Law Web 2.0?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 6:38PM What is Web 2.0?
I ask, because a criticism I have seen levelled at a number of law firm websites is that they are "flat", "brochure ware" and most crushingly of all... "so Web 1.0".
The recent comments about the Shoosmiths Access Legal site on the Law Society Gazette LinkedIn group give a pretty good flavour (unfortunately you have to be logged into LinkedIn to follow the group link... sorry).
Wikipedia has a very detailed definition of Web 2.0, but to me the core of the concept is the move from "information" sites to "participation".
Some lawyers and (to a lesser extent) law firms have proved enthusiastic users of Web 2.0 social media tools for business development, but how many law firms have actually embraced Web 2.0 in their own web sites?
Looking deeper than this, to what extent is it even possible for a law firm site to make this "information to participation" shift?
The expeditionary force in the Web 2.0 infiltration was the blog, which has found its way into a number of sites (although in many cases what is termed a "blog" is more of a re-badged news feed which lacks the comment facilities to give it real Web 2.0 credentials).
The other area which is seeing some real marketing spend at the moment is the integration of online legal drafting technology into sites. Jon Busby blogs about this over at his Legal 2.0 blog for those who want a more detailed rundown (disclosure:- by day, Jon is the business director at Epoq Legal... other online drafting platforms may be available!). Some firms are also taking the next logical step into e-commerce (i.e. clients buying and paying for their legal work via the site itself).
A number of sites have incorporated "follow us on Twitter / Facebook" buttons (my favourite being a local firm I won't name whose Twitter button on the main site of their page links to an account with a single follower and one tweet dating from July 2009 - well done guys!).
Social sharing and bookmarking buttons seem to be less common, but the Access Legal site referenced above does have these. I haven't managed to track down a site with the Tweetmeme button and counter to allow articles to be easily re-tweeted, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some out there.
So what else does Web 2.0 have to offer which law firms could be incorporating into their sites?
Looking at the Wikipedia page for inspiration some other options might be:
- social networking elements (maybe via Ning or similar?)
- wikis (Wikivorce is great, but I don't think it is really a wiki in the Web 2.0 sense of allowing users to edit content)
- web-based communities (client forums?)
- video sharing (maybe not ideal for law firms, but who knows?)
- Mobile applications tying back into the site
I may have missed a site somewhere which has one or more of these features, but my gut feeling is that law firms won't necessarily incorporate these more "social" aspects of Web 2.0 into their main sites.
Law firm web sites are effectively providing information and branding for the firm. This requires control over the content and the level of user participation requiered for a wiki, a forum or even unmoderated blog comments is likely to conflict with this.
This isn't limited to law firms. Even the parts of the Twitter site which are about Twitter, Inc. are effectively a flat Web 1.0 site combined with a blog - and there is probably no need for them to be anything else.
So what would the perfect law firm website contain? Online drafting technology and the associated e-commerce functions seem to be the most logical next step, but other than that the focus seems to be on integration with external social media and Web 2.0 (rather than building them into the site).
It is risky to make this kind of prediction, but I wonder if law firm web sites (in the sense we currently recognise them) have much further to go? Will the next stage of development actually be to strip out features rather than adding them in?
We are already seeing this to an extent with LinkedIn. A public LinkedIn profile is already the first port of call for many people when preparing for a meeting with a new business contact. Why not just replace your lawyer "bio" pages with a link to their LinkedIn profile?
In ten years' time maybe firms will just maintain a "core" site which is used to provide online legal services, e-commerce, client areas and basic information about the firm. The more social and participatory elements would come from the blogs, wikis, tweets and buzzes of their individual lawyers, which would orbit around this core.
What do you think? Is there more Web 2.0 functionality left to be built into law firm sites... or is it time to streamline things?
Peninsulawyer
Steph Kimbro messaged me on Twitter after this original post to ask whether I had looked at the Virtual Law Office Technology which is used by some practices in the USA to offer what they term "unbundled legal services" to online consumers.
Steph is one of the co-founders of VLOTech and her own firm Kimbro Legal Services operates using the platform.
I hadn't at the the time, but I have since taken a look at it and it is quite interesting - covering client take-on, online payments, case management, discussion threads and a whole host of other stuff as well as online document production.
