Larry Bodine Law Marketing Blog : Law firm marketing, legal editor, legal marketing, attorney marketing, business development, marketing consultant, legal consultant, business development

A new white paper identifies the following AmLaw 100 law firms as having the best Web sites:

1. Baker & Hostetler LLP -- www.bakerlaw.com 
2. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP  -- www.wilmerhale.com
3. Jones Day LLP -- www.jonesday.com
4. Andrews Kurth LLP -- www.andrewskurth.com 
5. Hogan & Hartson LLP -- www.hhlaw.com 
6. Foley & Lardner LLP -- www.foley.com
7. Dorsey & Whitney LLP -- www.dorsey.com
8. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC -- www.mintzlevin.com
9. Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP -- www.eapdlaw.com
10. Shearman & Sterling LLP -- www.shearman.com   

These firms had the highest scores for using the "Ten Foundational Best Practices" according to the September 2006 white paper "AmLaw 100 Web Sites 2006" published by Deborah McMurray.  You can get a copy for yourself at http://www.contentpilot.net/deborahmcmurray/amlaw2006/default.aspx?refid=LB.

"These are the top 10 rated firms for the 2006 AmLaw 100 Web Sites, according to our Ten Foundational Best Practices analysis. These sites are well-worth visitors' time and attention. Congratulations to these firms--they will be rewarded with visitor loyalty," said author McMurray of Dallas, TX, who is CEO and Strategy Architect for Content Pilot LLC.

I've read the 64-page report and Deb's methodology is sound and her research is accurate.  It's a pleasure to have a respected voice saying that the 10 best practices that law firms should use are:

1. COMMUNICATING YOUR MESSAGE. How well are firms communicating strategy, strengths and geographic reach?
2. GRAPHICS AND DESIGN. This isn't about branding or the attractiveness of the design--that's too subjective. This is about consistency, simplicity of communication, minimal distractions, information hierarchy, browser compatibility and so on.
3. NAVIGATION. Are the sites easy to navigate on the home page and inside? Is the navigation protocol consistent from section to section? Are there several ways to get around the sites? Is the information one to two clicks from anywhere in the site?
4. NARRATIVE CONTENT. This section takes a broad look at all narrative content on the site. Is the language visitor- and client-focused? Is the content organized intuitively? What about spelling and grammar?
5. LAWYER BIOGRAPHIES. How well do the bios communicate the lawyers' strengths? Are they consistent one to another and are they current? Can a visitor get more information easily? Are the photos current?
6. PRACTICE/INDUSTRY DESCRIPTIONS. Practice and industry descriptions should answer the questions: a) What have you done, b) for whom have you done it, and c) what can you do for me? Do they include specifics and case studies?
7. CONTACT INFORMATION. Visitors should be able to access complete contact information for every firm office in one click from the home page, and have contact information for key individuals in each office.
8. SITE SEARCH. How easy is it to search the site? How comprehensive are a) the lawyer search, b) articles/publications searches and c) the advanced search?
9. SITE OPTIMIZATION FOR ONLINE SEARCH. Have the firms taken the basic steps necessary to maximize their chances of being found by the most popular search engines? Are the site maps current? How do the sites fare in terms of online awareness?
10. SITE "HYGIENE." Firms may do well with strategy or design, but if links are broken, the site is down or it isn't easy to access using up-and-comer browsers, visitors will get annoyed and not return. In Web site design and maintenance, the little details are as important as the big picture issues.

Look for a more detailed review of the white paper on the LawMarketing Portal. Meanwhile, visit Content Pilot to get your copy.

A 12-person jury held lawyer Rafe Banks of Cummings, GA, liable for $50,000 for libeling another lawyers in his blog.  According to the October 23, 2006 issue of Lawyer USA, it was the first libel jury verdict against a blogger.  The case is one of at least 50 similar suits that have been filed against bloggers, primarily alleging libel or trademark infringement.

For example, you have libeled someone if you say in your blog that they have committed a crime (like taking bribes), have an embarrassing disease (herpes) or state incorrectly what their sexual preference is (gay or lesbian).

Libel is making a defamatory falsehood, that is, making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. It applies to newspapers, magazines, TV, radio and blogs.

"Bloggers in general think they can put anything in a post.  They seem to think that defamation rules don't apply, in the same way that some bloggers think copyright laws don't apply," Christine Corcos, an associate professor at Louisiana State University Law Center, told Lawyers Weekly.  "They're wrong."

The problem arises because blogs have become newsy Web sites that report business and political developments. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a "Legal Guide for Bloggers" you should check out.

My colleague Mark Merenda of Smart Marketing in Naples, Florida wrote me about his dreadful experience with Apple computers:

"I am a total Mac bigot. Have used a Mac without interruption for almost 20 years. I love the Apple brand. So when they announced the new Intel chip Macs, I couldn't wait. Four times faster! I bought a Macbook as soon as they were available. Within days I had heat issues, noise issues and sudden, unexplained shut-downs. This is apparently a widespread problem, by the way, from everything I'm reading online."

"After spending hours online with Apple tech support, I had to send back the computer. They sent me a new one. The new one had a bad wireless card, and wouldn't pick up wireless signals in hotel rooms, which is where I spend half my life. They fixed that in the Apple store in Atlanta. Neither of these computers is four times faster, or two times faster, or any faster, as far as I can tell. My new Macbook feels cheap, plastic, assembled in China. I loved my G-4 Powerbook, maybe I'll go back to it...or...or.....no, I can't say it."

You can read his entire post at http://smartblog.typepad.com/smart_blog/2006/10/a_few_rotten_ap.html.

Mark added: "Also, Larry, you might enjoy this from fellow apostate Dave Rosenberg:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2006/10/more_on_apples.html

Some of his blog posts include:

My very own corner of Apple Hell
"I'm dead" says my MacBook replacement
My new 15" MacBook Pro (Verdict: Disappointing)
My MacBook sucks and I am returning it

My Power Mac G5 Dual 2.7GHz computer is officially for sale on eBay.  Help me sell it, by visiting:

http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=280171317&site=0&ver=LCA080805&item=260044620756&lk=URL

This top-end computer is for power users who want the most in speed, storage and RAM.  The OS X Tiger operating system is the newest available. This powerful CPU also has a 16x SuperDrive double-layer DVD+R and RW/CD-RW.  The video card is an ATI Radeon X850 XT w/256MB DDR SDRAM. Includes Apple keyboard, Apple Mouse and all the manuals. New hard drive installed on June 26, 2006. You'll get all the manuals and CDs that came with the computer plus bonus software.  Extended AppleCare Protection Plan in effect and continues to 7/14/2008 -- so you have no risk!

Bonus software includes:

• Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Professional ($300 value)
• Freeway Express HTML editing software ($100 value)
• MS Office for Mac including: Entourage (Outlook), PowerPoint, Word, Excel and MSN messenger ($500 value)
• MS Virtual PC for Mac, Version 7, with Windows XP Professional ($500 value)

This Mac is in mint condition. Professionals need superior tools to produce designs, music, high definition video or the next scientific breakthrough.  This Power Mac extends as far as you require.  Two 64-bit G5 processors will give you more results than systems costing twice as much. According to Apple, this machine runs Photoshop nearly two times faster than a Pentium 4-based system.

Note: Screen not included.  Shipping by UPS ground is $40 within the US.

This killer computer and software cost me $4,552.71 when I bought it new.  Now it can be yours at a fraction of what I paid for it.

Visit http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=280171317&site=0&ver=LCA080805&item=260044620756&lk=URL and buy it, and it's YOURS!

Monica Bay, the Editor-in-Chief of Law Technology News, defends my article criticizing the PowerMac G5 I bought, and had a bad experience with.  See her blog, The Common Scold.

Monica is a frequent international speaker on legal technology, electronic publishing, news media and legal career issues. She also writes for Corporate Counsel magazine, the American Bar Association's Law Practice Management, and the U.K.-based Legal IT, among others. As a legal technology analyst, she had been quoted in The New York Times; ZDNet's Sm@rtPartner magazine, and even Southwest Airlines' Spirit magazine.

Here are some excerpts:

Controversy and healthy discussion are both great -- but what is not great is when the dialogue becomes ugly and hateful. Bodine didn't just receive the expected thoughtful responses, he got calls in the middle of the night, and anonymous, obscenity-laced messages that unquestionably qualify as hate mail. We're not talking movie-language here, we're talking raw rage -- flat out scary hate. (I saw some of them.) 

