Why ORM Is Critical for Legal Practices
Clients seeking legal help face high stakes and high uncertainty. They’re often dealing with the most stressful situations of their lives—divorce, criminal charges, business disputes, personal injury—and they have limited ability to evaluate attorney quality directly. Online reputation serves as a proxy for quality and trustworthiness. Research shows that 84% of legal consumers use online reviews to evaluate attorneys, and that a law firm’s online review profile has a larger influence on hire decisions than its website or advertising.
Attorney Review Platforms
The primary attorney review platforms are Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, Lawyers.com, FindLaw, and Google Reviews. Avvo is particularly important because it generates a numerical rating that appears prominently in search results—claiming and completing your Avvo profile thoroughly improves your rating significantly. Martindale-Hubbell’s peer review ratings carry weight with sophisticated clients and referral sources. Claim, complete, and monitor all of these platforms actively.
Managing Client Reviews Within Ethics Rules
Attorney advertising and solicitation rules vary by state and create constraints on how lawyers can manage reviews. Most state bar rules prohibit testimonials that are false or misleading and claims of specialties that haven’t been certified. When responding to client reviews, attorneys must be careful not to reveal confidential information about the representation. A safe response acknowledges the feedback generally and invites the client to contact the firm directly—without confirming whether the reviewer was a client or discussing any details of the representation.
Managing News Coverage and Case Publicity
High-profile cases generate news coverage that can shape a firm’s reputation for years. Attorneys handling matters with media interest should develop a media strategy: deciding proactively what information to make available to press, how to respond to media inquiries, and whether to issue statements. Coverage of cases that go badly requires active ORM response: ensuring that subsequent positive coverage and professional recognition dilutes the prominence of negative items over time.
