The Eye of Law Marketing Providence

All seeing eye

Image via Wikipedia

Steve Matthews, one of the few law marketers I tolerate respect, writes in his guest post “Is ‘humble’ in your marketing repertoire?”:

When it comes to marketing, lawyers are commonly encouraged to focus on the concept of expertise. Specifically, they’re advised to become the “go-to expert” in their chosen field, or even to become (a term I’ve used myself in the past) a “thought leader.” It’s a fine idea, but there’s a problem: some lawyers have taken this advice literally and filled their marketing materials with those exact terms and phrases.

“John Smith is the nation’s foremost expert on intellectual property,” their websites proclaim. Or, “Cindy Johnson is widely considered a thought leader in the area of medical malpractice claims.” Quite often, the reader’s instant reaction to these declarations is: “According to whom, precisely? Who decided you were a thought leader? Please tell me you didn’t create that title yourself.”

Matthews may be preaching, but the law marketing choir is largely deaf-mute; preferring to worship the unholy Trinity:

“In the name of the Flawger, the SEO and the Holey Ghost-Writer. Amen.”

It is fortifying to see a law marketer speak out against unethical marketing and social media credential fraud. It is also gratifying that there are some former-lawyers-turned-law-marketers who have not forsaken the ethical dimensions of lawyering when promoting their lawyer or law firm clients.

Matthews continues:

And here’s the rub. This is one of those unwritten rules that appears to require writing out from time to time: expert status should almost always be bestowed by others, not claimed by you. This is especially true of the word “expert,” a dangerous term that in some jurisdictions is forbidden unless the specific title of “expert” has been granted by a lawyers’ governing body.

Given that most lawyers are able to write around such a term and its ethical considerations, the better question is probably: when exactly is it acceptable to toot your own horn? My suggestion is that you can get away with asserting “expert” status only if you can back it up immediately after making the claim. Two acceptable examples would be the commercial messages delivered on your website’s practice pages and lawyer profile pages. You can also conceivably use it in the biography at the end of an authored article (because you’ve just demonstrated it in the preceding content), but the list of acceptable placements drops dramatically from there.

Understandably, Matthews is attempting to downplay the shameless self-promotion and self-adulation that is rampant on the Internet, Twitter and Facebook. However, I disagree with his colloquial use of the term “expert” for legal marketing purposes (see my post “Are You A Legal Expert? Really?“).

Consider the heretical proposition that legal ethics is not what a lawyer may or may not do, but what a lawyer should or should not do. The deontological approach to lawyer regulation may well be entrenched within a profession that has been indoctrinated by legal positivism and rule-oriented governance, but  as Hamlet said, “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Humility is a trait that everyone claims to possess, but few actually own.

Speaking of humility, a colleague of mine forwarded a link to a law website that is stentorian in its promotional strategy:



“the lawyer who knows it all… Law, Liability and Insurance”

Dr. Ajit Singh Saroha has an inter-disciplinary Doctoral degree in Sociology and Laws from Punjab University, Chandigarh, India. In addition, Dr. Saroha has undertaken Postgraduate Diplomas in Health, Family Welfare and Population Education; and Human Resource Management. An Intermediary Level course in French helps him appreciate different languages and cultures of Canada and the world. Dr. Saroha has worked as the Research and Documentation Officer of the Commonwealth Youth Programme, Asia Centre, a division of the Commonwealth Secretariat, London; and as the Deputy Director (Incharge — Information, Education and Communication) with the State AIDS Control Society, Chandigarh under the National AIDS Control Organisation of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of INDIA. During his working career, Dr. Saroha has conducted national and international published research studies on variety of subjects. Dr. Saroha migrated and settled in Toronto, Canada in 2005 establishing his career as a Professional Lawyer in Ontario. During the settling period, Dr. Saroha worked as an Independent Insurance Professional with the top Insurance Companies of Canada. This gives him an edge in Personal Injury and Insurance laws.

