Do you have questions about Avvo Advertising? Not sure what would work best for you?

Please join our webinar on Thursday, December 3 at 10:00AM PT for an overview of Avvo’s suite of low cost, targeted advertising options – from display ads, sponsored listings and blogs to the new Avvo Pro. We’ll talk about our methodology and discuss the various options for custom designs, pricing and detailed tracking capabilities.

With Avvo Advertising you’ll receive greater exposure among the two million (and growing) Avvo visitors each month. In fact, we offer a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee.

Hope you can join us!

Register

Last week, I wrote about the Florida Bar’s settlement of litigation relating to client reviews and online directories. In summary, the settlement notes that the Bar is engaged in a review of its advertising rules, and that while the review is pending the Bar will treat profiles on directory sites such as Avvo as “communication at a prospective client’s request.” As such, Florida Bar advertising rules would not apply to such profiles.

One little problem: Not two days after the Bar’s settlement of the Rothman litigation, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion changing Florida’s attorney advertising rules to explicitly bring websites “controlled or sponsored” by a lawyer within the ambit of the advertising rules. Previously, attorney websites had been largely considered information provided at a prospective client’s request.

Predictably enough, Florida lawyers are confused – do the rules apply to directory profiles or not? While the settlement can be read consistently with the new rules with respect to Avvo (as most items in Avvo profiles, including client reviews, are not “controlled” by a lawyer), what of directories like LinkedIn or Facebook where all of the content – and the existence of a listing in the first place – is controlled by an attorney? What of other directories that let attorneys pick and choose those reviews that appear? It certainly seems that the Bar’s intended interpretation of such profiles conflicts with the new rules adopted by the Supreme Court.

At a minimum, the disconnect between the settlement and the new rules reflects the lack of influence the Florida Bar wields with the Florida Supreme Court. In adopting the new rules, the Court declined to adopt the Bar’s suggested changes; there’s no reason to think the outcome will be different this time when the Bar presents the results of its review. It may well be that the best hope for clarity for Florida lawyers is the resumption of the Rothman litigation.

Whenever I give our “Legal Ethics and Social Media” presentation, I have people telling me about interesting ads they have seen. Adam Zucker who attended our Philly presentation sent the following videos, and man are they funny. Bishop Barry and the folks at Jesus Christ Bail Bond Company are working the salvation angle. William R. Buie III is working the family angle. Enjoy.

JCBB #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht9EMjjr5oM

JCBB #2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib4APdNU5_I&feature=related

WR Buie III: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDdN_3OtulU&feature=related

Interestingly, Bishop Barry of JCBB also has a pest control company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZQB0tk7q1c&feature=related

Mark

Well, another great Avvo Tour. This time we had the pleasure of giving five speeches in four days in the mighty cities of DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York. Once again, we learned all sorts of things on this trip. Let me offer a few:

1. We bring the rain wherever we go. Florida had the downpour. The Northeast just had Seattle-like cloudy skies and drizzle the whole time. While this made us feel at home, no Seattleite really wants to feel at home when they are on the road – just as no Siberian wants to feel at home on the road. We need sun man!

2. Carolyn Elefant draws a crowd. Carolyn spoke with us in DC and Baltimore, and she is a true thought leader with her MyShingle blog and fantastic book, Solo by Choice . In DC, Carolyn spoke off the top of her head for 30 minutes regarding marketing, networking and practicing law. After her presentation (and a long break), I had to shoo away the crowd around her so that we could start the next segment. If Carolyn is speaking near you, go see her. She knows of that which she speaks.

3. Jon Frieden got into social media because of dead cats. Honest. He tells a great story about how he defended a Virginia woman over her 500 cats, some dead and in the freezer. The story got so much press that his Internet persona became the “Dead Cat Lawyer.” To combat this, he started blogging and working social media to reflect his broader skill set (he represents people with dogs too). OK, the dog parts a joke – Jon is an accomplished litigator in Fairfax Virginia. Thank you Jon for your great presentations.

