According to Susskind, profits have generally been good for law firms over the past 10-20 years.  He states, however, that "the party is now over," that the crisis with credit will speed up change within the legal profession, and that clients will become more demanding in requiring lower fees and increased work.  Susskind notes that U.S. law firms have fallen behind their UK counterparts in implementing automation and technology.  He predicts that there will be more outsourcing of legal work, and that clients will be more apt to share the costs of legal work in such areas as regulatory compliance.

Finally, Susskind notes that in England and Wales, non-lawyers will be able to invest in and run law firms.  Such non-lawyers will likely outsource legal work to India and implement more automation.  When clients begin to see the advantages of law firms run in such a fashion, there will be pressure for law firms in the U.S. and elsewhere to follow suit.

Although Susskind does not address the issue in the interview listed above, the implication from the interview is that internet marketing for attorneys and lawyers will become more and more important.  If it is true that times will become more economically challenging for lawyers (which certainly appears to be the case), marketing for law firms will be crucial.  Law firms will need to invest in teaching marketing to their lawyers.  In addition, individual lawyers will need to take the time and commit the resources to upgrade their client development skills.

Despite trends in the economy in the U.S. and internationally, there will always be comfortable room at the top for lawyers who have an expanding book of business.  The "party" need not be over for lawyers who understand and implement new media and social media marketing.

As a new attorney approximately 14 or 15 years ago, I handled a small ERISA litigation matter (on the defense side, of course) for a large corporate client.  I handled another ERISA litigation case for the same client a couple of years later, but didn't receive any work from the client for a period of 8 to 10 years.  Despite the lack of work from the client, I consistently sent a Holiday card and a Holiday gift to my client contact during the Holiday Season over a period of many years.  When I recently noticed that my former client had been sued in Utah federal court, I sent an e-mail to my client contact, offered to send him a copy of the Complaint, and offered my assistance.  To my delight, he promptly replied that he would be sending me the case.

Sending gifts to clients is an effective means of building a relationship.  According to the law of reciprocity, a client or potential client that receives something of value will in a good sense feel a desire to give something in return.  The desire to reciprocate is not induced by manipulation.  The Universe is based upon giving and on service, which are the backbones of social media for lawyers and social networking for lawyers.  Attorneys should only expect to receive new work to the extent that they are giving and serving with little or no thought of reward.  I sent Holiday gifts to the client mentioned above because I wanted to do so, and because I appreciated past business and wanted to maintain a relationship.

In both new media for lawyers and Holiday gifts, the key is to give first and to establish relationships.  When there has already been giving and when a relationship has already been established, it is natural that work will flow in the direction of the giver.

What are your thoughts about whether Holiday gifts to clients and potential clients are manipulative?  Also, are social media for attorneys and social networking for attorneys manipulative because they are based on giving first, with a hope that business will flow back at some time in the future?  I welcome your comments below.

With Twitter, I have recently begun using a service called BudURL.  With BudURL, not only am I able to shrink links that I post on Twitter, but I am able to (1) track the number of times the link is clicked; (2) track whether my links are clicked on Twitter, a separate Twitter service, microblogbuzz.com, Facebook, and other locations; (3) track the IP address of the person clicking on the link; and (4) view in "real time" as clicks occur on the links.

I first became aware of BudURL through Paul Colligan, and I recommend that you watch a short video that Paul put together about how BudURL works: ColliganBudURLvideo.

What Twitter-related services have you found most helpful for tracking or otherwise?

Syndication is generally understood to mean the licensing of news or other content to various media sources.  In other words, if a newspaper columnist is syndicated, the columnist's articles will not just appear in one newspaper, but in many newspapers at the same time.  The result is that the columnist's influence and reach increase and expand exponentially.

On the Internet, syndication occurs when content appears not just on one website, but on multiple websites.  As Alex Mandossian says in the podcast referenced above, one's content is less relevant on the web to the extent that it is not distributed to other websites.  Thus, if one is conducting a webcast or teleseminar, that webcast/teleseminar should not just be available at one's own website, but should be available through multiple websites simultaneously.

I welcome your comments below on how you have used syndication on the Internet, or on how you think syndication is relevant to internet marketing for lawyers.

In case you haven't heard, there is a new name for the telephone: POTS ("plain old telephone service").  The telephone has been around since at least March 10, 1876, when Alexander Graham Bell orchestrated the first telephone call.  It is fashionable in the social media and new media world to use new technologies that in theory make marketing and networking easier and more efficient.  It is impressive to tell your clients that you are up on the latest technologies by presenting a webinar or transmitting your own television show through Ustream.Tv.  But is it always the most effective means of providing content to your clients?

The answer is that it depends.  Sometimes it makes sense to use the latest and greatest "bleeding edge" technology to present your content.  Other times, however, POTS - meaning a teleseminar - is not such a bad option.  For example, if your audience will be listening to your message in the car or on the go, a teleseminar makes more sense than a webinar or webcast.

In addition, almost everyone has a telephone and is familiar with how to use one.  Not so for a webinar, a webcast, or a streaming video.  I presented a teleseminar today on blogging for attorneys and was struck by the ease of presenting over the phone (using a headset), and with the ability to use my computer as I was presenting the teleseminar.  Of course, the teleseminar was simultaneously available via webcast, allowing my listeners the option to listen on their computers.

