|
|
|
The Survey of Law Firm eMarketing Practices
Headline News |
2007/10/12 15:34
|
The law firms in the sample employ a surprisingly low number of editorial employees, a mean of less than one writer per firm. Firms with more than 200 lawyers employed a bit less than 1.5 writers per firm or less than one per 300 lawyers since the mean number of lawyers in the 200+ lawyer’s category was 478. The firms in the sample employed a mean of less than ½ proofreaders per firm, and
the largest number of proofreaders employed per firm was two.
In many industries, an expanding web presence led companies to hire more editorial
employees and to spend more on content development. This is less the case with the
law firms in the sample. Most have not increased their spending on editorial staff in
the past two years, though a substantial minority say that they have.
About half of the firms in the sample hire freelancers to produce editorial content but
only 13.51% note that they do so frequently.
BLOGS & BLOGGING
A shade less than 20% of the firms in the sample published their own blogs. Firms
with 20 or more distinct practice groups were the most likely to publish blogs, and
nearly forty percent of the firms in this category did so.
The mean number of blogs published per law firm was 0.96 though this figure also
reflects the firms that do not publish blogs.
Only 16.67% of firms have a policy of surfing the web to market the firm’s opinions
and prowess through legal blogs by responding to postings or making commentaries
in such blogs to demonstrate legal expertise or in some way promote the law firm.
More than 37% of the law firms in the sample plan to increase their spending on
blogs as promotional vehicles, although close to 44% have not used blogs for this
purpose.
WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
More than half of the firms in the sample hired a consulting firm when they
overhauled (or initially created) their firm’s website. Only a shade less than 12% of
firms in the sample did most of the website design or overhaul work in-house, and
these were mostly smaller firms
Mean spending on website overhauls was $40,583 for the firms in the sample, with
median spending of $27,500.
The firms in the sample received a mean number of 27,462 unique monthly visitors to
the firm website, with a median of 8,000.
E-NEWSLETTER PUBLISHING
Close to 60% of the firms in the sample published e-newsletters, as did nearly 90% of the firms with 200 lawyers or more. The mean number of e-newsletters maintained by the law firms in the sample was 7.45; the median, 4. Mean spending on electronic press release services was also relatively modest, with mean annual spending averaging just a shade less than $536.00.
OPT IN EMAIL MARKEING
Nearly 58% of the firms in the sample use opt-in email marketing to promote the law
firm.
BANNER ADS AND SITE SPONSORSHIPS
Mean spending by all firms on banner ads and website sponsorships within the past year was only $2038.50, a figure that also incorporates the many firms that did not spend anything on banner ads or website sponsorships.
SEARCH ENGINE PLACEMENT
Only 12.5% of the firms in the sample have paid search engines for higher search
engine placement, a practice that was more common among smaller than larger firms.
A bit more than 32% of the firms in the sample say that it is “likely” or “very likely”
that within the next two years that they will hire a consultant to help the firm to
appear higher in search engine rankings.
