Lawyer directories are a controversial issue. There are all kinds of opinions about whether or not to participate: those who are not in want to get in, those who are in want to move up in the rankings, and firms that have reached the top tier want to have as many areas and lawyers as possible in the rankings and prevent their competitors from doing so.
But is there a real correlation between directories and the reputation of firms?
When discussing with firm directors what the immediate effect of appearing in a directory is, they respond that it increases reputation. The firm or lawyer that is “ranked” in some way is “approved” in the legal services of their specialty for third parties who consult them. This approval in the directory consultation becomes an objective perception that is formed by subjective and, in a way, biased opinions (only the most relevant operations with customer satisfaction are reported, the contact details of the closest clients and those with whom the assignments have gone well are provided, and not all the work that a partner actually does in a year).
Directories began to be published in the 1980s when opportunities for client interaction were scarce. The idea (or business, depending on how you look at it) is very good. In an environment where clients have limited opportunities to interact and lawyers cannot reveal who their clients are, a third party emerges that offers: i) to serve as a channel of communication between clients to learn about their experiences with law firms, and ii) to “indirectly” showcase the firm’s most renowned clients and the relevant transactions in which it has participated.
Legal services that were previously contracted based on professionalism (in the first or only contract) or client loyalty (in repeat service contracts) can now be contracted based on reputation. Clients can talk to each other and quickly build a reputation for firms and partners. Clients are attracted by reputation and retained through loyalty. And if a partner wants to approach a client from another firm, in order to compete with the client’s loyalty, they must demonstrate a better reputation than their current service provider.
The question arises as to whether clients are still unable to share their knowledge of law firms and lawyers outside of directories. The answer is clear: they can do so, quickly and accurately. Professional social networks, national and international conferences and forums, both general and specialized, a much more open economic press, artificial intelligence that produces rankings that may soon replace those we know, and other forms of communication allow clients to interact. Professionalism, a key factor in hiring lawyers in areas where clients do not interact, is losing importance.
On the other hand, the cost of directories is not only financial (which is not insignificant) but also indirect, in terms of the hours spent by associates, partners, marketing professionals, and client time (responding to surveys), and alternatives are becoming more attractive.
If the firm’s strategy continues to be to invest in directories, it will be key to know how to choose which directories to focus efforts on based on which ones help the firm’s specific reputation and the positioning it wishes to achieve, as firms should not build it in the same way and, furthermore, not all directories contribute in the same way.
In short, it is worth asking and reflecting on whether the environment that gave rise to the phenomenon of lawyer directories remains unchanged, or whether circumstances have changed enough to at least evaluate some complementary alternatives.
Antonio Gómez Montoya – Partner at Black Swan Consulting