Set in Style

The largest law firms tend to be very active publishers, attaching a copyright notice to a new publication just about every day. And they have an army of authors at hand — hundreds of attorneys.

Though they function as publishers, most law firms don’t do many of the things that professional publishers (of books, magazines, or newspapers) do as a matter of course.

One of those things is this — most law firms don’t have editors review what their authors write. In fact, the whole notion of having an editorial review process is an alien concept to most attorneys (including those managing very large law firms).

That’s too bad, because not reviewing what you’re publishing (before you publish it) can be downright embarrassing.

Case in Point

Consider the following, the intro to this article “On The Enforceability Of State Bars To Discretionary Clauses.”

In 2009, several courts considered whether state laws that bar discretionary clauses in plan provisions governing the administration of benefit claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and, if so, whether they were saved from preemption by virtue of ERISA’s savings clause.

If an editor reviews this article before it’s published, he can’t help but notice a problem in the logic of the intro. No court is going to rule that a state law is both preempted and saved from preemption, now is it?

This simply has to be fixed — for the sake of the author as well as the firm. And here’s why. It portrays the author as a careless writer, and that’s a liability for the author, described by the firm as “a prolific writer on cutting-edge ERISA litigation issues;” and it portrays the firm as one that can’t possibly be sincere about its commitment to excellence — not if it doesn’t even review what it publishes.

So, what would a skilled and experienced editor do with this?

Very likely, he’d revise it like so:

In 2009, several courts considered whether state laws that bar discretionary clauses in benefits plans were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) or whether they were saved from preemption by ERISA’s savings clause.

After that, readers won’t have a good reason to question the author’s skills, or the firm’s commitment to excellence (or whether it even reviews its associates’ work).

__________
Of course, most attorneys aren’t used to working with editors. By and large, those who haven’t worked with skilled and experienced editors express fear — fear that an editor might make a mistake and reword something that shouldn’t be reworded.

Well, that’s just not so. Good editors don’t turn good copy into bad; they save busy attorneys from letting others see the mistakes that busy attorneys make.

Before you start writing that client alert, grab a newspaper and a cup of coffee.

If you can, get a widely read paper: The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Chicago Tribune. If not, find a paper that carries AP stories.

Read a few stories. At least, read the first few paragraphs of a few stories.

Now, here’s my good advice: when you write your alert, write like a journalist.

You’ll be glad you did.

(more…)

Lawyers need editors for this reason: they’re authors. They write client alerts, newsletter articles, and seminar materials published by their firms, and by-lined articles published by others. Some maintain blogs.

Lawyers need editors for this reason too: they’re human. Not only are they capable of error, but they’re susceptible to an occupational hazard. Since they spend so much time writing legal matter and so little time writing promotional matter (e.g., client alerts), they tend to approach the latter just like the former.

The result is promotional material written like a statement of facts — overly formal, hardly interesting (especially when the audience includes not only corporate counselors, but those who influence them, and others of interest*), and way too wordy.

Here’s a quick example. Consider the following intro to a client alert written by an attorney without an editor:

On September 22, 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated its long awaited final rule (“Rule”) that imposes a mandatory national system for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas (“GHGs”) emissions.¹ The Rule enables EPA to collect comprehensive, economy-wide GHG emissions data that can be analyzed on both geographic and facility-specific levels.

Compare that to this intro written by an attorney with an editor:

On Monday, the EPA issued its final rule that requires nationwide monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions. Under the rule, large sources of emissions, and large fuel and gas suppliers and manufacturers of vehicles and engines, will have to make annual reports to the agency.

What’s different, and why?

______
* To attract journalists looking for quotes, the intro has to satisfy a very broad audience.

Let’s say you’re a law firm. You have a web site and it has lots of links — hundreds of them — to things your firm has published: client alerts, newsletters, bylined articles, etc.

A key reason you publish these things (and provide links to them) is so people (esp. prospective clients) can learn about your attorneys: they can read their bios and what they’ve written.