Carolyn, Mark and Jon. Photo Courtesy of Legal BizNow

4. Baltimore and Philly brought out Jon Katz and Kelly Erb (aka “Tax Girl”). Sadly, I missed Tax Girl’s talk due to my ABA speech. However, Conrad said she was fantastic – talking about being an early DIYer and building a solid core web presence. Jon Katz talked at length regarding how working on 1st Amendment lobbying issues pulled him into the blogosphere and social media in general. Thank you Jon and Kelly for your valuable thoughts – you both generated some great conversations among the crowd.

5. Philly has some great food. Conrad (who is originally from Jersey but spent a number of years in Philly) took us to Pat’s in South Philly for a traditional cheese steak. While I loved the food, I was amazed at the price: $51 for three cheese steaks, fries and soda. Watch for Avvo’s House of Cheese Steak coming soon.

6. The ABA can draw a crowd. I spoke at the ABA Law Practice Management Conference. What fun. I had the chance to meet the head of Martindale’s ratings strategy (step 1: Copy Avvo’s ratings) as well as people from Superlawyers, Best Lawyers and Law Dragon. It’s always interesting to spend time with one’s competitors. I couldn’t help but show this slide during our speech showing Avvo poised to be – if not already – the most trafficked legal directory on the Web (Avvo is in blue).

7. NYCLA rules. NYCLA has one of the grandest meeting halls in the bar world and they filled it wall-to-wall with lawyers. The facilities were great and the crowd was better. Thank you NYCLA for such a great event.

8. Our New York panel was off the charts. We had Tony Colleluori, Jeena Belil and Ari Kaplan. Each one of these people can TALK. I had to do little moderating. They were so full of good ideas, and spurred so many great questions from the crowd that I just had to let these guys talk. Tony spoke to leveraging the Web for an already successful law practice. Even in a room full of New Yorkers, he dropped a lot of jaws with his straight talk on law firm marketing. Jeena spoke to building a new practice with online tools and marketing. Jeena was a long time in house lawyer who hung her own shingle, and look at her now! I regularly use Jeena as an example of effective DIY website. Finally, Ari Kaplan looked at things from a consultant’s perspective. He works with so many different firms on what works and doesn’t work on in the marketing and networking worlds that he was the perfect overlay for the our two practitioners. We even had someone in the crowd who had attended one of Ari’s webinars the day before and she said, “Are you really that Ari?” Ari is also a loyal graduate of George Washington University Law School, so you know he is sharp. :-)

Tony, Jeena, Ari and Mark at NYCLA. Photo by Andrea Cannavina

While on the subject of the NYCLA event, Andrea Cannavina tweeted from the event so you can get a feel for our great panel here. Also at the ABA event TheLaw.TV interviewed me after my presentation (they were covering the event for the ABA) and you can see the interview here.

Thanks again to everyone who participated in the tour. Our next big event is the Avvocating Conference, January 21st and 22nd here in Sunny Seattle. We are having some of the biggest Web giants come speak to lawyers on Web strategies. We would love to see all of you here.

Mark

Florida may have a lot of onerous ad regulation, and it may sometimes take a lawsuit to affect change in the Sunshine State, but they’ve made a change for the better today: In settling a suit brought by Florida lawyer Joel Rothman and Public Citizen, Florida has agreed to exempt online directories such as Avvo from most of its ad rules.

Last year, the Florida Bar held that members may run afoul of the state’s prohibition on testimonial advertising by having client reviews on Avvo. Problem is, attorneys don’t control the client reviews on Avvo. Part of Avvo’s mission of transparency in the legal industry is ensuring that clients ultimately decide if reviews appear, and what those reviews say.

What’s great about this settlement is that it goes beyond the obvious – that lawyers can’t be held responsible for reviews left for them on Avvo – and sets forth the principle that directory profiles are information provided at the request of a potential client. Such communication is exempt from the vast majority of Florida’s attorney advertising rules, including limitations on testimonial advertising and referring to past results. Result? Florida lawyers need no longer worry about consumer opinion or otherwise-truthful information that appears in their Avvo profiles. We congratulate all of the parties involved on reaching this commonsense solution.

Ever wonder who invented internet spam? If you were thinking an enterprising teenager in a dark basement or maybe even a group of misfits in a foreign country, you’d be wrong.  It was, unfortunately, a pair of US lawyers who invented spam in 1994.  That’s right, on April 12, 1994 Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, a pair of immigration lawyers from Arizona, invented commercial internet spam.

