Feb 29

Social Media for Lawyers

The number of people across the planet actively participating in one form of social media or another is mind boggling. Only a few days ago, Twitter announced that they have now signed up over 500 million users, and come the summer, Facebook are on track to double that number.

From a business perspective, social media is often seen as a complex beast and one that can easily turn round and bite you on the backside without warning. The potential on the face of it seems huge, with more than half the population of the UK currently active on one or more social media platforms. But how exactly can you make it work for you?

The first thing to do is adjust your expectations regarding traditional approaches to lead generation. For most businesses, social media will become an additional weapon in their marketing armoury, rather than replacing what’s gone before. And don’t expect instant results. It’s a bit of a slow burner in most cases, but contrary to popular belief, its effectiveness can be tracked so you will be able to report that  all important ROI.

The big difference between social media and traditional media is that you can now actually engage directly with groups and individuals. Only a few years ago you felt like you were doing more than enough to attract new clients by simply posting your message on a website or placing an ad in a magazine, before sitting back and waiting for the phone to ring.

Each platform has its own particular strengths and pitfalls, so you’ll have to do a bit of research on each and work out what works best for you. That said, if you come back and look at this blog on a regular basis, I’ll be posting some practical advice for both new starters and seasoned pros looking to step up their game.

Roger Orwin
Digital Marketing Manager at Box Legal

comments: 2 »
Feb 8

ABI Gain Direct Access to Top MoJ Civil Servant

This is how laws are made these days it seems.

The proper way is for the Government to issue a consultation document to all relevant parties (i.e. to organisations on both sides of the argument) and then invite responses. When those responses are submitted, the Government department should read them all and come to a balanced opinion. They should also look at data, again obtained from both sides so that a proper view of issues can be considered. Only then should laws be proposed and drafted.

Now I have already commented upon the ridiculously short time between the closure of the consultation period for the civil procedural changes (28th February 2011), the issue of the impact assessment by the Ministry of Justice (10th March 2011) and the announcement of full implementation by Ken Clarke in Parliament (29th March 2011) which indicates to me that the Government failed to read all if any of the hundreds of submissions to the consultations. What was the point of the consultation if the Ministry had already decided on what they were going to do?

Now it has been revealed that it seems that the top brass in the Ministry of Justice have also been getting very chummy with the top bods at the ABI. No doubt you know this but just to spell it out, the ABI represent the defendant insurance industry.

Following a Freedom of Information request, it has been discovered that the ABI have been in regular email contact and had secret meetings with Robert Wright, the head of civil litigation funding and costs at the Ministry of Justice to iron out the rules (see - http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/01/17/robertwright.pdf). The ABI was also sending Robert Wright advance press releases and their own industry ‘data’.

When challenged the ABI say that they said nothing which they have not said in public. So that’s alright then.

I would now like to write a paragraph about Robert Wright’s emails to APIL and the nice lunches they had when all of the issues were discussed sensibly or perhaps about Robert’s telephone calls to the Law Society to discuss drafting of the rules. Problem is, there weren’t any. No emails, no calls, no lunches. Just the official 15 minutes face to face time given to the key organisations to make their case.

So this is why this is wrong. The claimant side have to go through the official channels and get a very short time to put their points across but the ABI get as much time as they like. Not fair I hear you cry? Well yes but this is a democracy don’t you know.

I feel a judicial review is approaching.

 

comments: 0 »
Feb 1

Jackson Reforms to be delayed by 6 months

The Ministry of Justice has today confirmed that implementation of the Jackson reforms will now not take place until April 2013.

Enactment of the new rules was scheduled for October this year but they have been receiving a rough ride in the House of Lords. Legal Aid reforms had already been put back to April 2013 and many groups were calling on the MoJ to do the same with the changes to the Civil Procedural rules as they often go hand in hand with Legal Aid in particular the use of After the Event Insurance.

Interested parties are still waiting for draft rules to be provided by the working committee. These were expected before the end of 2011 but it seems these two have been delayed. Is this because both sides are unable to agree or are the Jackson reforms unworkable?

More soon….

comments: 1 »