Everybody: Get a grip. Bodine is not Bin Laden's lieutenant, he doesn't have sex with Bill (Gates or Clinton), he doesn't poison puppies, he's not personally plotting to destroy modern democracy and he doesn't torch Antartica's glaciers to increase global warming.

He bought a Mac, and he had a bad experience with it. He's a legitimate member of our legal community (saying he doesn't practice law so he shouldn't have a voice is just plain silly). He wrote about his bad experience. That doesn't make him Oliver (Stone or North) or even Benedict Arnold. Nor am I irresponsible for publishing the article. The whole PURPOSE of Tech Counsel is one person's experience with tech.

Did Bodine make errors in his article? Yes -- He put the wrong purchase date (the correct date was July, 2005, not May, 2006) and he used the incorrect name for Entourage. As a Mac user, perhaps I should have caught the Entourage mistake. (But I actually use Outlook on my Mac.) Honest mistakes are inevitable in journalism under deadline.

Was he a first-time Mac user, unfamiliar with Apple protocols, and weaned on all-things-Redmond? Absolutely. Was he impatient? No doubt.

Guess what -- there are a lot of Larry Bodines in the world, trying out a new product for the first time. And getting frustrated. Just take a look at the latest ABA Tech Survey, AmLaw Tech Survey, or ILTA Tech Survey.

Was Bodine's article valuable? Yes. Without question. Not everybody has success with a new technology. Not everybody is "under-the-hood." It's OK to show someone who is unhappy as well as all the success stories. Not everybody who buys a Mac or a PC is going to memorize the manual and/or intuitively know how to use absolutely every feature. Bodine's pain is shared by any of us who try to fire up any technology we are dealing with for the first time.

But Mac zealots: You do your cause a lot of good if you turn down the flames, and keep the discussion honorable and cool. Hate isn't welcome in Law Technology News.

Read here entire post online.

I was coaching a law partner about getting more business.  He had followed his plan perfectly: he found a target company, got a lead, and followed up to schedule a meeting.  Now he was concerned about the interview. "How do I make them like me?" he asked.

It was a sincere question from a bright, talented and experienced lawyer.  He had credentials galore but was having trouble with the "building a relationship" part, which is not unusual.

My advice was to arrive with five intelligent questions, such as "Tell me how this business problem is affecting your bottom line?" "What's the best business outcome for you if everything were to work out perfectly?" "Tell me how the board of directors and CEO are viewing this problem, that is, whom do we ultimately need to make happy?" And I added my two favorite questions: "Tell me more about that" and "What makes you say that?"

He still wasn't happy, and wanted to pitch them about his prestigious firm, his years of experience, bar association memberships and winning track record. I advised against it, suggesting instead he ask, "What do you need to know about me so that we can begin doing business?"

He was still worried.  So I suggested he start the meeting with his "30-second commercial." He had never heard of this.  As marketers know, it's:

• A short capsule about your work so others will want to know more
• Answers the question "What's In It For Me?"
• Clear & concise
• Contains no jargon or terms of art

A 30-second commercial has three elements:

1. "I am........" (A corporate transactions lawyers with the Alpha Beta Delta law firm)
2. "I work with...." (Describe the people you work -- GCs, CEOs, scientists, HR people -- with at the client and ideal clients in very specific industry or business
3. "To solve..." (Describe the pivotal "trauma" you solve, and the business goals you help clients to achieve)

The commercial is designed to prompt questions from the other person, and to be used as a conversation starter.  When the partner heard this, he was thrilled.  All he needed was a way to get the interview started on the right foot.

From Tom Kane's blog:

There is a discussion taking place today over on the LawMarketing Listserv (paid membership required, although you can sign up for a free trial) about ideas for a gift to give a client who was just made CEO. Suggestions included something from Tiffany and Co., an engraved pocket watch, or a Mont Blanc pen. And one suggested giving the client a "Be My Guest Dining Card" from American Express (actually the reintroduced version is good at any retail store that accepts AmEx).

The person suggesting the gift card also opined that the card should allow the CEO to take whomever he wished (but not the lawyer) out to dinner. Although this may not be a bad idea in this particular situation, it did bring to mind a problem that I encountered when I was an in-house marketer. Often times I battled with the attorneys over the practice of giving tickets to clients, rather than using the tickets to the theater, sports luxury boxes, etc. to spend personal time with the clients during these entertaining moments.

That's not to say that, from a law firm marketing perspective, occasionally giving a client tickets so they can take their kids (spouse, friend, whomever) to a ballgame or the "Christmas Spectacular" at the Radio City Music Hall is a bad idea. Rather, the difficulty was in getting some lawyers to commit to the personal time necessary to develop and enhance client relationships. It was just too easy, too often to just throw the tickets at the client or referral source. In other words, it was easier to spend firm dollars than personal time interacting with clients and those who could send the firm more clients.

An interesting statistic tucked away on page 54 of the September/October issue of Law Firm Inc., is that few law firms use WebEx and Live Meeting to broadcast marketing seminars to clients and targets.  Firms like Winston & Strawn in Chicago, Arent Fox in Washington, DC and King & Spalding in Atlanta have been using Webcasts to clients for years, and law firm marketers who don't are missing a great technique.

The article found that WebEx and Live Meeting were the top choices for Webinars and online meetings among law firms.  However most firms are using the services for client meetings, administrative meetings, in-house training and communicating with colleagues in US offices.  Only 7% of firms use them for "external CLE."

"Many law firms have come to realize that legal seminars for existing and potential clients can be excellent business-development tools. But the sheer physical logistics of attending seminars - travel, time and expense - are often impediments that can dampen interest and reduce participation.

But a low-cost solution is gaining popularity in the legal community: the web-based seminar, or "webinar."  See the article "Webinars Take The Travel Out Of Seminars" online at http://www.lawmarketing.com/pages/articles.asp?Action=Article&ArticleID=504.

Lisa S. Keyes, a lawyer who is director of professional development at the firm, said the reaction has been enthusiastic since the beginning. "With our clients spread all over the world, webinars give us a way to reach them more conveniently than if they had to come to our offices," she said. "And the production costs are relatively low."

Because few firms have caught on the Webinars, a firm can distinguish itself very effectively with a Webcast to clients -- to deepen the relationship -- and to prospects -- to attract new business to the firm.

Thank you my Mac friends for unwittingly making this blog one of the most popular in the marketing field!  Since midnight last night, 5,660 unique visitors have come to the blog.  You guys are the best traffic builders a fella could want!

Let me make a few corrections to the article:

• The correct purchase date is July 15, 2005.  Perhaps newer Macs have the Flash plug-in and other features commenters are describing.
• The MS email program on OS X is called Entourage, not Outlook.
• The magazine editor wrote "I am smart" in the article.  While I appreciate her esteem, I did not write that.

Regarding the screen capture feature, it was not described anywhere in the manuals that came with the computer nor in the "Help" link on the Mac.

Regarding the inability to read Flash, I even telephoned Apple and asked about a plug-in for it.  As I stated in the article, the Apple help desk said no improvements in Safari were planned.

So keep those comments coming.  I've turned off the "hold for approval" feature.  You can post comments at will and show the world what kind of people Mac users are.

I knew that Mac computers had a ferocious cult following.  The Mac apologists came out flaming after I wrote an article entitled "Unloading a $4,552 Mistake" on page 41 of the October 2006 issue of Law Technology News.

• Mac lovers are calling late at night and leaving anonymous messages on my office phone.  The messages are essentially hate mail from people with caller ID blocked, and who are too cowardly to leave a name and number.
• Obscenity-filled comments with fake email addresses are streaming in.  I deleted those and published all the posts that addressed the point of the article. What is it that makes these kooks so defensive?
• There is an extensive string of messages about my article on MacDailyNews.  The original poster was polite enough not to flame me, but instead offered 939 words of tips and ideas.
• The paranoid readers of MacDailyNews, however, are belligerent. I must have revealed their awful secret. "He's a Dell plant." "Children in America have no problems learning to use a Mac. And here comes this dolt, and he can't figure out how to use a Mac?" "One idiot lawyer does not make a trend." "This guy is definitely a plant." "this guy has to be fake." "this is FUD underhand advertising for the Redmond camp... "
• One virulent Mac acolyte posted an insult in a comment while I was writing this post.

These Mac owners are defensive beyond belief. They need to get a life.  They must grow up and learn that their computer is just a machine, not their religion.

