Set in Style

I was reading this post about Martindale Hubble making strange comments on lawyers’ blogs, and what most caught my attention though was this:

When it comes to protecting your reputation, this is one simple rule for lawyers to follow: No one cares as much about your reputation as you do.

I read that and I thought, “hmmm . . . it’s the firm’s reputation that they don’t care about; that must be it!” Then I grabbed a cup of coffee and sat outside wondering how I’d been so wrong for so long.

You see, I’d been pitching editorial services to law firms, and — even though I knew better — I’d been acting as if they were like other businesses: organizations that are much more like teams than herds. (For instance, I figured the title Managing Shareholder was more descriptive than figurative.)

I figured that — since law firms care so much about their reputations — it wouldn’t be hard to  pitch editorial services at all. Given that law firms are publishers, and their attorneys are authors, I’d just call, introduce myself as a skilled and experienced editor and voilà: work, work, work!

I’d cruise the Web sites of great big law firms and I’d find endless amounts of work to do. I’d find lame copy like this:

The firm seeks candidates with excellent written and interpersonal skills, which will enable them to deal productively and confidently with clients, co-counsel and opposing counsel. In addition to choosing the finest talent available, the firm offers training, both in an academic setting, as well as on a day-to-day basis through mentoring.

and like this:

Internet and information technology has affected the daily lives of all of us. Whether a young start-up company with nothing but an idea or an established multinational powerhouse, each new innovation brings with it tremendous potential rewards, but also hides risks for the unwary.

Then, I’d call the firm’s marketing department and offer to find and remove all such blemishes (blemishes that could bring nothing but harm to the reputation of any firm that was broadcasting a sincere commitment to excellence).

I figured they’d jump at the chance to work with a skilled and experienced editor who had so much to offer. But, no . . . with few exceptions, they weren’t really interested at all. (Fortunately for me, a few were and still are.)

In fact, in a few cases, the firm’s CMO or marketing manager would get downright testy. Why, if you buy me a cup of coffee, I’ll take the time to tell you about the bizarre run-in I had with Kelly Pepper, Nossaman’s marketing manager.

____________
What happened was this: I came across this client alert published by Nossaman, and authored by one of its attorneys. I contacted the attorney, told him what sort of work I did, and suggested some ways I could help improve the firm’s alerts, both their appearance and their content.

As I recall, I mentioned to him that his alert had a small notice at the bottom of it which made it seem as if the firm wasn’t aware that the CAN-SPAM act had been passed years earlier. That certainly got his attention.

Well, after he expressed some surprise that anyone had actually read the alert, he said he’d pass my name and contact info on to the marketing department. What I was proposing was up to them, he told me.

Great!

But then I got a terse e-mail and an even terser phone call from Ms. Pepper — “Don’t you ever contact an attorney here ever again!”

Incredible! Absolutely incredible!

____________
One thing I’ve learned is that the marketing directors for some firms work in abject fear of their firm’s attorneys.

A recent reminder springs from another client alert written by an attorney who — I would presume — cares very much about his reputation. And if he really cares about his reputation, then he’s certainly concerned with how he appears in print, right?

Here’s the first line of the alert:

Recently the 7th Circuit in Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Company provided a reminder to attorneys engaging in a business transaction between domestic and a foreign parties.

Notice the grammatical error (and several others) in that line.

Certainly, an attorney who likes to look good before others would want that fixed lickety-split, especially since the alert is about poorly written agreements and the grief they can bring.

In fact, he’d want a bunch of things fixed in that article. Of course he would. What an easy sale this would be!

Well, I contacted the marketing director and she told me that if she brought this to the attorney’s attention and said it should be fixed, she’d probably get canned!

How does a law firm that claims a commitment to quality dare to threaten an employee who strives to achieve quality on behalf of the firm and its attorneys?

Incredible!

As fearless as I am, I called Scott Hervey, the attorney who authored the alert. For sure, he’d be interested in having me review his work. Certainly, he would want me to fix things like this:

Accordingly, the court turned to Japanese trademark law to determine whether the holder of a senyoshiyoken is permitted to use variants of the license the trademark.

and like this:

The court further explained that the longer the term of the license, the less plausible it is to assume that . . . the license was forbidden to make small changes to the licensed trademark.

Apparently not.

____________
I don’t get it. I know that serious law firms and their attorneys really care about their reputations, but why would an attorney NOT ask an editor to review an alert on the importance of good writing (especially if the alert contains too many examples of bad writing)?

Why . . . I find it . . . simply incredible!

This entry was posted 30 November 2009 at 11:04 and is filed under Client Alerts & Such, General, Looking Good, Modern Marketing Materials, Writing & Editing. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.