In recent years, social media has become intrinsically linked with daily life. From dining to retail to business to politics, almost every public figure or company uses some sort of social media. Whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Youtube, or one of the many other options, social media isn’t just for individuals anymore, it’s for businesses, too. It’s estimated that 73 percent of Americans who regularly use the internet are involved in social media and networking in some capacity.

Working in social media is actually a viable and legitimate job for many people right now. An AOL jobs post from January 2014 projects that this year a Social Media Strategist will make about $61,000, require a bachelor’s degree, and points out that “the more social media followers a company has, the more their products and services are recognized.”

So, how are law firms doing with this? Well, a firm called Good2bSocial tried to answer that question this winter. Good2bSocial is a consulting firm that helps other companies expand their social marketing, particularly in the legal field. They worked together with AboveTheLaw to attempt to figure out how exactly the legal industry, particularly leaders in the industry, are doing with social media. The results were that big law firms are doing a pretty miserable job with it.

A white paper called “The Social Law Firm” by Good2bSocial was released last December, and followup articles have been released since then. The white paper itself requires a (free) subscription to Good2bSocial’s site, but if you don’t feel like reading the entire thing, I’ve summed up some important points below.

The study essentially analyzed the social media practices of the Am Law 50. It was conducted through surveys and questionnaires and an analysis of existing social media sites for each of the firms.

The study pretty much finds that while many law firms use social media, and use it extensively, they don’t use it in the most efficient or creative ways. The use of social media is described as a “token effort,” because law firms create social media sites to say that they have them, and so that they’re searchable, but don’t take advantage of the potential that those sites offer. Good2bSocial points out that social media takes real strategy separate from basic marketing. While law firms are creating substantive and interesting content, they are not using social media to promote such content as much as they could be.

Law firms have gotten that social media is important, it just really seems like they haven’t begun to understand how it works. The report states that “firms continue to view social media as nothing more than a distribution channel for firm news and press releases. This alone explains why firms achieve such low levels of engagement.” Uploading a pdf link to twitter isn’t engaging, it isn’t going to foster discussion, and it isn’t going to attract more followers.

Another mistake made by law firms, according to this study, is that they don’t have platforms in place to allow for coordination and collaboration within the firm, or in-house blogs. All of these things are not only attractive concepts for clients or potential employees, but also are helpful and engaging for current employees. The study does predict that this will all change, but that change is slow going and many firms are just beginning to scratch the surface of their social media potential.

The study does note that smaller firms are doing a better job with social media, but overall the conclusion remains that the field of law in general is lacking in social media prowess.

This begs an important question, though. Should law firms even care about social media, especially big, established firms like the Am Law 50? Social media is so crucial for places like retail stores, restaurants, or other product-based businesses because these places can attract new customers through the web. Is the same true for big law firms? Will interesting social media make clients more likely to visit that firm?

Well to be honest, I don’t know. Part of me wants to say absolutely not, these law firms have their niches and their reputations on which to rely. Engaging social media probably won’t have as large of an effect on their track record, as say, a good track record. On the other hand, though, social media can’t hurt. It could attract employees who find the idea of a collaborative social media experience within in the firm interesting. And as the business world changes, clients shopping around for new law firms may be interesting in finding lawyers who are as technologically savvy as they are.

The fact that smaller law firms are doing better with social media is very interesting. It’s unsurprising, given that I would assume smaller firms are more likely to try to actively attract new business, and are more willing to experiment with different outreach techniques.

In conclusion, Good2bSocial’s rundown was very interesting, but I don’t think social media will end up meaning that much for the Am Law 50 that were analyzed. The different nature of consumers of law services rather than other products make social media less of a necessity and more of a bonus. That being said, there’s much more to be gained by instituting a robust social media strategy than to be lost, and really, big law firms should consider getting on the bandwagon.