The Mac users are just realizing that they have bought orphan technology. Macs are the Betamax of the 21st Century.  And it's not just me who find Macs less appealing.  Apple holds only 4.8 percent of the U.S. market share, according to the July 2006 issue of MacWorld magazine.  In other words, 95 out of 100 computer buyers don't buy an Apple computer.  There must be a reason, yes?

Read the article and see all the trouble you're in for when you switch from a PC to a Mac.

Edward Rholl, Moderator of the E-Lawyering Discussion Board for the InternetBar.org interviewed yours truly about the future of the business of lawyering, particularly as it is carried out online. Rholl is President of Transformative Law seminars, an online educational provider.  Among the topics you'll hear about in this 45 minute podcast are the importance of understanding the changing marketplace; how to use blogs, the firm website and educational offerings to expand your reach, position your practice and develop a following in cyberspace; and how to position your firm or practice around the market instead of just marketing at people.

During the conversation, Ed and I discuss the amazing potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for firms of all sizes. I provide specific examples of law firms and lawyers who are truly benefiting from the use of ICT and specific pointers for lawyers who want to get into the act but don't know where to start.

RSS/Podcast URL: http://cyberweek.internetbar.org/fall2006/rss.xml

Play MP3 audio in your browser or download to your desktop (be patient, it's a big file).

A cardinal rule of marketing is to speak the language of the customer.  Goulston & Storrs, a 185-lawyer firm in Boston, has taken this a step further and adopted Chinese names for themselves as part of their marketing push into China.

For example, Partner Timothy B. Bancroft is known as "Transcontinental Sailor," in Mandarin, which he has printed in Chinese symbols on his business cards.  The firm is also giving away tins of green tea and chopsticks labeled with the firm name.

The unique selling proposition is that Goulston will help mid-sized corporations navigate the Chinese hazards of regulation, corruption, lack of IP protection, and repressive press and Internet rules.  Up to now, only Fortune 500 companies that could afford the steep rates of mega firms could get this kind of entree.

Clients want to outsource work to China, sells goods and services there, attract Chinese investors (N.B.: China is the largest creditor of the US, holding most of our national debt) and seek Chinese companies to invest in.

The law firm is training its lawyers in the numerous and eccentric Chinese practices with business cards, toasts, seating arrangements and eating all the food on your plate.  (But hey -- there's 1.3 billion Chinese and only 300 million people in the US, so who's to say what's eccentric?)

"There is a large group of medium-sized companies in the US who have business in China who are not well-served by large law firms," lawyer Michael J. Meagher told the Boston Globe in its Business Section. "So there's plenty of business out there" for smaller firms. "But it's a big commitment in terms of culture, the language and the law, and it's a big learning curve."

Goulston plans to open office in Shanghai or Beijing, and here's why it's brilliant marketing:

• The firm has found a need in the market and is filling it (as opposed to taking something it has to sell and pushing it onto the market).
• It addresses a specific, underserved sector of the legal marketplace.
• Goulston is going all-out with its Asian branding, as opposed to taking halfway measures like getting a few tchotchkes and brochures made up.
• They have an Asian associate Lucia Lian (and probably will bring in Asian partners soon).
• Their Web site lists successful transactions with Chinese companies Sohu.com and eLong.
• They have a dedicated China team, including Daniel R. Avery, Timothy B. Bancroft, Matthew E. Epstein, Julie A. Frolic, Brian D. Goldstein, Lucia Lian and Patrick J. Mitchell.

Kudos to Manager of Marketing & Communications Theresa Bomba whose efforts led to extensive news coverage of the marketing initiative. Here's wishing Goulston ?? (good luck).

The average job tenure of a chief marketing officer at an Am law 200 law firm is a brief 4 years. (Click on the graphic to see it full-size.) For smaller firms, the average tenure is worse -- only 18-24 months, according to an article by Julie D. Andrews in the September/October 2006 issue of Law Firm Inc. (Unfortunately the article is not online, so you'll have to get a hard copy by calling 212.545.6111.)

The article lists all the questions a marketer should ask when applying for a CMO job.  But marketers should realize that after taking say, a $400,000 salary, the partners will ask a year later, "what did we get back for all that money?" CMOs must be able to show a return-on-investment. 