The story of Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel

In 1994 the Web as we know it today didn’t really exist.  Instead, people interacted through a bulletin board system, called Usenet, which was a way for people to talk and share files.  Canter and Siegel decided to advertise their immigration services on Usenet by building an automated script that posted ads to every single active bulletin board.  This was the first act of commercial internet spam, or, as Wired Magazine dubs it, “The spam that started it all.”

The results of Canter and Siegel’s spam experiment

For their pioneering efforts in spam the couple earned threats, fake inquiries, blank faxes, bogus magazine subscriptions and the general ire of countless early internet users.  They were also banned by their internet service provider.  On the other hand, Canter and Siegel claimed they made $100,000 from the spam, according to Time Magazine, and defended their actions with rationales like, “There’s no one to pay for the ad.  No one owns [the Internet].”  Later in 1995 the couple even published a book explaining “how to make a fortune on the information superhighway.”

Canter and Siegel today

Laurence Canter was disbarred in 1997 and Martha Siegel passed away in 2000.  In fairness to the couple, it’s difficult to measure their 1994 “spam” activities against today’s Internet, and it’s not as if spam wouldn’t exist today if it weren’t for them.  Still, what they did enraged enough people back then to make it clear they crossed a line, even if it was their stunt that defined that line.

In a 2002 interview with CNET, Canter, who went on to be a programmer, remained unrepentant — “Given the same set of circumstance–the same time, the stage of the Internet–I’d probably do the same thing.  Somebody would have done it, if we hadn’t done it.”

We will be hosting an Avvo Pro introduction webinar, this Friday, November 13 at 1PM PT / 10AM PT, for those interested in seeing exactly how Avvo Pro can generate more business for your firm. Learn how to customize your profile, set up enhanced contact options and utilize the performance tracking and detailed reporting features.

Register

Here’s a new video that shows you what the Avvo Pro experience is all about!

1) Alan Brinkmeier of Chicago, Illinois

2) Norman Victorino of Lake Zurich, Illinois

(no photo)

3) Pamela Koslyn of Hollywood, California

4) Mark S Heller of Land O Lakes, Florida

(no photo)

5) Steven Alan Fink of Newport Beach, California

6) Blair Paul of Seattle, Washington

(no photo)

7) Howard Bailey of Newark, New Jersey

8 ) Gary Furlong of Bothell, Washington

(no photo)

9) Scott Polluck of Chicago, Illinois

10) Constantine Peter Xinos of Chicago, Illinois

(no photo)

Even though Bob Ambrogi already let the cat out of the bag, I am proud to announce today’s launch of Avvo Pro.  We have been working on Avvo Pro for a couple of months, and in a nutshell Avvo Pro offers the following really cool features:

A personal introduction

Lawyers with Avvo Pro can include a specific tagline on their profile to capture the attention of prospective clients. Whether it’s letting people know that you provide free consultations or that you are a winning defense attorney, your introduction will make an immediate impression.

Spotlighting of reviews and peer endorsements

With Avvo Pro lawyers can select which client reviews and peer endorsements are displayed at the top of their profile. This does not mean any reviews are removed; but it allows the lawyer to make the best first impression possible.

More people will see you

While being an Avvo Pro subscriber does not change where you show up in search results, it does allow you to display your contact information more prominently throughout the site.  When consumers come across an Avvo Pro profile in the lawyer directory, contact information for that attorney will be displayed on the search results page.

More people will contact you

Every Avvo Pro profile includes a prominent contact module (e.g., Contact me for a free 90 minute consultation).  This module is customizable and will move with the potential client as they peruse the lawyer’s profile.  As part of Avvo Pro, you get a free tracking phone number (optional), so that you can better understand the return on your Avvo investment.

More people *won’t* see your competitors

Avvo Pro also removes all advertisements from your profile. So instead of having a competitor’s contact information next to your name, potential clients will only see the various ways to contact you directly.

Import Your Blog and Twitter

As a dynamic marketing tool, Avvo Pro provides lawyers the ability to include a running feed of their twitter and blog posts.  Adding more color, visitors to your profile will receive a better sense of who you are and the expertise you bring to the table.

Detailed Reporting and Analytics

Lawyers need to measure the return on every marketing dollar invested.  With Avvo Pro, you receive real-time, detailed reporting and analytics regarding the performance of their Avvo profile across the entire site.  No one else in the legal space will offer you such transparency.