Obviously this is a US based service, but it is certainly worth a look to see what can be achieved with Web 2.0 tech for virtual law offices (or as an add-on to a traditional firm).
I don't know whether this type of service could take off in the UK? What do you think?
Reader Comments (10)
A most interesting post. I think solicitors sites could do more - it just needs a bit of imagination.
For example, my professional web-site www.landlordlaw.co.uk is a membership site which was set up in 2001, so is a bt old now (although it still works well). A few years ago I incorporated a closed discussion forum (members only) where (mostly) I answer questions from members and (occasionally) members have discussions among themselves.
My web designer and I are currently working on a new version of Landlord Law (LLL2) which will incorporate social media elements. For example the ability for readers to add (moderated) comments to articles and FAQ.
I won't say any more as it will spoil the surprise when it is launched ;) but watch this space.
I agree - a very interesting post, thanks.
I have been speaking with some firms about their web presence (although I would certainly not claim to be anything close to an expert) and many of their concerns would be at least partially addressed by your idea of a "core" site for a firm connected to participatory elements related to the people rather than the firm itself. I would be easier for the firm to distance itself from personal remarks made by its lawyers or partners - although, of course, if would be equally easier for the firm to be connected to more personal statements made by its people.
You are correct to say that much of what firms want from a web site is static and more web 1.0 than 2.0. Just as print, telephone, email and news feeds have to be combined effectively, the successful firm of the future will combine static and interactive technologies both inside and outside the firm's own technology base.
Interesting post and I believe that firms have only scraped the surface on what they can do with Web 2.0. The key though is to really think about user experience and integrated service, a website should no longer be brochure ware, it has to allow a conversation and engagement.
Web 2.0 is probably more suited to the legal profession than people realise, social networking is the very essence of good lawyering, don't worry about the technology.
Enterprise 2.0 with customer portal is probably the way to go for the law firm site in the future, I've collected some links here to save people scouring around:
http://delicious.com/kaoticoddchild/enterprise2.0
I think you have covered all the bases.
It is difficult to predict where the next Web 2.1 or Web 3.0 will take law firms. This assumes that the vast majority will graduate from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 in the first place
True interaction with clients and forums will I suspect be kept behind closed doors for the obvious client confidentiallty issues and commercial sensitivities.
These will work better with commercial law firms
It would be great to interact with my clients via comments on my blogs. The mindset may not just be there at the moment.
The main benefit for lawfirms, as I see it, is to offer consistent and interesting content to existing and potential cliants alike; written with the client in mind rather than from the lawyer's point of view.
The percentage of clients looking for information on line is increasing all the time.
SEO and SEM will keep the most active firms in the public eye. The best firms will benefit by preselection online. This is happening to my firm by people instructing us online without any contact by us initially.
Video is also underutilised at the moment. speaking directly to clients and potential clients is one of easiest ways to presonalise your firm in the publics eye. It's my next gig.
We have a few video testimonials as well and will increase these hopefully at least one a week. Google likes video. Put the videos in Google local (which no one else is doing) and you have another differentiator feather in your cap
Great article.
At one point I thought you were suggesting that unmoderated commenting is a good idea. When you weigh the legal pros and cons, it's not advisable. But then I see that on your own blog comment moderation is enabled, so maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.
I agreed with a number of Paul's comments.
Also there is no point introducing web 2.0 for the sake of it, if the demand is not there. We have a blog, but people tend to email us rather than leave blog comments, even when they have a question on an article in the blog! We also often get clients buying our services who have not first made telephone contact, so having an e-store and services you sell through the e-store is worth exploring.
Thanks Shireen
I wouldn't recommend unmoderated comments - I was really referring to the fact that some "blogs" on law firm sites have no comment facility at all… they are just one way traffic.
Really interesting to get some feedback about your internet marketing and website - much appreciated.
In addition to the comments I have already made on 'Improved Web 2.0 Participation' at inksters.com there are one or two thoughts on the "core" site point that is perhaps best shared here.
