Legal marketing is becoming increasingly sophisticated, as law firms adopt techniques learned from other industry sectors. The recent “master class” marketing session, held in London, gave numerous examples of cutting-edge best practice. The event was hosted by Simmons & Simmons, and made possible by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell in connection with ELD International.

Opening the session, Ross Fishman from the US-based Ross Fishman Marketing Inc, began with a barnstorming critique of law firms websites. Lampooning their lack of originality, he said that most firms’ websites failed to distinguish themselves from their competitors. To reinforce this point, he compared a website profile written by a leading AMLaw 100 firm with that of five-lawyer practice – and many of phrases used by both firms were identical.

Instead, Mr Fishman said that firm’s marketing efforts should follow the approach taken by Procter & Gamble – one on the world’s largest advertisers. Instead of generic marketing, he argued that firms should focus on specific market segments. He then gave numerous examples of law firms who had used this approach to produce - extremely striking - advertising campaigns targeting a variety of niche markets. “When you get to this level of focus, your advertising can be very specific,” he said. “It virtually writes itself.” What is more, many of these ‘niche’ markets are, in fact, multi-billion dollar industries in their own right.

Dismissing the fear that this approach may antagonise existing clients in other sectors, he said: “Bankers don’t read Pest Control Magazine.” More importantly, by focusing on extremely niche markets, law firms may discover that no other competitors actively target these potential clients.

During her presentation Leigh Dance, president of ELD International Inc, said that many in-house lawyers she had spoken to felt overwhelmed by law firm’s marketing activities. This is because the global law firms tend to target the small number of corporate legal departments who require multi-jurisdictional advice. “There are too many events, too many newsletters and too many client alerts—and not enough that stands out,” she said.

Ms Dance went on to give the example of how one in-house counsel had been bombarded with no less than 310 newsletters on the then-new Sarbanes Oxley legislation: “He kept three of them”. Ms Dance also warned against the common tendency to “over blow” the impact of recent legal developments, in order to alarm clients. “In-house counsel know that law firms are profiting from the aggressive regulatory environment. They don’t appreciate lawyers that come in and try to ‘scare the horses’,” she said. Instead, she contended that offering pro-active, focused regulatory advice in a way that fits the company’s reporting needs is far more appreciated by the client.

In his speech, Norm Rubenstein, a partner at the US-based Zeughauser Group, commented that law firm marketing departments had become more “strategic” in recent years. Within larger firms, the number of marketers per fee earner had almost doubled, from 40:1 to nearer 20:1. As a result, marketing personnel, like their lawyer counterparts, had become increasingly specialised.

Rubenstein welcomed this development, arguing that functional specialists were better able to generate highly-targeted marketing literature and pitches for potential clients. “Potential clients want to know how many deals a firm has done in a particular area or industry, to what level of sophistication they were completed, and who the clients were,” he summarised. “It’s shocking how many sophisticated law firms still struggle to ‘cobble together’ this kind of information from within the partnership.” Having this information at the ready, he argued, was a far more effective marketing tool for winning new clients than “baubles” presented by third parties.

Include in the first part of the session, Ann Lee Gibson, from the US-based Ann Lee Gibson Consulting, discussed the growing phenomena of clients issuing “Requests for Proposals” (RFPs). In her experience, leading US law firms are now receiving between two to three times the numbers of RFPs they were as little as two years ago.

And, unfortunately, from law firms’ standpoints, Ms Gibson reported that many of these invitations to tender are badly worded, unduly onerous, and give little opportunity for law firms to demonstrate their unique selling points. Some RFPs require firms to enter their information into badly-designed Excel spreadsheets, with a small or unknown cell contents capacity.

At this point, several delegates commented that they had been asked to answer RFP questions that had little or no bearing on a law firm’s technical ability, such the diversity of their workforce, or their CSR / environmental policies. In response, Ms Gibson reported that most law firms are now taking an increasingly objective approach to considering RFPs, to determine whether or not they are worth completing.

Indeed, on some occasions, using RFPs can also backfire on general counsel. Ms Gibson described how one senior in-house lawyer recently decided to reduce the number of firms who worked for him from 350 to a more manageable number. However, after sending a terse RFP to several dozen firms, requesting information only about its lowest rates and firmwide diversity, he was surprised to discover that only a few bothered to respond. This example graphically illustrates how some law firms are willing to sacrifice clients they do not believe are worth the effort.

Last updated -16 October 07

Back to homepage