PODCASTING & WEBCASTING
Less than 3% of the firms in the sample have ever done a podcast to help market the
law firm. The study presents more than 175 tables of data describing the use of various emarketing practices by major law firms. Data is broken out by firm size and by the number of distinct practice groups. |
|
|
|
|
|
Study: Law firm technology expected to grow
Headline News |
2007/10/12 13:18
|
Although the largest U.S. law firms have average annual technology operating budgets of almost $10 million - about 17,000 per lawyer - market penetration by most legal software products is still relatively moderate, according to a new Legal Technology Market Assessment study released today by ALM Research and Cogent Research. The study, by Cambridge, Mass.-based Cogent and New York-based ALM Research, measured user satisfaction, market penetration and brand loyalty to technology products in five legal technology areas: case/management, document management, electronic discovery, client development and online research. Online research tools proved to be the most widely available and used technologies at law firms, according to the study. The study also documents the proliferation of free legal information on the Web. The average respondent spends about 40 percent of his or her research time using search engines such as Google, to find free, basic information. |
|
|
|
|
|
Denver, Calif. Law Firms to Merge
Headline News |
2007/10/12 11:39
|
An influential Denver law firm said it would merge with a California firm that specializes in water law, a move it said would position it to represent clients across the West in water cases. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck's merger with Hatch & Parent is effective Jan. 1. The merged firm, which will still be called Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, will be based in Denver but will have 210 lawyers and advisers in 12 locations mostly in the West but one in Washington, D.C. Brownstein already handles water cases in addition to real estate, lobbying, litigation, corporate law and gaming cases. Jim Lochhead, a Brownstein lawyer who specializes in water, said Thursday that the merger will allow the combined firm to handle cases across the West at all stages, from arguing for water rights in court to securing permits from regulators. Lochhead said water will become the most important natural resource in the West over the next 20 to 30 years because of climate change and population growth. He thinks utilities and private industry will increasingly be looking for new ways to provide it and willing to go farther to get it, such as recycling water or converting sea water to drinking water. "Those kinds of projects and that kind of thinking is really going to require a broadbased approach," Lochhead said. He said the firm would not be able to represent any cases in which California and Colorado water interests are in direct opposition. But increasingly he thinks complicated water disputes will be worked out by negotiating, as happened recently among upper and lower basin states who depend on water from the Colorado River. Brownstein's current clients include the Denver suburb of Aurora, the Idaho Power Co. and real estate developers in New Mexico and Colorado. Hatch & Parent represents the San Diego Water Authority, the cities of Fresno and Oxnard and the South Tahoe Public Utility District. |
|
|
|
|
|
Skeptical Court Considers Investors Case
Headline News |
2007/10/09 22:13
|
The Supreme Court reacted skeptically Tuesday to arguments that banks, lawyers, accountants and suppliers should be held liable for helping publicly held companies deceive investors. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that federal law imposes strict limits on shareholders who want to sue companies and firms other than the one in which the investors hold stock. The two conservative justices subjected a lawyer for corporate investors to tough questioning during arguments as the justices try to set boundaries in stockholder lawsuits for securities fraud. Investors in Charter Communications Inc., one of the country's largest cable TV companies, are suing two suppliers that allegedly schemed with Charter executives to mislead stockholders about the company's revenue growth. The outcome of the case will determine the fate of a separate suit by Enron shareholders who are seeking over $30 billion from banks accused of colluding with the energy company to hide its debts. If the court rules against investors, "it will mean the end of the case" for Enron shareholders and the banks that were primarily liable, attorney Patrick Coughlin, representing Enron stockholders, said outside the Supreme Court after the arguments. In the case before the court, suppliers Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola Inc. "were not passive bystanders facilitating a fraud by Charter," said investor attorney Stanley Grossman. "Their deceptive conduct was integral to the scheme to create fictitious advertising revenues for Charter to report to investors." Why shouldn't the court be guided by its 1994 ruling that sharply restricted liability by saying investors cannot sue for aiding and abetting a securities fraud? the chief justice asked. "You're asking us to extend that liability." Outside the courthouse later, Grossman said, "We are not asking for an expansion. The other side is asking for a cutback." Earlier this year, Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate when the court decided to hear the case. On Tuesday, Roberts was back, but Breyer was still out. As of last year, both owned stock in Cisco Systems Inc., which now owns Scientific-Atlanta. Though the absence of Breyer means the case could end up deadlocked 4-4, the hour of arguments Tuesday seemed to weigh against investors. Scalia suggested that the court might "sensibly limit" the right to sue so that schemes can be attacked by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but not by investors' lawsuits. That is how aiding and abetting violations are handled. "What distinguishes the liability that you propose from aider and abettor liability?" asked Scalia. Stephen Shapiro, the attorney representing Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola, said