The Association of Corporate Counsel Value Challenge

The Association of Corporate Counsel continues their Value Challenge in 2010, pursuing an initiative designed to meet head-on the seismic shifts currently taking place in the traditional delivery model and cost structure of legal services.

According to the ACC:

"With the economic meltdown, law firms are now facing additional pressures: loss of clients and business, reduced access to bank lines of credit, a need to downsize and better manage overhead, and at the same time, keeping as many people employed as possible.

Believing that solutions must come from a true dialog and a willingness to change things on bothsides, the ACC Value Challenge is based on the concept that firms can greatly improve the value of what they do, reduce their costs to corporate clients and still maintain strong profitability. Our task is to help shift the discussion to a focus on value and to find solutions that work for all sides."

It's noteworthy that as part of the value challenge, the ACC endorses a number of practical approaches to bring change to your company, one of which is to:

"outsource, offshore, and farm-shore process oriented work to increase efficiencies."

Also of note is their Covenant For Counsel, a philosophical agreement between client and counsel created to advance mutual goals. Included in the covenant are pledges to:

"Proactively offer value-based alternative fee structures"

and

"Seek to reduce our costs creatively and constantly"

Law School R.O.I.

The current economic recession, which according to the National Bureau of Economic Research is soon to enter its third year, has had two significant effects on law students.

1) Law school admissions have increased, as prospective students seek the shelter of an ostensibly secure profession.

2) The profession of law may not be as secure as it once was, with all reports showing decreased hiring and the postponement of new associate hiring (and even an instance of a law school asking incoming students to defer their start date.)

With that in mind, the New York Times' Economix column featured a recent research paper written by Vanderbilt professor Herwig Schlunk measuring the return on investment for a current law school education.

In general, the paper looked at what kind of salaries law students could have been pulling in if they weren't in law school, factored in some time value for that period, and added tuition to that "opportunity cost" to arrive at a number that needed to be surpassed by earnings as a lawyer.

For the group of law school applicants deemed Hot Prospects (those who would have made $80,000 a year without a law degree), the paper concluded they'd need to earn a starting legal salary of slightly more than $198,000 to break even on their law school investment.

Unfortunately, according to the ABA Journal:

"...top BigLaw starting salaries paid to a small fraction of the nation's graduating law students are now around $165,000. Even many major firms, however, are paying significantly less, and a number of law graduates are having difficulty finding legal work even at much lower salaries due to the economic downturn that hit the legal profession hard last year."

So, the cautionary note to prospective law school applicants is to run the numbers on your investment first. And an MBA might help with that.

More Year-End Numbers

The National Law Journal released the results of their 2009 census of the largest 250 law firms, and the numbers are predictably gloomy.

A few of the lowlights:

The number of employed attorneys at these top 250 firms plunged by more than 5,200. That's a 4% decline.

This is only the third year since the NLJ started tracking in 1978 that saw a decline. 1992 saw a 1% decline, and 1993 dropped 0.9%.

Of the top 75 firms, 15 had reductions of more than 100 lawyers.

The number of associate attorneys dropped by almost 9%.

Many firms declined to near or below where their numbers were five years ago.

113 firms reported deferring nearly 2,800 new associates.

Interestingly, the number of partners increased by .9%. Of the top 50 firms, 30 reported an increase in partners.

A consultant with Altman Weil, Ward Bower, concludes that "the cuts made were done primarily to preserve workloads for partners." Which means that clients can only conclude that work currently being done by partners is work that would have previously been executed by associates. And that is exactly what clients have been trying to avoid.

The National Law Journal has a number of accompanying features, analysis, and breakdowns.

To Tweet Or Not To Tweet

Any conversation about marketing legal services these days is bound to include a discussion about social media. For some professions and industries, Twitter and Facebook are a slam dunk.

For others, including attorneys, it's not quite as simple.

There are those who maintain that anybody not utilizing Twitter and Facebook are completely out of step. But Eric Turkewitz has an interesting blog post about the less discussed but equally relevant downside of social media as a professional marketing tool.

The first potential pitfall pertains to overly enthusiastic posting. Anyone who has been waiting on a colleague or vendor for work to be delivered, only to see semi-hourly tweets or FB posts, knows the resentment that can build.

The lesson here is to make your posts occasional and relevant.

The other potential downside to social media posts is the appearance of sloppy work. The nature of the legal profession requires reason, accuracy, thoughtfulness, and thoroughness. So a type-o riddled, grammatically butchered post is going to immediately defeat its purpose.

Now, many may think that the risk of undercutting your credibility with poorly written posts might be short lived. But, interestingly, they might be wrong.

Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that the algorithms used in Google's searches disproportionately weight Twitter and Facebook accounts to appear on the first page of search results. According to Eric Turkewitz's personal research:

"I wondered, if a potential new client was given my name by another, and that person Googled me, what would they see?

Well, the first page of my results shows three separate social media sites: Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. They show up there despite the fact that I've not exactly been the biggest user of those sites over the last year.

So this is what the potential new client will see, even if you have an active presence on the web. Since I've written over 800 posts in this space since I started in November 2006, and received thousands of inbound links, I probably fit the definition of active presence. And yet, those three sites still manage to crowd out links from so many others."

Of course, this is all fluid, given google's very recent announcement of "social search", which may ultimately be a competitor of facebook, as well as their new agreement with twitter to bring real-time tweets to search results.

Regardless, the lesson for attorneys considering -- or already exercising -- a Facebook or Twitter presence is this: Your social media contributions may carry disproportionate weight within search engine results.

Potential clients may form opinions and make decisions based on those search results.

If you are an attorney using social media, do a general google search on yourself and monitor the page ranking of your social media accounts.

And then tweet accordingly.