| What are these new attorney-client matching | | | | from the FTC that was agreed to by a |
| services? Who are the players? What do they | | | | unanimous vote of the FTC commission members |
| cost? What is the risk to me? What is the return | | | | that this attorney marketing practice is indeed |
| for me? What is the buzz on them? Are they | | | | ethical. |
| ethical as marketing for law firms? Will they save | | | | Already the states of North Carolina and South |
| me money and are they for me? Will they get | | | | Carolina found the practice ethical. The Rhode |
| me clients I would not have otherwise? | | | | Island Supreme Court specifically named in an |
| In part one of this article we will look in depth at | | | | ethics opinion that online matching services are |
| a relatively new wrinkle in marketing for law firms | | | | ethical. Finally, the Utah State Bar (a mandatory |
| known as attorney-client matching services. Part | | | | bar) has retained LegalMatch as their lawyer |
| one focuses on the facts about these firms. Part | | | | referral service clearly indicating their thinking |
| two gives you my conclusions and | | | | about LegalMatchs ethical nature it seems to me. |
| recommendations as a result of my research. | | | | Naturally you do need to check with your state |
| First a little background is in order. The legal | | | | bar to be sure this is an ethical practice in your |
| services market segment is expected to reach | | | | state. Now back to the options in the |
| $82.5 billion in 2008 according to Euromonitor | | | | marketplace. |
| International a market intelligence firm. In recent | | | | CasePost, based in Southern California, was |
| history consumers have been finding attorneys | | | | established in 2002 is a second player in this area |
| through word-of mouth or through the yellow | | | | of marketing for law firms. They operate in a |
| pages. Often the word-of mouth advice does not | | | | similar fashion as LegalMatch in matching clients |
| deliver people to the best possible solution for | | | | with lawyers; however, the directory of |
| their particular needs and the yellow pages is | | | | attorneys is shown to the consumer immediately. |
| certainly not a great place to select a lawyer I | | | | The consumer can decide whether they want to |
| am sure you would agree. Additionally, according | | | | remain anonymous or give their contact |
| to the Pew Internet & American Life over four | | | | information to the attorneys. The consumer is |
| million consumers and small businesses currently | | | | limited to four attorney responses. Thus the |
| search for legal services via the Internet every | | | | consumer determines what attorneys will get |
| month with these numbers expected to rise to | | | | their information. In May of 2006 CasePost has |
| over seven million by 2007. I think you can see | | | | made a major expansion as a result of their |
| this is a huge market getting larger. It is | | | | partnership with HandelOnTheLaw dot com that is |
| imperative that attorneys understand this | | | | powered by a successful nationally syndicated |
| marketplace if for no other reason your potential | | | | radio show on over 120 stations with attorney Bill |
| clients and clients are moving to the Internet and | | | | Handel. This show has been running since 1985. |
| yellow page advertising is a dying marketing for | | | | They also have a strategic relationship with |
| law firms vehicle. Understanding attorney-client | | | | LegalZoom dot com that began in 2006 that has |
| matching services is one new way to tap into this | | | | increased their reach. Like LegalMatch the |
| Internet marketplace. | | | | membership fees for this attorney marketing |
| What I will not be talking about here is | | | | vehicle are from $2,500 to $25,000 per year |
| attorney-listing services. Please dont get confused | | | | (financing is available if desired) depending on |
| between attorney-listing services and | | | | practice area and location. Their guarantee to a |
| attorney-client matching services. The two majors | | | | member is based on a minimum amount of |
| in the attorney-listing services arena are Lawyers | | | | referrals over the year. |
| dot com or FindLaw dot com that are used by | | | | LegalFish is a third player in this arena. It entered |
| many in marketing for law firms. With attorney | | | | the marketplace in 2003 and is based in Chicago. |
| marketing one might want to get a minimal listing | | | | It is a bit different than the other two in a few |
| on one or both of these two major sites. Both do | | | | ways. Like the other players the consumer can |
| drive a large amount of traffic to their sites for | | | | input their information and post their cases to the |
| sure (in the millions of visitors per year). If you do | | | | site as well give their identifying information or |
| get a listing then track your results carefully and | | | | not. In a number of cases LegalFish will contact |
| see if being in the middle of a pack of listed | | | | the posting consumer themselves by telephone or |
| attorneys actually does produce clients for you. | | | | email to delve deeper into the needs of the |
| Please dont spend more on them than the basic | | | | consumer so they are not totally automated. |
| listing that will run about $150 or so per month, at | | | | There is an allocation model used by LegalFish in |
| least until you can document results with the basic | | | | referring the cases to their members. Another |
| listing. Also, dont buy your website through either | | | | difference is LegalFish charges a monthly fee for |
| of them, even if after testing you find good | | | | this marketing for law firms vehicle ranging from |
| results, for many reasons that can be found | | | | $180 to $750 to members that are |
| under the Internet marketing tab on my website. | | | | non-contingency based practices. For contingency |
| One last note here, you probably dont want to | | | | based practices the fee ranges from $1600 to |