the lawsuit cannot proceed against the two suppliers unless they made misstatements to Charter's investors, prompting an objection from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Under the theory of Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola, "they are home free because they didn't themselves make any statement," said Ginsburg. "But they set up Charter to make those statements, to swell its revenues — revenues that it in fact didn't have." Charter persuaded the two suppliers to buy advertising that was bankrolled with money from Charter, which paid a $20 premium on each of hundreds of thousands of cable TV set-top boxes, for a total of $17 million. The amount of the overpayments equaled the amount the two suppliers paid for the advertising. Charter reported the advertising payments as revenue, a step that helped Charter paint a rosy financial picture for the fourth quarter of 2000, a move designed to artificially inflate the price of the stock. |
|
|
|
|
|
Roe Vs. Wade For The Securities Industry
Headline News |
2007/10/08 11:19
|
This Tuesday promises to be a historic day for the securities industry. At stake? The very integrity of our financial system, according to one pension fund manager. The dramatic verbiage is not misplaced. Without question, there's a lot riding on the outcome of StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC vs. Scientific Atlanta, the high-profile securities case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court this week. Characterized by some as the "Roe vs. Wade for the securities industry" and others as "the most important securities case in a generation," the eventual decision will have a significant impact on whether investors in companies that commit securities fraud should be able to sue investment banks, accountants, lawyers and others who were direct "participants" in that deception. Current shareholders' rights for going after third parties that aid or abet corporate fraud are not as clearly defined as one would think. First, a quick synopsis of the StoneRidge vs. Scientific Atlanta case: In 2000 to 2001, technology companies Motorola and Scientific Atlanta (now owned by Cisco Systems) allegedly agreed to supply cable TV provider Charter Communications with equipment at a $20 premium over the traditional cost with the knowledge that Charter intended to account for the transactions improperly as advertising revenues (the vendors used the extra funds to buy advertising space). These "sham" transactions inflated Charter's revenue by $17 million. When the revenue inflation came to light in 2002, Charter's stock crashed from $26.31 to 76 cents, a $7 billion loss in market cap. StoneRidge, an institutional investor in Charter, accused the two vendors of participating in a "scheme to defraud" investors and now wants the right to sue them for remediation. StoneRidge's ability to go after the tech companies remains thwarted, however, by the outcome of a 1994 Supreme Court case known as Central Bank vs. First Interstate. The Court held that while all "primary actors"--those who were directly part of a scheme (the emphasis is mine) to defraud investors--can be sued for federal securities fraud, the "secondary actors" who aided and abetted the fraud cannot be sued. This case once again raises this all-important issue of third-party liability in securities cases, settling it once and for all. As an advocate for individual investors, it's not surprising, I'm sure, to hear me contend that all participants who directly engage in activities to deliberately defraud investors be held liable for their actions. Whether the Court will agree with me depends on their definition of the word "scheme" under the federal securities statute. If you look it up in the dictionary, one definition for the word has it as a synonym for an underhand plot or conspiracy. Since it generally takes two or more to plot and conspire, it could be reasonably argued that the use of the word "scheme" in the statute should allow for more than just one party (such as the investment banks, accountants and lawyers) to be labeled the "participants" in the fraud and hence be held accountable. If the Court's strict constructionists are to be intellectually honest in their interpretation of the meaning of "scheme" liability in StoneRidge next week, it would prove a revolutionary milestone in the saga of investor rights. Shareholders would be granted a much more level playing field to target for recourse those who had targeted them for fraud. Sadly, smart money is probably better waged on the Court reaffirming the Central Bank decision from 13 years ago, thereby remaining consistent with its general pro-business stance and previous decisions that limit lawsuits against public companies. While such a toe-the-line decision would generate sighs of relief in the boardrooms of otherwise culpable investment banks, accounting firms and law firms, it is the groans of disappointment at the kitchen tables of victimized shareholders that should ultimately resonate more loudly. The corporate scandals of recent years may have faded from the headlines, but they are still fresh in the minds of American investors. Their confidence in Wall Street already badly shaken, shareholders need more than empty "we've changed" promises from a mostly self-regulating Wall Street to restore their trust in the system. What they need is for the Court to hold all participants in a fraudulent "scheme" just as responsible as those considered the primary actors. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law firm to pay millions in age discrimination case
Headline News |
2007/10/06 04:09
|
One of the nation's largest law firms has agreed to pay a $27.5-million settlement to 32 former partners to end a ground-breaking age discrimination case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced today. The case against Sidley Austin, which has more than 1,700 lawyers in 16 cities, including Los Angeles, had been closely watched because of a widely held belief in the legal profession that firm partners did not qualify for the protections of federal anti-discrimination laws because they were deemed "employers."
