header-logo header-logo

Tweet tweet, say lawyers

12 December 2018
Issue: 7821 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Time to take a strategic approach to social media

The legal Twitterati and LinkedIn users lead the social media field among lawyers, a report shows.

Both sites were rated highest in terms of influence and effectiveness by law firms and chambers surveyed by NLJ in association with legal PR consultancy Kysen. They were followed by Facebook and Instagram, while other platforms flagged up included Pinterest, Google+, WeChat, Snapchat and Paper.li, a content curation service.

Respondents also highlighted legal platform Juriosity, which offers a knowledge network and professional directory.

Catherine Calder, joint CEO of Serjeants’ Inn Chambers and co-chair of the Legal Practice Management Association, said: ‘It is the new shop window.

‘Previously, the news page on our website was our key platform for knowledge-sharing and announcing chambers’ developments. Now we push everything out via social media.

‘It is clear from both the engagement statistics and from anecdotal evidence that that this is how we are reaching clients and contacts.’

However, different platforms have different uses, she said. While Twitter helps law firms and chambers connect with students, pupils and legal commentators, LinkedIn is a better platform for clients, with posts ‘leading directly to new work’.

The report advises taking a strategic approach to social media, as would be the case with any other communications. For example, they should ‘think logically through who your target audiences are and what you need to be saying to them to achieve your aims’, according to Fred Banning, head of corporate communications at Pinsent Mason. Combining press coverage in the still-powerful traditional press with social media activity to push the message out works very well.

There are also risks—innocent-seeming posts can go spectacularly wrong; hastily typed out tweets can go viral. The survey found that some firms are closing their Twitter accounts or tightening up their monitoring and setting clear policies so staff are accountable.

The full report, written by journalist Grania Langdon-Down, is published by NLJ this week, and available as a PDF below.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll