For an explanation of the BigLaw Tech Score, see this post.
For an explanation of the BigLaw Tech Score, see this post.
When I compiled the list of top global law firms, I had to guestimate which firms would make the list. With a number of firm closings this past year, I knew a few of the AMLAW 200 firms would need to rise to the occasion.
Some of my guestimates turned out to be incorrect. So is life.
For the first 25 firms (alphabetical), two firms that I bet on lost: Bracewell & Giuliani (Texas oil!) and Cahill Gordon. I should have bet on Boies Schiller (litigation) and Blank Rome (full service, Philadelphia! firm), as they both made the AMLAW 100 list.
Therefore, the list of the first 25 BigLaw Tech Scores (in alphabetical order) includes Bracewell and Cahill and skips over Boies Schiller and Blank Rome.¹
I’ll include Boies Schiller and Blank Rome next time in my effort to be complete. Therefore, the next list will be comprised of 27 firms.
It is obvious that law firms are reticent when it comes to embracing new technology. Thus far, however, the BigLaw Tech Scores serve as a vote of confidence for the law firms – who no doubt assessed the risks and benefits – and, ultimately, decided to take the leap to develop their presence on the web.
The firms with the highest BigLaw Tech Scores – Alston & Bird (19 points), Crowell & Moring (18 points), Cooley Godward (15 points), and Bryan Cave (15 points) – all jumped up in rank in 2009 and realized an increase in revenue.
The firms with the lowest BigLaw Tech Scores – Baker Hostetler (6 points), Bingham McCutchen (6 points), Cadwalader (6 points), and Cravath (6 points) – all jumped down in rank in 2009 but the firms split as to how their revenues changed. The two B firms realized an increase in revenue whereas the two C firms saw a decrease in revenue.
Obviously, there are a lot of factors that can change the AMLAW rankings, even assuming some of the players from last year were still around.
For example, each firm’s practice areas and specialties may explain the differences in rank, change in rank, or change in revenue. Maybe each of the firms that rose in rank on the AMLAW chart – those that simultaneously scored the highest on the BigLaw Tech Scores – focused on bankruptcy or securities litigation or practice areas that remained busy throughout the financial crisis. On the other hand, perhaps, each of the firms that decreased in rank on the AMLAW list – those that simultaneously scored the lowest on the BigLaw Tech Scores – specialized in capital markets or mergers and acquisitions or real estate. In other words, the practice areas that got hit the hardest.
Therefore, I decided that it would be prudent if I also considered the specialty areas at each of the top ranking BigLaw Tech Scores as well as at each of the bottom ranking BigLaw Tech Scores.
Here are the profiles from each of the firms U.S.A. Chambers & Partners rankings:
Alston (BigLaw Tech Score = 19)
Baker & Hostetler (BigLaw Tech Score = 6)
Bingham McCutchen (BigLaw Tech Score = 6)
Bryan Cave (BigLaw Tech Score = 15)
Cadwalader (BigLaw Tech Score = 6)
Cooley Godward (BigLaw Tech Score = 15)
Cravath (BigLaw Tech Score = 6)
Crowell (BigLaw Tech Score = 18)
Interestingly, out of the lowest ranking tech scores, Cravath seems to be the only one heavily weighted towards the financial services industry.
While there are discrepancies, there are also a lot of similarities. The high BigLaw Tech Scores do not stand out as “experts” in highly lucrative fields compared to the low BigLaw Tech Scores. The firms seem pretty even.
(Of course, with the caveat, that the types of clients these firms represent may vary.)
To reiterate, the BigLaw Tech Scores compared to the AMLAW rankings may be coincidental, especially because this was a very small sample. Once I go through all 100 firms, the evidence to support this claim may or may not be stronger. Again, I realize, there are a lot of factors that may change a firm’s profit and/or their rank on the AMLAW list.
Nevertheless, law firms need to revitalize their business structure and embracing technology – though scary (!) (for everyone!!) – is a cost-efficient method to improving client services and internal morale.
So, without further ado…
Think this is outlandish? Many attorneys include their cell phone numbers on their “in case of emergency” out-of-office replies. That is, of course, if their firm even allows out-of-office replies.
Many sales trainers advise sales people to give out their cell phone numbers (and recruiting trainers). Meanwhile, clients tend to respect personal lives as much as they appreciate convenience.
Free. Video. Conferencing. Look tech-savvy and service oriented at the same time. (For firms who do this already, consider entering this competition – deadline June 15, 2009).
Based on what I’ve seen so far, I’d be surprised if law firm web designers have ever heard of those concepts.
Wouldn’t it be that much easier for colleagues, clients, or potential clients to connect with a firm or an attorney if the LinkedIn profile was listed on the firm’s website?
Rule of thumb: if the first 5 hits on Google highlight recent layoffs, attorney suicides, or pending lawsuits – it’s time to get involved in the conversation.
This is about branding and presentation. A global law firm should look like a cohesive, organized entity. This takes planning, a little bit of foresight, and a helpful IT department to clear up any confusion.
(See also : user experience design and human factors.)
I’ve never been in the A/V club. I was a cheerleader and I rowed.
PC users can create podcasts with Audacity (open source) and Mac users can use GarageBand . After the file is created, a firm can host it on its servers. Once there is a permanent URL or RSS feed, the podcast can be submitted to iTunes.
Law firms have plenty of content too. They simply need to find the person with the best radio voice to read all of those client alerts or firm newsletters.
Domain? Check. Host/server? Check. Design and layout? Check. Check.
(See : firm’s home page; see also : uniform web pages).
(What can I say? After using Blogger, WordPress, and Joomla, I’m a WordPress junkie.)
And, a report placed on every attorney’s desk so he or she knows who visits the website, how they found the website (i.e. what search words did they use), whether they are a new visitor or a loyal visitor, how many minutes they spent on the site….