But the EEOC, in a lawsuit filed in 2005, contended that the cashiered lawyers were partners in name only, because they had no voice in the firm's management, including hiring, firing and salary decisions. Consequently, the lawyers were "employees" entitled to protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The firm vigorously defended the case, but lost key preliminary rounds in U.S. District Court in Chicago and at the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to review the decisions. Eventually, the Chicago-based firm decided to settle by agreeing to a consent decree without admitting wrongdoing.
However, Sidley Austin, in the consent decree, approved by U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel in Chicago on Thursday, made a significant concession, agreeing "that each person for whom the EEOC has sought relief in this matter was an employee within the meaning of" the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The decree also includes an injunction that bars the firm from "terminating, expelling, retiring, reducing the compensation of or otherwise adversely changing the partnership status of a partner because of age," or "maintaining any formal or informal policy or practice requiring retirement as a partner or requiring permission to continue as a partner once the partner has reached a certain age."
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, said he thought the outcome set an important benchmark.
"Up to now, with no particularly good reason that I can discern, people in control of law firms said that if they called someone a partner ... they didn't need to worry about federal employment discrimination laws," he said.
"What the Sidley case says is that you have evidence that people are called partners, but in reality are not active in the governance of the firm and don't control their own destiny in the firm. You can call them whatever you want, but for the purposes of the Age Discrimination Act they are employees," Hendrickson said.
He said the case ensured "the protection of professionals from discriminatory employment actions" and ratified the authority of the EEOC "to investigate and obtain relief for victims of age discrimination on its own initiative."
During the litigation, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency was entitled to obtain records that could show whether the lawyers should have been protected under age discrimination law.
In that key ruling, Judge Richard Posner, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, rejected Sidley's argument that the law did not apply to partners. Posner said he was particularly unconvinced by "Sidley's contention that since the executive committee [of the firm] exercises its absolute power by virtue of delegation by the entire partnership in the partnership agreement, we should treat the entire partnership as if it rather than the executive committee were directing the firm. That would be like saying that if the people elect a person to be dictator for life, the government is a democracy rather than a dictatorship."
Ronald S. Cooper, the EEOC's general counsel in Washington, emphasized the broader ramifications of the settlement.
"The demographic changes in America assure that we will see more opportunities for age discrimination to occur. Therefore it is increasingly important that all employers understand the impact of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act on their operations and that we reemphasize its important protection for older workers," he said.
The amount to be paid to each of the 32 former Sidley lawyers was placed under seal. However, the EEOC said that the payments averaged $859,375 per attorney, and ranged from a low of $122,169 to a high of $1,835,510. The EEOC said each of the lawyers either had been "expelled from the partnership in connection with an October 1999 reorganization or retired under the firm's age-based retirement policy."
The EEOC began an investigation of Sidley in 2001 after major changes at the firm. According to the suit, the firm for many years had a mandatory retirement age of 65. But in 1999, 32 lawyers -- all over age 40 -- were told that their status was being downgraded from partner to "special counsel" or "counsel," and that their pay would be reduced by about 10%. They also were told that they would soon have to leave the firm.
David A. Richards, one of the 32, said he thought the firm had taken the action, at least in part, to increase profits for the remaining partners. Richards, who was 54 at the time, said when he was told of his change in status, there was "absolutely" no contention that managing partners had problems with his performance.
A year or so later, Richards landed a job with McCarter & English, a large New York firm, where he still works as a real estate lawyer. On Friday, Richards said, "The settlement was overdue, but it gives all involved a satisfactory conclusion." The lawyers who sued now "have confirmation that their discharge was not for the quality of their work."
The commission, Richards emphasized, "has established an important legal principle for all large professional partnerships."
Sidley, through a New York public relations firm, issued a formal statement saying that it "believes that settling this case is preferable to the costs and uncertainties of continued litigation."
"This settlement puts the cost, time and distraction of this litigation behind us. Moreover, continuing litigation with the EEOC would have placed us in an adversarial position with former partners."
The firm said it continued to employ some of the lawyers who were stripped of their partnerships in 1999, but did not say how many.
The consent decree in the case runs until Dec. 31, 2009. During that period, Abner Mikva, a retired federal appeals court judge who also served as a Democratic congressman from Illinois and White House counsel during the Clinton administration, will monitor any complaints from former Sidney partners and report them to the EEOC. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|