Now, it’s time for a change. Either you’re redesigning the site, or revising it, or the IT department is changing things in such a way that the links to all these publications is going to change.

There’s a problem: a sizeable one at that. You see, other web sites contain some of those links too, which is good for you: it raises your visibility.

Suppose the National Law Journal (or the Wall Street Journal) mentions (and links to) something you published. Good.

Until the change comes along, that is. Then all the links to everything you’ve published stop working. When a reader clicks a link to your article (mentioned in either Journal, or any link to any of  your articles mentioned anywhere), a page-not-found error is displayed.

So far as readers can tell, the article no longer exists. And that does you no good at all.

This happens at large law firms all the time. All the links to all the firm’s publications get changed for a web site redesign or some IT project, and no one at the firm does a thing about it. The authors of those articles don’t even notice it.

What a waste.

I’m working on an article about whether an attorney should start a blog. Part of it has to do with the ROI of a blog, and I’ve asked a few attorneys with blogs for their comments, and those comments all say this: the ROI of a blog is no quick thing.

What’s required is persistence. To get any ROI, you’ve got to keep writing interesting things for your blog. You’ve got to do it very regularly (at least at first), and you can’t slack off. You’ve got to maintain a sincere effort.

Ditto for law firm newsletters. If your firm or practice group decides to publish a newsletter, then it won’t do you a lick of good unless you are determined and persistent.

Too often, firms start newsletters that could turn out to be very worthwhile, but then they ease their efforts — attorneys are too busy with billable work to write articles for newsletters; the marketing department’s got too much to do with or without the newsletter; there was too little response to the first three or four editions of the newsletter for anyone to get jazzed about its potential.

And that leaves the field open for those few firms that are willing to make a sincere effort and stick with it.

One of those firms is Fisher & Phillips LLP, a labor law firm that publishes eight newsletters.

One of those newsletters, Labor Letter, is published monthly (the others are published only slightly less frequently).

What are some of its award-winning* qualities?

• It’s attractive
• It’s informative
• It’s timely
• It’s published regularly
• It’s written for the target audience

If you’re thinking of starting a newsletter, look at the results of the efforts Fisher & Phillips put into theirs, because it’s a newsletter that makes their efforts worthwhile.

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!

If you’re an attorney, then I ask you to think about something you don’t often consider — how you appear in print.

Why? Because it’s important. How you appear in print affects your practice, your ability to attract clients, and what you can charge for the services you provide.

How so?

Let’s say you’re in Barnes & Noble and you’re looking through books about employment law. Your niece is about to become the HR manager of a firm with 100 employees, and you want to give her a good guide, one that she can refer to when it comes to hiring and firing employees, and so forth.

You take two books from the shelf and compare them. One is more substantial than the other, and has a much more inviting cover. You flip through the books, and you see that one has a much better design than the other.

If you’re like most, then — before you’ve read a single line from either book — you’re prejudiced in favor of the book that looks best.

It might not be the one you buy, but the better looking book has a competitive advantage over the other. Appearances count. And professional publishers know it.

_________
The same effect is at work when people read something you wrote. Before they read it, they already have some impression of it, and that’s a function of its appearance — be it a client alert, a practice area description, or the About Us section of your firm’s Web site.

Consider a client alert you author. Of course, your big concern is the content. How informative is it? How timely is the alert? How unique? How well written?

Sure, it’s up to someone else (most likely) to set the alert (to determine its appearance). But that should also be your concern.

Why?

Let’s say you’re a tall-building lawyer. Your clients are the GC of large businesses. In fact, that’s the very audience for your client alert, which — no matter its topic — is a promotional piece. Certainly, it’s meant to inform. But you know it as well as anyone else — you want it to help attract business. That’s why you spent the time writing it.

Now, there’s an army of law firm marketeers out there who will tell you that you need to make sure you use plenty of SEO terms in your alert, but — for someone in your position — that’s a bunch of nonsense. The sort of person who might retain you isn’t likely to find you by way of a client alert.

