I have to agree with you here, Russell. Leaving th...

2009-09-14T20:37:44.928-07:00

I have to agree with you here, Russell. Leaving the marketing professionals in the dark is just bad for everyone. How could that happen? Doesn't MH understand that lawyers look to marketing professionals to understand the nuances and manage the details of ratings, Martindale being one of the oldest and more respected.

And, with all due respect to Ezza, who graciously explained the process behind the change, one attempt at contacting the most valuable sales people they have is hardly good enough.

Could it have been possible to engage marketers, who are representatives of attorneys in larger law firms, a bit sooner? Could they have tried more than once? There are so many channels available today it's odd that so few of us knew? Even subscribers?

It is my feeling based on the buzz I've been hearing that many more than Ms. Ezza notes in her comment got "crossed over," and were blindsided by this change of ratings.

Of course in the end we all roll over and play dead; accept the fate and move on. Martindale is still the grand Dame of lawyer ratings. Yet I can't help but thinking this is a very unfortunate situation that could have been avoided.

Thanks for your response. Our goal was to communi...

2009-09-14T16:01:24.947-07:00

Thanks for your response.

Our goal was to communicate to the marketing managers/administrators at all of our law firms. This was followed by communications to the rated lawyers, then to the wider community. There were thousands of messages going out, and some things may have crossed over for some firms. We are truly sorry for any unintended confusion caused.

Transitioning to a changed ratings program is what will take 10 years, and reviewing occurs in two ways: through nominations of peer references which are added to random ones, as well as Martindale-Hubbell conducting regular random reviews across the database. Re-reviewing all rated lawyers will happen; we just can’t get there all at once, even with a million lawyers and judges participating in the program.

Is the numerical rating the key component? We had conversations with the legal community and consumers alike that they want more than just a number; they want area of practice specific results, more details, narrative feedback and even demographics. Those newly rated in the changed program achieve this.

Thanks for the feedback. Every dialogue we have is important for our learning to get things better and better for all lawyers and the users of ratings.

And you are right; Carlton Dyce is a fine fellow.

Best,
Eslin Jayasinghe, Director, Product Management
Martindale-Hubbell Client and Peer Review Ratings

Comments on Progressive Marketing: Ratings Slump for Lawyers

I have to agree with you here, Russell. Leaving th...

Thanks for your response. Our goal was to communi...