The grumpy young men; the anti-social media movement for trainees





Miss TS kinda cracked with all the hatin.......





As some of you might be aware from my (slightly frustrated) tweets, my firm has recently embraced* social media.

*read introduced in a stumbling, halting series of initatives, not unlike like bambi standing up.

The trainees have been involved from the start, not through choice but through the powers that be assuming young people have an affinity for all things technology. Born in the digital age, we use and understand technology without thinking, it is second nature to us. Or so they thought.

It turns out, I am the only trainee tweeter and, I am sad to say, the only trainee who had ever read a law blog. Shock horror! I thought perhaps this may have been due to the previously onerous social media policy, which was very heavy handed and likely to put off any newbie from going anywhere near. Or perhaps like me, the trainees secretly blog and tweet but didn't want to admit it.

In fact this was far from the case. Half the trainees are social media sceptics.

I know that most of those who slate social media have never used it; they simply don't understand the uses of twitter or linked in. A lot of sceptics convert and rave about social media once they have learnt how to use it. Personally my knowledge and understanding of the law has been widended through twitter discussions and blogging has hugely improved my writing skills (if I do say so myself, I think I write a damn good blogpost!). Even if not used to engage, twitter delivers a wealth of relevant, topical and timely information to your screen just by following the right accounts. Several snippets I picked up from client tweets gave my supervisor an edge whilst talking to the client in question, information which was not available through any other medium.

The trainees are not converts in waiting - they have actively tried social media and dismissed it. They feel it is a waste of time they could be using elsewhere and they found no value in the information disseminated. Even linked in didn't interest them as they had no client contacts to link in with.

In particular I have been stumped by the response to one idea from marketing; a trainee blog; hosted by the firm but run by trainees. The content will be written from a trainee point of view and more personalised than the client briefing style blogs the firm currently hosts. The target audience is those looking for training contracts initially but, provided it is done well, could very possibly have a wider appeal. On a more selfish note, a trainee blog would be a good personal marketing tool both internally and externally as, unlike the articles that many of the trainees write for their supervisors or sector groups, we would take the credit. It would give us something to push through social media and, of course top of the list, something to put on the CV.

Unfortunately, what I thought would be an easy win has turned out to be a bit of a nightmare. Every spearhead meeting I would organise with the trainees, the sceptics would turn up and slate the idea. I actually had one trainee tell me 'there was nothing interesting about his job to write about'. Lucky for him, there was no partner in the room! Despite the proposed discussion topics for the sessions (e.g. post ideas, partner interviews and the infamous naming meeting that lasted 2 hours) they manage to turn the conversation back to their lack of belief in the idea. What iritates me most about this is that it isn't compulsory; they turn up to the meetings out of choice!

All in all I am flabbergasted (yes, it merits the use of that word) that trainees could be so narrow minded. I am not suggesting that everyone should be forced to use social media, not at all. However, actively shooting down a new iniative because you don't see the merit in it and aren't willing to try shows lack of vision. Law firms are going to have to evolve to survive; how are they going to act if they are so opposed to a little optional idea?

I hope, trainees to be, that you will be more open to innovation when you become trainees!

Lawyers just won't ask the question: client permission to instruction lead marketing

He's not actually saying it........

Active marketing is not traditionally a strong point of law professionals. For some reason we simply don't like to be seen to be 'boasting'.  Passive marketing, i.e. showing our quality without actually talking about it, is easier to swallow and given we don't tend to actively promote ourselves, any opportunity to quietly big ourselves up should be taken. One passive marketing method is to talk about work we have won or big projects that we are involved with. The fact we have been instructed to do this work indicates we are good without actually saying it. Self promotion by implication.

However, there is an issue with talking about instructions: the code of conduct forbids it. We have a duty to our clients to keep their matters confidential and this is crucial in the client/lawyer relationship. The confidentiality rule prevents lawyers from even mentioning they are instructed without permission from the client as the work that lawyers undertake is often of a sensitive nature either commercially or personally.  In some practice areas, family or insolvency for example, I would not expect the client to give permission to divulge instructions as the areas are simply too sensitive. However in some commercial transactions the client may even benefit from the additional publicity.

I recently learnt that my Firm is instructed on some of the biggest planning and land development projects in the area. This is huge! However, the Firm has not advertised this internally let alone use it for marketing purposes. The projects are not commercially sensitive, all have planning permission now and most are actually looking for partners or businesses to invest or move into the premises once they are built. The projects are often on the news so they are not media shy. It seems odd that the Firm has not cashed in on these instructions, especially now the planning team are a little quiet.

It turns out that there is the classic confidentiality issue.  The planning lawyers have handed the client over to our property lawyers and neither set is willing to ask. Planning doesn't want to step on the toes of the property lot and property don't want to be so presumptuous so early in the relationship. What it boils down to is planning are losing out on a key marketing opportunity while it is still current. And this is not the first time a chance like this has passed us by; no-one thinks about marketing in advance.

It would seem sensible to me to ascertain the position of a client with regards promoting the firm from their instructions at the beginning of the relationship. It could be part of the client questionnaire, with a simple yes or no answer, similar to the data protection question firms now include. Obviously further permission as to the content of any release would need to be approved by the client to comply with the code but it would get the 'are they going to be offended' part of the dilemma out of the way. There would be less of that awkward feeling if clients had already agreed in principle to the idea.

Inclusion of a marketing orientated question early in the standard procedure may also cultivate a forward thinking culture within a firm. Lawyers would be encouraged to consider potential marketing opportunities at the beginning of a matter rather than when it is too late. Thinking about marketing in advance would benefit marketing departments too as it often takes some time to sign off publicity internally. Generally win win!

Unfortunately, this idea has not been taken forward by my Firm. Apparently it would cost too much!