Internet marketing for attorneys and lawyers should focus on meeting your audience where that audience wants to be met.  For many, that will still be with POTS and teleseminars.

I welcome your comments below on whether teleseminars are still viable, and whether they can be classified as "new media."

Ironically, the law student had referenced the couple's blog on a resume submitted to Bryan Cave.  According to the Am Law Daily post, law students should be careful about the nature of the content they include in their blogs, and they should be careful about referencing their blogs.  The suggestion of Bryan Cave's recruiting and professional development manager is for law students to include content on their blogs - such as a discussion of a legal research project or issue - that will advance their career objectives.  The Bryan Cave manager has similar advice for content on Facebook and other social networking entries, and she recommends that law students "Google" themselves because that is what potential employers may be doing.

While the Am Law Daily post does not address internet marketing for attorneys or lawyers, the post raises some important client development issues.  Social media and social networking can be powerful tools as lawyers promote their legal practices.  However, new media must be used strategically and with an eye toward how clients and potential clients will react to the content being provided.  Lawyers, like law students, should take the opportunity to Google themselves periodically.  Clients and potential clients no longer rely exclusively, or even primarily, on Martindale Hubbell.

On Saturday, November 1, 2008, at 12:00 pm ET, 9:00 am PT, I will be presenting a free webcast/teleseminar about how attorneys can use blogging as part of their marketing efforts.  Part of the webcast will focus on written questions submitted by attendees.  Here is the registration link to that free webcast: BentleyTolkBloggingTeleseminar.  I look forward to answering your questions on November 1.

Given the realities of the billable hour system, where do social networking and new media fit in for lawyers?  It can be difficult to carry on a stream of conversation through Twitter or Friendfeed when a lawyer is billing time.  Is it even ethical for an attorney who is "on the clock" to check Twitter every 15 minutes?

The reality is that internet marketing for attorneys doesn't require a constant connection to Twitter or to one's news feed on Facebook.  Lawyers can check their Twitter and Facebook messages at certain intervals throughout the day and do so without compromising work for their clients.  In fact, Tim Ferriss, who wrote an excellent book entitled The 4-Hour Workweek, might even recommend that attorneys only check social media once or twice a day.  The point is that marketing for attorneys doesn't require a constant connection to the stream of conversation on microblogging services.  An attorney can catch up with, and contribute to, the ongoing conversation of social networking during lunchtime, breaks, and the evening.

I welcome your comments below on whether social media is incompatible with billable hours or the practice of law, and whether it's okay for a social networking attorney to be connected to social media with less regularity than those working in less time-devouring professions.

When should you retweet?  I recommend doing so when you think there is an exceptionally good Twitter post that will benefit your followers.  Don't overdo it on retweeting too many posts, but occasionally retweet excellent links that your followers will find interesting or that will help them in some way.

Why should you retweet?  Social media is all about serving others and contributing to the conversation.  In the world of social networking, constant self-promotion doesn't cut it.  Sharing a tweet that will save your followers time, make your followers money, or provide practical tips to your followers, is a big part of how Twitter fits into the world of new media.

What is the real reason for retweeting?  To provide value to your followers - really.  However, as my friend Alex Mandossian would say, you can also retweet out of selfish benevolence.  In other words, in dialoguing with your followers in a meaningful way, you also benefit yourself.  Your followers will come to see you as more of an authority as you provide excellent content - both your own and from others.  Retweeting, when done successfully, also engenders action from your followers.  As your followers take action in clicking on links for helpful posts from third parties (through you), they will be more prone to take action by responding to an offer, request, or link you may post in the future for your own blog or products.

One of the goldmines in Twitter is to have your content retweeted by other Twitterers with large followings!  As you benevolently retweet quality content from others, the law of reciprocity is in your favor that others may retweet your content in the future.  But the key is to retweet with no expectation of reciprocal retweeting from the original poster.  In social media and social networking, an abundance mindset is key.  If you are not on Twitter solely to benefit yourself, you will naturally find benefits flowing back to you.

Would you rather have 1,000 Twitter or Friendfeed followers, or 1,000 subscribers to your e-mail newsletter?  I traditionally would have preferred the 1,000 e-mail subscribers, and I would still give e-mail subscribers a slight edge (in terms of marketing responsiveness) over the Twitter followers.  However, the margin in that slight edge is rapidly decreasing, and Twitter followers can actually be much more responsive from a marketing standpoint than e-mail subscribers.

E-mail subscribers are inundated with spam.  Twitter followers, on the other hand, actively and consciously choose the senders from whom they will receive updates.  Arguably, there is less spam on a service like Twitter than there would be on e-mail.  In theory, that should make Twitter more effective for marketing purposes.  My experience is that Twitter followers are generally more responsive (e.g., for purposes of clicking on links) than e-mail recipients or e-mail subscribers.  Thus, while the study referenced above seems to indicate that e-mail still reigns supreme, I would not count out social media.  In my opinion, new media and social networking are rapidly closing the marketing gap for attorneys and other professionals.  Internet marketing for attorneys and lawyers must include both cutting-edge new media technologies and "old" e-mail technologies.

Which do you prefer: e-mail subscribers or social media "followers?"  I welcome your comments below.