| test most of the lesser attorney-listing | | | | $5000+ monthly only if the client retains the |
| competitors like LawInfo dot com, LawCore dot | | | | attorney. If LegalFish does not deliver a referral |
| com or AttorneyFind dot com is my take, | | | | to a member that retains that attorney they |
| however if you do be sure to track your results. | | | | dont charge a fee to that attorney for the month |
| The rest of this article is about attorney-client | | | | (a form of a guarantee). Creating something of a |
| matching services. | | | | shared risk system. Naturally, with this type of |
| Attorney Marketing Via Five Attorney-Client | | | | shared risk system, long-term success for both |
| Matching Players | | | | parties is based on LegalFishs ability to generate |
| In the attorney-client matching field there are five | | | | new client opportunities and create demand for |
| competitors for the attorney marketing dollar | | | | legal services, and their member attorneys ability |
| offering online attorney-client matching services. | | | | to convert those referrals to paying clients. Both |
| The first and originator is LegalMatch dot com and | | | | parties have to pull their weight. Finally, LegalFish |
| its newer competitor being CasePost dot com as | | | | reports they are particularly committed to serving |
| well as a third competitor LegalFish dot com. The | | | | the solo and small firm market with ten |
| two big players that offer almost everything in | | | | employees or less. |
| attorney marketing, Lawyers dot com and | | | | The next player in this marketing for law firms |
| FindLaw dot com; have also recently begun to | | | | arena is Lawyers dot com (mentioned earlier in |
| offer a version of attorney-client matching | | | | this article about their directory listing or |
| services. Lets begin with LegalMatch that was | | | | attorney-listing service) with their new Attorney |
| established in 1999 and is based in San Francisco. | | | | Match Service. If you go to their homepage what |
| LegalMatch uses a double blind matching system. | | | | stands out on that homepage is their Find A |
| By double blind they mean the consumer does | | | | Lawyer Quick Search. This is their free to the |
| not see identifying information about who the | | | | consumer attorney-listing service (this is why you |
| lawyers are and the lawyer does not see | | | | might want to test a listing with them and track |
| identifying information about who the consumers | | | | results). To get to the Attorney Match Service |
| are although all the cards are put on the table for | | | | you have to know to click on Contact Lawyers |
| both to see before any contact is made between | | | | navigation tab or notice it up there at the very |
| them. Through an allocation model LegalMatch | | | | top of the home page. Clicking on that takes you |
| makes the decision about which lawyers get the | | | | to a page where you input your zip code and the |
| consumers information. Consumers can opt into | | | | practice area you are seeking, however, it also |
| priority service for a fee to talk with a | | | | tells you how many lawyers there are listed that |
| LegalMatch staff attorney about their case and | | | | are interested in receiving your request. You are |
| work with that attorney in selecting the attorney | | | | required to fill in the identifying information with |
| for their case. LegalMatch does have partnerships | | | | other case information. Once you do that you see |
| with the Utah State Bar Association, ATLA and | | | | the attorneys listed and pick the ones you want |
| NACDL. Membership fees for this marketing for | | | | to send your request to and wait for their replies. |
| law firms vehicle run from $2,500 to $25,000 per | | | | The fee for the attorney member is $495 per |
| year (they will finance the membership fee if | | | | year, however, you must have a biographical level |
| desired) depending on practice area and | | | | listing on the site to be on the Attorney Match |
| geographic location of the attorney. For example, | | | | Service and that is $150 and up per month |
| a PI attorney in Los Angeles would likely be | | | | depending on the size of your firm. There is no |
| charged more than a family law attorney in Los | | | | guarantee for this service. |
| Angeles, while the family lawyer in Peoria is likely | | | | The final player in this marketing for law firms |
| to pay less than the family law attorney in Los | | | | arena is Thompsons Findlaw (mentioned earlier as |
| Angeles. Their guarantee consists of extending | | | | an attorney-listing service) with their new |
| your membership at no fee until your revenues | | | | attorney-matching website The FindLaw system |
| have exceeded the fee you paid them. The | | | | is similar to the Lawyers dot com system with |
| details of the guarantee are available on their | | | | three steps of #1 Select your legal need; #2 Tell |
| website. | | | | us about your case; and #3 Choose the attorney |
| Are There Legal Marketing Ethics Issues with | | | | thats right for you. It is different from Lawyers |
| Attorney-Client Matching? | | | | dot coms system since they have broken it out |
| A relevant digression here, since this model is not | | | | of their attorney-listing services completely with |
| a lawyer referral program, a pre-paid legal service | | | | its own dedicated website. Their fees generally |
| plan, a joint or cooperative advertising or a | | | | run from $500 to $1000 per month depending on |
| directory listing service it is not subject to ethics | | | | your practice area and geographic location. They |
| rules around much of marketing for law firms it | | | | do not have a guarantee. They do report that |
| has been asserted. Recently the Professional | | | | they do set targets for each geographic area as |
| Ethics Committee of the Texas State Bar was | | | | well as practice combination and then will manage |
| looking into these practices and that committee | | | | their marketing to get positive results for |
| received a seven-page letter (May 26, 2006) | | | | attorneys. |