[Good2bSocial]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Howle via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law Firms Are Bad at Social Media, But Does it Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

In the workplace, there are certain parameters of acceptable behavior that are common knowledge, and then it is up to a given company’s discretion to set additional rules. For example, a big-time global firm by the name of Clifford Chance recently sent out an office memo on how to act appropriately within the workplace to its American offices. Parts of the memo were aimed seeming exclusively at women, and overall the piece was a rather impressive display of sexism.

The memo was entitled “Speaking Effectively” and contained 150 pieces of advice on various types of presentation skills. Some of the tips were pretty benign and gender-neutral, such as to bring notes to presentations, make strong eye contact, timing speeches, and using pauses effectively. However, others were clearly aimed at women, and can be considered patronizing at best.

The five-page memo is broken up into a number of categories, and each category seems to contain an extra tip for women. Some of my personal favorite lines:

• “Pretend you’re in moot court, not the high school cafeteria.”
• “Your voice is higher than you hear. Think Lauren Bacall, not Marilyn Monroe.”
• “Don’t giggle.”
• “Don’t hide behind your hair.”
• “Don’t take your purse up to the podium.”
• “Wear a suit, not your party outfit.”
• “Understated jewelry, nothing jingly or clanky.”
• “No one heard Hillary the day she showed cleavage.”
• “If wearing a skirt, make sure audience can’t see up it when sitting on the dias.”
• “Make sure you can stand in your heels, not trip, don’t rock back on them.”

None of these tips could be construed as anything but specifically aimed at female attorneys. Stating that Lauren Bacall, an American actress known for her “distinctive husky voice and sultry looks,” is a more appropriate voice role model than a different actress is condescending. Demeaning our former Secretary of State Clinton’s outfit choices is uninspired—no one would ever make an equal comparison to our male politicians. And overall, this memo treats female attorneys as though they are teenagers, and reduces their high educational attainment and worth to their physical and verbal appearances.

The worst part about this memo is the way in which these tips are presented, not the tips themselves. As someone who has competed in public speaking activities for many years, and who is constantly charged with teaching other young women how to present, some aspects of these are grounded in reality. The issue is that they’re not just for women, they’re tips for men too. Everyone should know that there’s an appropriate professional voice and personal voice. Both women and men should speak differently to their friends than their coworkers. But by comparing women’s voices to celebrities, and not making a similar comparison for men, is where this memo veers into grossly inappropriate territory.

As much as we would like to think differently, women are still at a disadvantage in the workplace. While estimates of its actual value range from 77 cents – 91 cents, the gender pay gap does indisputably exist. Furthermore, we constantly are hearing case after case of sexual harassment—from San Diego Mayor Bob Filner’s rampant inappropriate behavior, to a recent revelation that unpaid interns aren’t necessarily protected from sexual harassment.

Then there are memos like this one from Clifford Chance. It differentiates between men and women, and while it cannot necessarily be legally defined as sexual harassment, it is absolutely discriminatory. As long as women are treated like children while being told how to behave appropriately in the work place at a prominent firm, workplace equality will remain a struggle.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Wilson via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Commonsense Etiquette or Blatant Sexism? appeared first on Law Street.

Name: Robert S. Khuzami

Born: August 2, 1956

Position: Partner

Place of Occupation: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.

Current Salary: $5,000,000/year

Former Notable Positions:

• Head of Enforcement Division at Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)
• U.S. Federal Prosecutor – Chief of Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force
• General Counsel at Deutsche Bank AG (DBK)

Law School: Boston University School of Law, Class of 1983

Links:

• Robert Khuzami – Kirkland & Ellis LP Profile Page
• Robert Khuzami – Wikipedia page
• Ex-SEC Enforcement Chief Joins Kirkland & Ellis for $5 Million a Year
• Under Khuzami, SEC Filed More Than 150 Cases Related to Financial Meltdown
• A Legal Bane of Wall Street Switches Sides

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Donald W Reynolds via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Robert Khuzami Jumps to Big Law for $5 Million appeared first on Law Street.