Potential clients are going to learn of you from former colleagues of yours, or satisfied clients, not a Google search that yields a client alert.

Before they call, they’ll get some background on you. They’ll read your bio at your firm’s Web site. They’ll look for articles you’ve authored and — you should know this as well as anyone — what they find will color their impressions of you.

Before they begin reading your most recent article — that client alert with your name on it — they’ll be forming impressions of you, and wondering whether you’re worth $800 per hour.

Simply because appearances count.

That’s why.

____________
Look. You wouldn’t meet a potential client without tending to your appearance first, right? And you wouldn’t put your name to a client alert that looks no better than junk mail, would you?

This evening, tens of millions of eyes will be focused on the president as he tells us about health care reform, and tomorrow — if the past is any sort of guide — great big law firms will miss the significant opportunity offered by the president. Rather than leverage the president’s speech, they’ll have their attorneys author client alerts on PQRI incentive payments or EMTALA compliance.

Q: How could a great big law firm take advantage of the president’s speech?

A: By writing popular articles about health care reform.

____________
If you’re the CMO or the managing partner of a great big law firm with a health care practice, you’ll likely scoff at the conclusion to that Q & A.

“We don’t write popular articles. Our target market includes GCs of big insurance companies and hospitals: people who are interested in PQRI and EMTALA. We’re not trying to market to millions. We don’t sell cheap widgets; we sell very valuable, highly priced expertise, sought by few.”

Understood. But how are you going to persuade your target market to buy your firm’s very valuable, highly priced expertise, rather than some competitor’s?

If you’re like your competitors, you’ll have an attorney spend an hour writing a client alert about PQRI or EMTALA, an article that will be read, at best, by a few of your current clients.

You won’t have that attorney spend several hours writing an interesting article about health care; you won’t bother to publish an article that will be read by thousands; and you won’t take advantage of the opportunity presented by the president. Unless you read this post, it won’t even cross your mind.

____________
If you’re the CMO or the managing partner of a great big law firm, you might wonder, “What good could be it to write something that so many Mr. or Mrs. Smiths will read? We’re going after Kaiser Permanente, and we’re doing just what our competitors are doing; we’re producing a client alert that Steve Zatkin, or someone who works for him, might read; we’re much more interested in setting up a meeting with him than being noticed by the masses.”

The big advantage to writing a popular article — one that so many Mr. or Mrs. Smiths will find of interest — is this: Steve Zatkin is much more likely to read that article than some technical client alert about PQRI or EMTALA. Ditto for those who work for him.

Those who either know him or know those (e.g. neighbors and such) who work for him, might read it and mention it (while there’s no chance they’ll read your client alert and mention it).

If the article’s an interesting one, people will discuss it, and that increases the likelihood that it will come to the attention of Zatkin, those who work for him, or those who can influence him.

And, if the article’s written for the right audience, Zatkin will be favorably impressed with it. He’ll notice who wrote it, and he’ll associate it with your firm. And then he’ll be more likely to agree to a meeting with its author. In fact, he just might ask for that meeting (simply because he wants to meet the author).

____________
No doubt, despite all the hoopla about social media, when it comes to your business, things are still done as they long have been. Prospects are procured with a round of golf, a steak, and a Martini.

Ah, but how you reach the point of procurement . . . the times, they are a changing.

It’s been said (mostly by me) that “the power of the press used to belong to those who had one. Now that everyone’s got a press (a computer attached to the Internet) the power of the press belongs to those who know how to use it well.”

____________
If an attorney submits a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court (or just about any document to any court in any legal proceeding) and sets it the way many large firms set their client alerts, the court won’t even accept it, and with right good reason.

By and large, courts won’t accept documents that aren’t set a certain way. They certainly won’t accept something that’s set like this (an excerpt from a client alert published by a large law firm):

And why won’t courts accept documents set like this?

Because they’re such a pain in the eye! That’s why.