According to the jatland wiki page, he is among a select few “Notable persons from this gotra”:

Dr. Ajit Singh Saroha, Barrister in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. One of the most educated and self-actualised persons around.

I’m as equally impressed as you are. A testimonial that would have made Abraham Maslow roll in his grave blush.

There’s a bit of a problem, though.

I have no quarrel with someone using the honorific  or titular “Dr.” for someone who holds a post-graduate degree. However, I doubt that working as an “independent claims professional” (frankly, this sounds like a claims adjuster, but I could be wrong) translates to giving someone “an edge in Personal Injury and Insurance laws.” That’s like me saying that, having loaded trucks and boxcars down on the Cherry Street docks to pay my way through law school , I have been given “an edge in worker’s compensation and transportation laws”.

While Dr. Saroha may have tremendous life experience and non-law related credentials, the reality is that he does not have much practice-related experience. According to this law firm website:

First Article Called to Bar 

July2010 Dr Ajit Singh Saroha was Called to Bar by the Law Society of Upper Canada. He had successfully articled with this law firm for ten months. This law firm and all its associates wish him the best of career and growth.

Similar to the all-seeing, omniscient Eye of Providence above, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is also a pyramid:

It is useful for all lawyers to note that “Esteem” is below “Self-actualization” in the climb to enlightenment and new lawyers, in particular, need to take heed of Matthews’ advice:

Difficult as it is for some to believe, humility counts towards likeability; not only that, but interestingly enough, it also makes for a more believable expert. “Under-promise and over-deliver” is also a marketing mainstay that applies: let your clients decide that you’re an expert based upon your performance. Not only is this message better delivered by the hand of others, but it will support such claims of status when you do make them.

After all, it was Dizzy Dean, a baseball pitcher not short on confidence, who famously said: “If you can do it, it ain’t braggin’.”

Under-promise and over-deliver is a sensible approach, but in all things law marketing, it’s best to avoid being and saying you’re a “know-it all”.

Tags: ,

5 Responses to “The Eye of Law Marketing Providence”

  1. Ethical consideration explained | Zerafoto Says:

    […] The Eye of Law Marketing Providence « THE TRIAL WARRIOR BLOG […]

  2. Utkrisht Says:

    who the hell are you?

  3. Antonin I. Pribetic Says:

    I don’t usually answer existential questions, but since you asked:

    “And I am, whatever you say I am
    If I wasn’t, then why would I say I am?
    In the paper, the news everyday I am
    Radio won’t even play my jam
    ‘Cause I am, whatever you say I am
    If I wasn’t, then why would I say I am?
    In the paper, the news everyday I am
    I don’t know it’s just the way I am”

    Eminem, The Way I Am

  4. Utkrisht Says:

    It is strange that critics who do not read carefully enough or who are not informed enough to understand the difference between a doctoral degree (permitting to use prefix Dr.) and additional post-graduate degrees are allowed to leave unsolicited comments and claim themselves as experts, while a professional in his invitational marketing website cannot. God bless pseudo-professionals like you who have nothing to be proud of.

  5. Antonin I. Pribetic Says:

    I am publishing your anonymous comment as a teaching moment.

    I often wonder why is it that those who leave anonymous comments blithely assume that their real identities cannot be discovered? Did you not bother to read my other blog posts or not know that I practice defamation law?

    Do you actually think that by leaving a self-serving, uninformed and censurious comment that I will not seize the opportunity to expose your ignorance?

    I frankly could care less if you are the subject of the post or merely the web marketer responsible for the lawyer’s website. In either case, your comment is bereft of any insights or relevance.

    Since you do not appear to understand the difference between statements of fact and statements of opinion,my efforts to edify you would be a monumental waste of my time.

    In any case, this is my blog and commenters must abide by my rules. If you’re going to try to insult me, then have the guts to put your name behind your puerile name-calling.

    Now flee, you mewling little troll and never darken my door again.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: