header-logo header-logo

14 December 2011
Issue: 7494 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Get connected for success

Marketing opportunities missed through ignorance of social media

The legal profession misses out on marketing opportunities by taking a “reticent” approach towards social media, according to research published this week.

LinkedIn is by far the most popular social media platform among law firms, followed by Twitter and Facebook, according to a LexisNexis Martindale Hubbell-commissioned survey of 110 law firms in 22 cities around the world.

While 77% of firms have a LinkedIn presence, a significant proportion have only registered a company page and have not engaged with other users or fully exploited the channel’s recruitment, reputational or client-development possibilities. The report found that firms which dabbled in social media and infrequently updated their pages risked losing their followers to those who do.

Derek Benton, director of international operations at Martindale-Hubbell, says: “Registering a profile is a step in the right direction, but not doing anything with it is like renting a shop on the high street and never opening the doors.

“Moving from registration to broadcast and on to conversation are the steps of social media engagement—and law, just like any other sector can, and I believe, will engage for the benefit of business development.

With some notable exceptions, now is the time for law firms to adapt their business models and experiment with social media as part of their client acquisition and retention programmes, or risk being left behind.”

The free report, Global Social Media Check-up:  A global audit of law firm engagement in social media methods, is available at www.martindale-hubbell.co.uk/socialmedia.

Issue: 7494 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll