There is a Point to Martindale

Amid the brohaha that surrounds the utility and cost of the Martindale Hubbell Legal Directory, the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Martindale.com, Lawyers.com and so on, I think a number of us have missed the point, so to speak.

There's no denying that LexisNexis has its hands full integrating the various sectors of the Martindale service array into a seamless promotional package. There are functionality and pricing issues, billing snafus, communications stumbles, vision impairment and foot-in-the-mouth disease rampant. Each contributes to the marginalization of Martindale Hubbell benefits because frustration in dealing with the problems makes the entire system suspect.

In the realm of indisputable, however, the first evidence of Martindale's continuing value is from our own Web sites. Our firm's logs consistently rank Martindale.com pages as one of the top three (depending on the month) source of visitors to our pages, after search engines. This is better than our own online blogs, ads and inbound-links, which represent significant expense in time and money for most firms.

The second is research by Altman Weil and Brand Research showing more than 8 out of 10 corporate counsel and 9 out of 10 law firm lawyers refer to Martindale to confirm reputation and skills (this from the early 2000's, but remember how hard it is to change entrenched behavior). At the very least, this leaves a residue of awareness that makes Martindale a permanent inclusion among every lawyer's evoked set of reference sources.

Views of our Martindale pages is my third measure of value, and the firm where I work has almost a thousand a month with about a 10% click through to the Web site (see metric #1). Here the firm's Martindale strategy of multiple content pages (not only attorney profiles, but dozens of practice and office profiles, and regular submission of articles) gives us a wide array of content options for someone looking for information on our skills and personnel. These pages index well in the search world, as well.

Needless to say, I consider the exit from Martindale inevitable for many firms due to reasons I've identified before. Even so, on my firm's behalf, that simply reduces the competition for attention and notice, and provides even more value to the promotional products our firm purchases from Martindale.

As to the future of our own Martindale participation, I expect we will judge that based on the factors above, but we also must consider the partnerships and features that benefit our social media strategy: LinkedIn and Connected.

I think the jury's still out on Connected and will be until it exits BETA and has some time to become robust. Even so, it already leads LegalOnRamp in participant numbers (over 17,000 yesterday) and anecdotes about successful business development within the Connected network are starting to circulate.

Don't you see my point? Martindale still has one.

Is This Planning?

Aha! So, I posted to the Martindale.com Connected network at my Progressive Marketing blog there, and pointed out the same stuff as below. Got a comment back from "Ezza" with the Martindale team that the Ratings department had in fact reached out to marketing people. Sorry, not me...

Today, the above letter comes, with a date the same as the blog post heralding the change. and this after I've been deluged with questions from the 40+ attorneys at the firm who got E-MAIL last Friday. Does somebody at Martindale not realize that email is faster than USPS? Might want to factor that into the next plan. Before the egg-on-your-face thing. This is "marketing", people.

Ratings Slump for Lawyers

Last week, Martindale Hubbell revised their Peer Review Ratings system in a massive overhaul that includes eliminating the first (lowest) category of rating (CV) and adds numerical averaging to the other two (BV and AV), plus displaying details of the ratings by peers (although not by name). This was covered in their blog.

We found out at our firm Friday when ratings messages began arriving in the inboxes of attorneys at the firm:

Subject: Important message regarding the Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ changed methodology
Please add the domain @email.lexisnexismail.com to your address book.
**********************************************************************
Changes to the Martindale-Hubbell(R) Peer Review Ratings(TM) methodology provide greater depth, making ratings more valuable and understandable for all buyers of legal services

Dear [attorney],
We have facilitated the Martindale-Hubbell(R) Peer Review Ratings(TM) for more than a century to enable buyers and referrers of legal services to benefit from candid and objective lawyer peer-to-peer feedback. As the needs of those evaluating legal services evolve, the demand for comprehensive lawyer ratings is increasing.
Based on extensive research and feedback from the legal community, and to provide greater depth and specificity, we have changed the methodology by which Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are determined, and there are some important changes of which you should be aware.
-----
About the changed methodology
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings continue to reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary and attest to a lawyer's professional ethics and legal ability.
The General Ethical Standards Rating still denotes adherence to professional standards of conduct and ethics, reliability, diligence and other criteria relevant to the discharge of professional responsibilities.
For lawyers rated with the changed methodology, Legal Ability Ratings will now indicate professional ability within a specific area of practice. Legal Ability Ratings will be based on performance in five key areas, rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). These key areas are Legal Knowledge, Analytical Capabilities, Judgment, Communication Ability and Legal Experience.
A combination of the Very High General Ethical Standards Rating and a Legal Ability Rating determines the Peer Review Rating, which includes an average numeric rating, a rating term and may include a certification mark:
AV(R) Preeminent(TM) (4.5 - 5.0)
BV(R) Distinguished(TM) (3.0 - 4.4)
Rated (1.0 - 2.9)
The changed Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings methodology also allows reviewers to provide additional feedback on the lawyer under review, contributing qualitative depth and personality to the rating.
To showcase a lawyer's sphere of influence with his/her peers, we also now aggregate and display reviewers' basic demographics, including general position and geographic location.

-----
What do the changes mean for my Peer Review Rating?
Effective the week of September 7, 2009, lawyers rated AV under the existing Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings methodology will be converted to AV Preeminent 5.0, the highest numeric rating within the changed AV rating category.
-----
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings--Existing >> XX(R) Peer Review Rated
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings--Changed >> XX(R)
Preeminent(TM) 5.0 out of 5 Peer Review Rated
-----
Request to be re-reviewed
A lawyer's converted rating will remain in effect until we complete a re-review of the lawyer using the changed methodology, to be scheduled by random selection within the next 10 years. However, we encourage you to request an expedited re-review so that you can take advantage of the benefits of the changed methodology--including area of practice specificity and peer feedback--as soon as possible.
-----
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are a comprehensive and trusted source
Participating in the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings program provides a comprehensive and reliable indicator of your expertise, through a trusted source that helps reinforce and validate what your firm's lawyers say about themselves. Leverage sound Martindale-Hubbell(R) methodology to promote your ratings, and ensure your firm and its lawyers are highly visible, as buyers of legal services increasingly rely on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings.
In order to expedite your re-review, please contact your firm administrator for the LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell Client Service Center (CSC). Your administrator can assist with nominating references to participate in Peer Review. For more detailed information on the changed ratings methodology, visit http://email.lexisnexismail.com/cgi-bin8/DM/y/el610IqVbp0LQj0z4ea0Ed

Sincerely,
Carlton Dyce
Vice President, Peer Review Ratings and Client Review Services
**********************************************************************

Now, I don't know Mr. Dyce, he may be a fine fellow, but changing your ratings, then going public, then notifying rated attorneys, then advising the lawyer to contact their firm ratings administrator, without a word to the firm ratings administrator seems, well, exactly a**-backwards, if you ask me. The net effect is to make the folks in marketing who are supportive of the Martindale Ratings process appear completely uninformed because...they are. To the uninformed, it may appear this is Martindale's attempt to make their system more relevent and "granular" in detail, to retain their own importance versus Avvo and other ratings sites.

A number of our attorneys gripe "One downside of this change is that folks like me, with a new rating under the new methodology, will have an actual avg score, while folks ranked under the old system will have an automatic top score until they are re-rated in the next 10 years! (Why would anyone want to have an expedited re-review when the default is the highest rating?)" It's hard for this process to appear fair at the point of revision, but over time, will it be more accurate? meaningful? Your guess is as good as mine.