I can see a certain logic in the development of more social and participatory elements coming from the blogs, wikis, tweets and buzzes of a law firm's individual lawyers, which would orbit around the firm's "core" website. However, who owns those blogs, wikis and tweets? Would the law firm want a body of work built outwith the firm's "core" that could easily be taken by the author with them if they were to leave the firm in question? However, such blogs, wikis and tweets may reflect the personal brand of their author rather than the corporate brand of the law firm itself as a result of being outside the "core". Law firms may need to consider policies to cover the position.
Another issue with developing content outwith the "core" is the potential diversion of SEO from the "core" - again also an issue if an author of one of the orbiting buzzes were to go their separate way and take the buzz with them.
Very interesting and I mostly follow your ideas.
As for the linking your Twitter account to your professional blog, I'd have some reservations.
If you remembered my Twitter incident while ago, my account was suspended and this is actually how I started blogging.
You can learn here more about that here: http://clarinettesblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/twitter-suspended-my-account.html
Now, what do you think the impact of messages such as the one on my Twitter account could be for a law firm reputation? When clients read from Twitter: "Sorry, the account you were headed to has been suspended due to strange activity. Mosey along now, nothing to see here."
The other point concerns some personal exchanges that might have erroneous connotation when taken out of context.
Brian and clarinette02... interesting comments and I think to an extent you are both touching on a similar issue.
The issue is control - it is quite right to say that by incorporating Twitter feeds etc. into your site you are giving up an element of control to that third party provider. The example of the account being suspended is one problem, but there have been a spate of accounts being "phished" recently and sending out links to phishing sites and comments about user's sex life - which wouldn't look good on your website.
Brian - I think your point is equally valid... what about content which is produced by lawyers themselves, but cannot really be said to be as part of their employment (e.g. a personal Twitter account or blog)? If the copyright of this doesn't vest in or belong to the firm then really the goodwill which is being generated is that of the individual lawyer rather than the firm.
I don't really have answers to either of these. In relation to the first one I suppose that this is just a commercial risk for the firms to evaluate. I suspect that as SAAS and cloud computing services become (more) prevalent businesses may become more comfortable with the model, but this is always going to be a risk with services like Twitter (where you have no real Service Level Agreement). I suppose it depends on whether you believe the benefits outweigh that risk.
The second point I believe is part of a wider shift which is already happening as more and more lawyers dip their toes into the social media waters on an individual basis. In some ways, the client relationships have always been with individual lawyers rather than a firm anyway - this is what junior lawyers are usually striving to build up and why firms are keen to make lateral hires at a senior level.
On one level this is just an extension of this principle to a new platform (social media and internet marketing). My argument would be that by formalising this activity and tying it more to the firm's own brand identity it may actually be easier for the firm to take some measures to protect the benefits which accrue to this marketing activity (maybe it could even be covered by restrictive covenants?).
Jon
Your point re the satellite sites is critical, in the main from a technological angle. Of course I declare my normal interest but it may be useful for your readers to get an understanding.
Managing online drafting tools is a big event and not for the foolhardy. Document drafting is what I call three dimensional, not just a simple import, because you have to think of every consequence to an answered question and its subsequent implications elsewhere in the document. This is importnat because a law firm wants a client self serving as much as possible so the initial draft is as refined as possible for the law firm to review.
It is fairly impractical for a law firm to invest capital in building and maintaining technology such as this in house. If they can plug in via a Software as a Service model, SaaS, they get the value without the risk, (or at least a much reduced risk).
It is important for a law firm to understand this to break any drafting platform in to two parts, technology and content. Both need to be built (big task in terms of time and money) but also (and this is often forgotten) both need to be maintained (another big cost). SaaS, contractually, takes those problems away by distributing the cost over the many. (It has the aded benefit of the many feeding innovation back in to the platform, creating a virtuous circle)
To not use your satellite model means embedding it into your own existing website and most law firms cannot afford to do that. If you had to employ one solicitor to maintain content, nothing else, across mutliple content libraries that is going to be expensive irresective of the fact that one solicitor would not be enough...chuck in a dedicated IT maintenance person, perhaps a coder too and you are deep into 6 figure territory. Suddenly the ROI is looking scary.
So yes, absolutely, satellite is good...but I would recommend doing it via SaaS.