(Note: Attorneys should be able to decipher the analytics report to assess their current marketing strategy.)
Google and other analytics solutions encourage users to optimize solutions with supplementary data.
Once a user decides to subscribe to a site’s feed, they continue to receive the content but they no longer need to visit a website. Without clicking on the site, their visits and behaviors will not be picked up by services like Google analytics.
Nevertheless, these subscribers – arguably the site’s most loyal readers – are important in terms of analyzing trends and marketing goals. This is why services like Feedburner are beneficial.
Again, this is a branding issue that some may find nit-picky or silly. Using a blogging platform is one solution to maintaining a blog. These solutions make blogging accessible to people who do not know computer languages such as HTML or CSS . Nevertheless, a blogging platform – used as a hosting site – and a website domain are two separate entities.
If a lawyer is blogging professionally, whether independently or on behalf of his or her firm, it seems like a sensible purchase to splurge on a professional URL at $22.50 per year, $9.99 per year, or $9.99 per year. True, those are affiliate links to sites that offer domains (read! like! support!). However, the advice still stands (and, feel free to research domain services on your own!). Think of it as the modern day equivalent of printing your résumé on good quality paper.
Ok, Ok. These are long term goals. I know not all of them will work and not all of them will be implemented by next year. But, these are simply suggestions to keep law firms moving forward.
I have to say thank you to the first 25 firms that I research. In this type of scrutiny, the first group always has it the hardest (especially if the group – the first large law firms in alphabetical order – has no idea they are being scrutinized).
I’m excited to see how the next firms compare!
¹ My incorrect assumption about Bracewell & Giuliani pains me because the firm came out on top with a BigLaw Tech Score of 22 points. (On the other hand, their high tech score and failure to jump up to the AMLAW 100 list sort of ruins my analysis below.)
For similar but opposite reasons, I hate to leave out Cahill because it was one of the lowest scoring firms with a BigLaw Tech Score of 6 points and, well, it didn’t rise to the occasion.
² It also pains me to criticize firms for their inconsistent URLs when they are way ahead of the curve in terms of embracing technology.
In the next series of posts, we’ll dissect how the world’s top law firms manipulate the web to facilitate the practice of law. ¹
Following the chart described in last week’s webisode of “netTools 101: netTools Every Legal Professional Should Know,” we’ll start by defining BigLaw’s current web presence.
A firm will score 1 point for each category it fills in. All firms will start off with three (3) points because the top row – phone, e-mail, and home page – are all a given for BigLaw.
In addition, a firm may receive five (+5) points for ease of navigation, accessibility, and/or advanced web savvy.
A firm may receive two (+2 ) points for creativity and/or engagement potential.
We’ll be looking for BigLaw Facebook profiles, LinkedIn profiles or groups, and Twitter accounts.
We’ll also search for blogs and podcasts (podcasts, again, meaning any multipedia files: podcasts, video podcasts, webcasts, webinars, etc.)
To the extent possible, we’ll also determine how BigLaw interacts with the web and/or how it creates content, interprets data, and/or hosts any media files.
We’ll then compile and analyze our data.
1. Akerman Senterfitt
2. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
3. Allen & Overy
4. Alston & Bird
5. Arnold & Porter
6. Baker & McKenzie
7. Baker Hostetler
8. Baker Botts
9. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
10. Bingham McCutchen
11. Bracewell & Giuliani
12. Bryan Cave
13. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
14. Cahill Gordon & Reindel
15. Chadbourne & Parke
16. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
17. Clifford Chance
18. Cooley Godward Kronish
20. Cravath Swaine & Moore
21. Crowell & Moring
22. Davis Polk & Wardwell
25. Dewey & LeBoeuf
26. DLA Piper
27. Dorsey & Whitney
28. Drinker Biddle & Reath
29. Duane Morris
30. Faegre & Benson
31. Fish & Richardson
32. Foley & Lardner
33. Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy
35. Fried Frank
36. Fulbright & Jaworski
37. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
38. Goodwin Procter
39. Greenberg Traurig
40. Hogan & Hartson
41. Holland & Knight
43. Hughes Hubbard & Reed
44. Hunton & Williams
45. Jackson Lewis
46. Jenner & Block
47. Jones Day
48. K&L Gates
49. Katten Muchin Rosenman
50. Kaye Scholer
51. Kilpatrick Stockton
52. King & Spalding
53. Kirkland & Ellis
54. Latham & Watkins
56. Littler Mendelson
58. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
59. Mayer Brown
60. McDermott Will & Emery
61. McGuire Woods
62. McKenna Long & Aldridge
63. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
64. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
65. Morrison & Foerster
66. Nixon Peabody
67. O’Melveny & Myers
68. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
69. Paul Hastings
70. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
71. Perkins Coie
72. Pepper Hamilton
73. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
74. Proskauer Rose
75. Quinn Emanuel Urquardt Oliver & Hedges
76. Reed Smith
77. Ropes & Gray
78. Schulte Roth & Zabel
79. Seyfarth Shaw
80. Shearman & Sterling
81. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
82. Shook Hardy & Bacon
83. Sidley Austin
84. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
85. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
86. Snell & Wilmer
87. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
88. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
89. Steptoe & Johnson
90. Stroock & Stroock
91. Sullivan & Cromwell
92. Troutman Sanders
93. Vinson & Elkins
95. Weil, Gotshal & Manges
96. White & Case
97. Willkie Farr & Gallagher
98. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
99. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
100. Winston & Strawn
The slides are hard to see on the youtube video. I’ve posted them after the video in case you’d like to print them out to follow along. (I hope to get this fixed before the next webinar!)
Questions & Answers on Skype @recruiteresq, Twitter, e-mail, or call.