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