This means launching initiatives that are planned from the start to be measurable.  The initiative must show a profit in the first year.  This means blowing past all the marcomm, public relations, advertising and other marketing initiatives that can't be measured.  Focus on getting your lawyers face-to-face with clients and prospects.  See "New Research: Professional Firms can Increase Revenues by Measuring Business Development Initiatives."

The common mistake CMOs make is empire-building.  They'll take a high-paying job and hire 50 or more people in the department.  Even if a marketer tells the firm in advance that this is what they're going to do, it's a sure way to lose your job.  The streets are littered with out-of-work CMOs who used to supervise legions of staff.

And as the article points out, the most critical question is "whom will I report to?"  If you report to the staff administrator or COO, don't take the job.  The CMO post is a strategic position and should report to the management committee, managing partner or a permanent marketing partner.  The CMO should arrive at the firm with a "seat at the table" already.

It's an official law firm trend: Boston's 180-lawyer Goulston & Storrs is using podcasts to recruit new talent and Pepper Hamilton, with 400 lawyers in 10 offices, plans to start doing so in the fall.  Earlier I reported that Benesch Friedlander had placed a podcast of audio testimonials from summer associates online.

Goulston & Storrs rolled out 16 podcasts featuring its own associates detailing what it's like to work at the firm's office. The MP3 recordings, which can downloaded or played immediately online, are grouped into "A Day in the Life..." Having a Life... and "A Law Firm for Life...perspectives from our Executive committee."

Some of the spicier topics include:

• If I screw up, does it mean I won't get an offer?
• Is Goulston & Storrs likely to merge with another firm?
• What's it like to be a woman at Goulston & Storrs?

The recordings range from 40 seconds long to 2 minutes. 12 seconds long.  Using podcasts for recruiting is brilliant marketing because:

• Podcasts speak to the iPod generation with the very language that identifies them.  And it uses the method they clearly favor.
• Hearing another person give you their opinion is more effective than reading it.  With a podcast, a listener can hear the sincerity.
• The spoken word offers a greater repertoire than the written word -- vocal inflections, loudness, softness, pauses and emotions.
• Podcasts are more intimate than a written blog post.  There's something about someone verbally telling you a story that's makes it feel more "inside" than reading the same thing in a written memo or blog post.
• Creating a podcast is cheap and easy.

Doing a deal in Canada, eh? You can't miss that Blake Cassels & Graydon, which more than 500 lawyers and offices in Canada, the United States, Europe and China, has arrived in Chicago.  (Click on the image to see it full-size.)

Blakes threw a snowball into the Chicago market, announcing their arrival right in the Loop on 181 W. Madison Street, with a giant glued-in postcard in the September 18 issue of Crain's Chicago Business. It was no accident that the issue featured a special Focus section on law firms expanding to global markets.

Why the card was so effective:

• You couldn't miss it -- it had a big red maple leaf on the front of the card.
• The tag line: "Blake's is the only Canadian law firm in Chicago."  Nice point of distinction.
• They don't practice US law (no competitive threat to the local law firms) but rather assist US companies doing business up north.
• It listed six representative transactions -- ranging from $325 million to $5 billion for companies like Ford Motor Company.  Very impressive.
• The entire message fit into one 8 1/2 by 11-inch sheet, which fits perfectly into a file folder.
• It named two people to contact, complete with their actual names, phone numbers and email addresses.

So who ya gonna call when you need some law done north of the border?  Ya for sure, it's Blakes.

Lawyer Jeralyn Baran, an employment law partner with Chuhak & Tecson in Chicago, has a marketing message that sticks.   Literally.  It's the question that her clients ask about the hiring mistakes and chronic slackers in their companies all the time, "Can we Fire Them?"

(Click on the graphic to see it full-size.) The question appears on a flexible 4" by 7" flexible magnet that clients can stick on the side of a personnel filing cabinet. Clients love to get them and attach them to places where they will be noticed.  And the answer to the question if supplied with Baran's phone number and email address.

Baran is a litigator at the 55-lawyer firm whose practice involves civil and commercial matters in both state and federal courts, including emergency injunctions, business disputes, breach of contract and employment discrimination cases. She's been in practice for 16 years.

She's a member of Phi Beta Kappa and this sticky marketing tool proves it.