went on to discuss some action items the attorneys could take, first saying that the degree to which lawyers need to focus on client satisfaction depends on the type of work they do. It's less important for firms who do "bet the company" and commodity work, because results and cost are the keys to success, respectively. However, for those who do work that companies classify as "important," success depends on client satisfaction. Jim gave a few tactics for litigators to use with their referral sources before moving on.

* What should you do?: In terms of calling the audience to action, Jim started by encouraging them to think about the service providers they work with. He asked whether technical expertise or the way they treat them matters more, and said often, it's how you are treated that matters. He relayed Gerry Riskin's tips for how to "bulletproof your crown jewel clients," including listening, understanding their needs and meeting them, genuinely caring, and showing that they care, being responsive and handling problems, and offering something "cool." Jim said that these things can show a client that their attorney thinks they're important.

Jim also talked about the Association of Corporate Counsel's Value Challenge, which says that "most traditional law firm business models...are not aligned with what corporate clients want and need: value-driven, high-quality legal services that deliver solutions for a reasonable cost." He said that this is part of a much larger trend that's been happening in other industries for decades and went over how these past and future trends will look, emphasizing that value will be more important than social relationships. As part of these trends, Jim spoke about alternative fees, and suggested that the audience look at the LegalBizDev Guide to Alternative Fees, available for free download on his website.

* Jim summed up by saying that increasing client satisfaction is easy, but failing to focus on current clients is equal to marketing malpractice. He also challenged the audience to follow up on the presentation using the action items in the provided handout.

The webinar recording and materials for this second session are available to ILN member firms at a low cost- please contact me for more information.

ILN-terviews: Staffan Michelson, Hellstrom

2009-07-20T09:41:00.005-04:00

Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network.

For our latest interview, we chose longtime ILN member, Staffan Michelson of Hellström in Stockholm, Sweden. Staffan has been a part of the ILN since 1994, and is certainly one of the reasons we're able to say that the ILN is a place "where lawyers become friends."

In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration, Property, Environmental Law and Intellectual Property.

Who would be your typical client?
This question is too difficult; none of my clients or potential clients are typical. They are public companies, medium market companies, small companies, private persons, municipalities, organisations...

What would you like clients and potential clients to know about you?
That I am a senior partner of an excellent firm, Hellström, with lots of excellent lawyers.

What has been your most challenging case? Why?
My first "real" litigation many years ago. Thrilling and very successful.

What has been your proudest moment as a lawyer?
When I won my first case - just because it made my client so extremely happy.

What do you do when you're not practicing law?
Reading. Or writing my next book - the recent one was about Water in History of Civilization. Or I play the violin, or the trombone or the banjo with my best friends.

What would surprise people most about you?
Sometimes people become quite surprised to find me in my wife's art gallery close to our summer house, far away from Stockholm City, marketing her paintings, photos and ceramic sculptures. But in fact, there are secrets much more surprising...

What has been your most memorable ILN experience?
My very first ILN conference in Copenhagen discovering, in a few days, the ILN spirit of lawyers making friends.

What career would you have chosen if you weren't a lawyer?
May I dream without limits? I think I would have loved to become an author, an architect, a journalist, or a world famous film director.

How would you like to be remembered?
As a good father for my children, as a loved husband, as a lawyer my clients wanted on their side and as somebody who believed in the importance of justice, humor and fellow-feeling.

ILN Business Development Webinar Series: Review of Six Ways to Increase Results from Your Limited Marketing Time

2009-07-15T12:08:00.008-04:00

In coordination with Jim Hassett of LegalBizDev, the ILN put together a series of five educational webinars available to member firms on a monthly basis, starting in January of 2009. Jim is the founder of LegalBizDev, which helps lawyers to develop new business by applying best practices from other law firms and professions through coaching, webinars and workshops, retreats and much more. Jim comes highly recommended by the Legal Marketing Association, who regularly relies on his expertise for their conferences and webinars. More information about working with Jim and his colleagues can be found on their website.

The first webinar, Six Ways to Increase Results from Your Limited Marketing Time, took place on January 28, 2009. Jim described the session: "Lawyers never seem to have enough time for marketing. This presentation will help lawyers save time by developing new business more efficiently. We will review the research on what works in legal marketing to help you focus on the individual tactics that are most likely to produce immediate and practical results for your practice, your personality and your schedule, starting with prioritizing marketing activities by applying six key principles: Start with current clients, listen, plan advances, focus on personal strengths, work with others, and build the right relationships."

Some of the highlights from the session include:

* The legal profession is changing, but not only because of the economic crisis, and it's getting harder to develop new business. This is evidenced by there being a number of new marketing techniques that were not around twenty years ago.

* Lawyers have greater challenges for business development than sales people because of their limited time. This is especially true for litigators and Jim pointed out that while marketing principles are the same, tactics may differ. He said that litigators will focus more on referral sources than current clients and that visibility and reputation may be more important than relationships.

* Jim used examples and book recommendations to illustrate the six ways to increase results from limited marketing time:

Current clients: This topic is so important that it will be the focus of the second webinar.
Listen: Experts suggest listening 50-80% of the time and Jim offered some practical tips for how to improve listening skills.
Plan Your Advances: Jim explained that 90% of sales calls in a successful sales process (one that results in new business) do not result in a successful sale. They simply advance the relationship. So Jim emphasized that when planning a meeting, attorneys should figure out what's the best thing they can do to bring them closer to getting a piece of new business. He defined an "advance" as "an action that moves the sale forward."
Personal Strengths: Jim talked about the stereotypes that people hold about what makes a good salesperson, and said that people with different personalities can be successful in business development. The key is understanding their strengths and finding the right fit.
Work with Others: In order to provide accountability, Jim recommended forming a group with a few other lawyers who care about business development. The group can meet once a week or once a month, go over their to-do lists, and create some friendly competition to achieve the action items developed. Jim also supported working with a business development coach.
The Right Relationships: When developing business, it's important to focus on the right relationships. Jim said that all lawyers should develop a quick business plan - he emphasized that a plan was necessary to avoid engaging in "Random Acts of Lunch," but that lawyers shouldn't spend too much time planning and not taking action. To do this, lawyers need to define their niche, meet the right people, and qualify their prospects to determine if they will buy, if they'll buy soon, and whether they'll buy from them. Jim also recommended reading "How to Win Friends and Influence People" for common sense advice on how to interact with people in a new way.

* Jim summed up by encouraging the attorneys to prioritize their marketing activities relentlessly, so that they can make the most of their marketing time.

The webinar recording and materials for this first session are available to ILN member firms at no charge - please contact me for more information.