____________
Professional typesetters are much concerned with quality of appearance and with legibility — how easy it is for readers to read what typesetters have set.

And why are typesetters so concerned with legibility? Because it has such impact on how pleased readers are with what they’re reading.

Very legible type is easy to read; other styles of type (e.g., the excerpt shown above) aren’t so easy to read. Give readers a whole bunch of hard-to-read type to read, and they become irritated. Not only that, but they find a good bit harder to understand what they’re reading.

That’s right!

And that’s important.

If the reason a high-priced attorney spends his time writing a client alert (rather than doing billable work) is because the alert can attract potential clients, then the alert shouldn’t simply be informative. It should be attractive and easy to read. It certainly shouldn’t give a reader a headache.

____________
Take another look at the excerpt above. In particular, look at the second line, and the next to last line; note how tight those lines are. There isn’t enough space between the words, and that puts a real strain on readers (which is so counterproductive if the goal is to convert them to clients).

Take a look at the right side of the type. Notice anything missing? If you’re an attorney, probably not. But if you’re a typesetter what’s missing is so obvious — hyphens! The copy is justified, but it’s not hyphenated. 

Go grab a newspaper or a book. Find a block of justified type, examine the right side of it, and you’re sure to find some hyphens. 

Why? 

So there’s consistent spacing between words.

Here’s that same block of type — justified and hyphenated:

Hyphenation goes a long way towards improving the word spacing, but there’s something else wrong with this block of type. Once again, if you’re an attorney, you’re not likely to see it. If you’re a typesetter, you’re sure to.

The problem is this: the block of type is set in Arial, a sans-serif face that was designed for headlines, not for copy*.

Here’s how the block of type looks when it’s set in Century, the face that the Supreme Court requires briefs to be set in:

That’s it!

Add some serifs and some hyphens, tend to little details like word spacing, and the client alert becomes much more legible, and it looks more professional.

I say, what’s set in style is more likely to be read and recommended than what’s not.

____________
* Go to a bookstore or a newsstand and browse the offerings from professional publishers. Note that none of them has body copy set in Arial. There’s a good reason for that.

There’s this attorney from China and he’s flying to San Francisco, hoping to start a good relationship. He works for a large telecommunications company that’s planning its first venture in the U.S., and he’s looking for a law firm to provide guidance in several regulatory matters.

He’s several hours into the flight when he takes this article out of his briefcase. He’s going to meet the author, an attorney at a law firm in San Francisco that also has an office in Beijing; the article should be great background.

Take a look at the article (it’s a PDF file). If you’re pressed for time, just read the first line.

____________
Our flying attorney begins reading the article, which offers advice to Chinese firms doing business in the U.S. But as soon as he starts, he stops. He wonders, what is repaid economic growth? What is that?

As he reads the article, his generally favorable impression of the author — formed during a phone call a week earlier — starts to fade. There are so many careless errors. The author didn’t mean repaid economic growth; he meant rapid economic growth. He wrote about Ebay, but he meant eBay. He quoted a figure of $750,000,000, rather than the correct figure: $175,000,000.

This is the flying attorney’s second impression of the author, and it’s not a good one. He wonders, who would write something like this?

What sort of law firm would publish this?

____________
The effect of the article is the opposite of what was intended, which was to attract a potential client, a large Chinese company entering the U.S. market.

The IP attorney who put his name to this article couldn’t have meant for it to be published as is, not with that typo in the very first sentence, not with a trademark set incorrectly, not with so many careless errors in grammar.

This article does more harm than good. Rather than attract business, it portrays the firm — prominently identified as the publisher — as one that doesn’t pay attention to its associates’ work.

It’s the sort of firm that lets a half-billion dollar error go unnoticed!

____________
Had there been an editor between the attorney and the printing press, this would not have happened. Instead the article would have been transformed into this revised article.

The author would have looked good, the firm would have looked good, and the meeting that had been planned would not have been cancelled.

Note: Click here for a Microsoft Word document that shows exactly which changes I made to the article.