Promise Yourself You’ll Get A Website In 2006
It is hard to imagine any firm not having a website today. But I know small firms in my area of the world that don’t. Simply put, without one you are not considered a player. Period.
People looking for a lawyer, whether corporate counsel or individuals, check out a firm’s website to get information and yes, a feel for whom they will be dealing with on a matter. It doesn’t matter the size of your firm. Unless you do not want to market your firm, you need one.
Thanks to Carolyn Elefant of MyShingle for alerting me to Jim Calloway’s assertive statement that every law firm regardless of size needs a website. He points out that a site doesn’t need to be expensive, nor does it have to be elaborate or take a lot of time to set up. He even provides a link to a reasonably priced hosting service. (However, I must admit that I had a nightmare of an experience with GoDaddy.com recently in setting up a shopping cart, but that is another story). You can find many others by doing a “web hosting” search on Google. Even Yahoo provides hosting services.
Jim identifies things that you should have on your website:
• Your own domain name (not a sublink of another domain),
• Names and contact info on attorneys (and presumably a bio),
• Directions and map to office,
• Practice areas that firm handles (I would add with brief, well written descriptions),
• Good content (again, well-written without typos, and in simple and clear language), graphics and pictures, and
• Disclaimers regarding not rendering legal advice on the site, and jurisdiction(s) of practice (and no attorney-client relationship establish by their merely contacting the firm).
Finally, he cautions that you check your state's ethics rules to ensure compliance.
Bottom line: As Jim states, “having no web presence makes about as much business (or legal marketing) sense as having an unlisted phone number for your law office.” How true.
Yes, very true.
But I wonder: is having a poor web presence better than having no web presence at all?
Is it worth it to spend a couple of hundred dollars on an ugly Findlaw Firmsite(TM), for example?
I know of many lawyers who are very competent... but use amateurish AOL member sites for their websites... and I wonder how many clients they lose because of that.
I think it's also important for attorneys to separate the medium (websites) from the marketing (content/design).
-- Michael Lee
www.PremiumPractice.com
You raise a very good point. My initial reaction is that any website is better than no site. But, upon reflection I agree that a poorly design site with lousy content, or one that is otherwise amateurish is probably just as bad or worse. Rightly or wrongly, it is likely to send a message on your abilities as a lawyer. Thanks.
Do you have any thoughts on whether a lawfirm site is really necessary if you have a high-quality blog site like yours that includes static "contact" and "services provided" pages? After all, the blog is going to get all the hits b/c it is search engine candy; the firm website will likely get very few hits that don't come by way of the blog.
Tom's response:
Mac, I don't believe that a static website is necessary when you have a blog. However, some bloggers prefer to separate their blog from their website for various reasons - appearance of conflicts, promoting products, advertising, and the like.
