Publicity, transparency and the web

The Law Society Gazette, the official newspaper for solicitors, recently reported on a law firm which had decided to stop work chasing alleged illegal downloaders because it feared the adverse publicity.

Tilly Bailey Irvine "TBI"), a firm in the north east, was one of three firms who are known to be pursuing the alleged downloaders of copyright material on behalf of certain clients. Each of the firms, Davenport Lyons, ACS:Law and TBI has received a fair amount of publicity - most of it critical - and whilst all three deny any wrong doing, all three have apparently been reported to the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority).

I don't intend to go into the rights and wrongs of any of these claims because I don't know the details, but what struck me was the way in which TBI dealt with it. Having read the report in the Gazette, I went and had a look at what TBI had to say on their website. Except when I went to the "News" section, where I naturally expected there to be some comment, I found nothing.

The thing is, the web, has completely changed everything and whether we like it or not, the old "command and control" method of releasing "news" has gone. I don't blame TBI for not thinking their response to this problem wasn't news (i.e. "good" news) but it's news nevertheless and I wonder what their clients think about it?

The firm's managing partner, John Hall, is reported in the Gazette as saying:

"We are concerned that the adverse publicity could affect other areas of our practice and therefore, following discussion with our clients we have reluctantly agreed that we will cease sending out further letters of claim.

We should stress that this decision is based on purely commercial reasons and does not alter our view that our conduct has always complied with the Solicitors Code of Conduct."

All valid points and I wonder why the firm didn't put them on their website? Lawyers are not perfect and circumstances change. If we start acting for someone, but we want to stop acting for them (and there are strict rules about ceasing to act for clients) then we should be entitled to.

I was reminded of this story when I came across PR expert Steve Rubel's comments about what he calls The Jay Leno Rule for Social Media which highlights the importance of engaging clients in an  informative and entertaining way before getting to the hard sell:

"If you want to get people to care about what you're selling, you have first to get them engaged by being informative and/or entertaining. In short, you need to get us interested in what you - a brand, an NGO, an individual - have to say beyond your domain. Such pathways to engagement include stories, humor, links to interesting information, ideas, questions and participating in other discussions (e.g. Follow Friday, etc.) Then, once you get us hooked, it's easier talk about what you want to sell us. We'll be more receptive."

Maybe it's too high a standard for most lawyers and it's a standard which takes time and effort but it's a reminder to me, as much as any other business, that engaging with clients, potential clients, or anyone else who is interested really matters. It's not just the good news. Just as often, it is going to mean handling the bad news (or "adverse publicity") too. Otherwise, we are left with picking up bits and pieces and drawing our own conclusions. I mean, did they really try and edit their own Wikipedia entry? 

Comments

[Goblin]

Sorry about a late response to this post. It was my article you linked to (Openbytes)

I assume, since there was no case threatened against me, that it speaks for itself.

Of course I would welcome discourse with TBI who seem to be able to deal with IP (intellectual property) but don't understand what an IP address is and how easy it is to link to the owner.

Goblin
www.openbytes.wordpress.com