You can buy Avvo Pro today by visiting our Avvo Pro page at Avvo.com.  The purchase process is self-serve and simple.  However, if you need an Avvo customer service representative to assist you, just call 800-441-3596.

Thank you to all of the lawyers who have already purchased Avvo Pro.  Please let us know how it works for you.  Thank you also to the Avvo product and technical teams for making Avvo Pro a reality – you consistently amaze me with your determination and creativity.

Be a Pro!

Mark

Anyone coming to the world of lawyer marketing from a consumer product background would be stunned by the state bar rules governing lawyer advertising. The vestigial remains of the courtly days before lawyer advertising, these rules are typically a mix of picayune detail and over-expansive reach, an attempt at lawyer exceptionalism in our 21st century media landscape.

Do these rules do any good? I’m unaware of any empirical data showing – or even suggesting – that attorney advertising rules actually protect consumers (the one exception being limits on in-person solicitation immediately following accidents). The Federal Trade Commission, which knows a thing or two about advertising practices and consumer harm, has long advocated that bars loosen or eliminate their advertising restrictions. What’s more, these rules are supposed to be interpreted within the parameters of the commercial speech doctrine, which significantly limits the ability of the state to restrict non-deceptive advertising.

Within this framework of questionable utility and limited constitutionality, one would expect that state bars would tread carefully when it comes to their advertising rules. Instead, some states lean heavily into their rules, enforcing them as expansively as possible. The latest example: Connecticut, which has laid the hammer down on 5 lawyers who participated in the Total Bankruptcy advertising site (thanks, Ben Glass, for posting the memo).

What did these scofflaws do? They paid Total Bankruptcy to send potential customers their way. In any other field, this type of behavior is called “advertising.” In the eyes of Connecticut’s disciplinary counsel, it’s “felonious.”

The Bar has fixated on its prohibition of unapproved and unregulated “lawyer referral services,” which it considers Total Bankruptcy to be. Could there be issues with such services? Sure, depending on the facts. If consumers are being deceived or misled, that’s a problem. But the bars need to proceed with caution, not rabidly pursue disciplinary action and suggest that attorneys using such a service should be charged as felons. Consider:

1. Are consumers being harmed? Connecticut’s restrictions aren’t constitutional if they aren’t narrowly tailored to address a substantial government interest. Is the ban on “unapproved lawyer referral services” intended to protect the public or preserve the local bar’s sinecure in referring clients to lawyers, often taking a cut of legal fees in the process? While there may be an important consumer protection element in regulating organizations that purport to perform customized evaluations and selective referrals, the bar needs to carefully consider whether a marketing vehicle is actually making that claim, or whether it simply “smells like” a lawyer referral service.

2. Is state-sanctioned lawyer referral really the only way to go? As Carolyn Elefant points out, the “official” lawyer referral services aren’t for everyone. While they can offer a wonderful service, many consumers don’t want or need the handholding involved, and don’t want to pay a $35 fee to get an initial consultation that would be free elsewhere. Many consumers are also savvy enough to know that they will need to do their own diligence on an attorney’s qualifications and “fit” for them, regardless of whether the attorney is recommended by a friend, the state lawyer referral service, or a service like Total Bankruptcy.

3. Why does Connecticut stretch the law? The Connecticut memo makes much of historical prohibitions on “runners” being used to drum up business, and equates Total Bankruptcy to a “runner.” The problem is that Total Bankruptcy – and any online service – doesn’t remotely fall into this category. Runners are a form of in-person solicitation, which is subject to far more restrictions than advertising, for obvious reasons. Adding insult (and offense) to injury, the memo uses this bogus argument as its linchpin for threatening the “Total Bankruptcy 5” with felony convictions.

Ultimately, in the absence of consumer harm – and, indeed, a crystal-clear fit within the law’s prohibitions – states should never find that lawyer marketing practices violate their rules. Any other result is constitutionally infirm. While the bar owes it to the public and its members to carefully evaluate marketing practices that may mislead consumers, it must do so carefully and avoid rushing to judgment or overreaching. Let’s hope that when Connecticut’s Statewide Grievance Committee holds its hearing on this matter next week it does just that.