Explore All Options 

With an expansive new group of online communication platforms, effectively managing a reputation requires more effort, coordination and resources. Relative to just a decade ago, reliance on PR or internal teams likely yields less results today than bloggers, web-based media and non-governmental organizations.  Law firms must now develop new relationships and forge digital partnerships. A network of supporters and partners, which includes journalists, bloggers, and industry associations can have significant impact on the reputation of a company because of their objectivity and ability to share positive experiences.

A Proactive Approach is Required

To stay ahead of the curve, engaging content that follows proven reputation management techniques should be shared online with prospective clients. 

The advice we give to clients is that the best offense is a strong defense. With a strong presence, you build digital resilience and develop a strategy or path for repairing a damaged digital footprint. The high quality content should be published on owned and managed, as well as curated website domains to protect from any future reputation damages.

Some digital assets that can be considered for proactive reputation management include:

• Active social media presence and coordinated approach for sharing content on LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google+, and Instagram        
• Profile listings on reputable business directories and portals as Avvo, Google Reviews, Hoovers Glass Door, Wikipedia, etc.
• Organic earned assets such as feature stories, interviews, quotes, news and blogs about you, a specific case, or your practice. 
• Paid digital advertising or PR media. 

The presence of digital assets on high-authority domain websites will both enhance your digital reputation, as well as neutralize any confusing or defamatory webpages that appear in search results. 

With clarity on issues that matter most to clients and prospects, lawyers can direct resources and improve communication accordingly. The success of a proactive digital reputation strategy is difficult to measure because it centers on your one first impression made on prospects, clients, colleagues, and partners when they search online.

Reputation Management for Clients: Internet Defamation & Reputation Repair

Internet defamation is a growing area of concern for clients, but also an opportunity for attorneys. Quantifying the monetary impact of reputation lost or gained is subjective. Following the landmark case of Sue Scheff, the legal community has taken notice of internet defamation case. Sue and her company, Parents Universal Resource Experts (PURE), provided referral consulting for families of teenagers with behavioral problems. After a disgruntled client posted online that she was a “fraud” and “con artist,” she sued for defamation in Broward Country Florida court. In November of 2006, Sue Sheff won her internet defamation case and was awarded $11.3 million dollars. 

Online, you are guilty until proven innocent. Consequently, it is challenging to overcome negative press. If there are only two pages of search engine results when a name is searched and multiple negative links appear on the first page, you lack the opportunity to overcome the negative perception. 

When a lawyer or client is found innocent and purported violations are dismissed, news and information relating to the case remain online. The demand for digital reputation repair and suppression is expansive. In the court of law, you may be innocent, but in the minds of your prospects, clients and potential partners you remain guilty on the internet. There are many situations that require immediate attention and sustainable solutions. 

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing you can do is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.” -Theodore Roosevelt [1858-1919]

One bad review is a challenge, but not responding to negative commentary may invite others, which will have a multiplicative impact  when trying to correct or refute the bad press.   

There is risk when suppressing content because low ranking and outdated content can be revived on primary search engine results pages by news or events with key word parallels. There is risk in not responding to a negative news article or review, but also greater risk in how one responds, especially when considering this American Bar Association tenet: “A lawyer may not disclose client confidential information solely to respond to a former client’s criticism of the lawyer posted on a website that includes client reviews of lawyers.” 

View client complaints and feedback as opportunities to improve the client experience. With a more empathetic and collaborative mindset, online reputation will create better emotional bonds with clients and future prospects. We recommend a proactive action plan to mitigate the risk of future defamatory content. 

Conclusion

Our dependence on the internet for information underpins the paradigm shift in how attorneys and their clients approach creating, repairing and monitoring their reputations. A law firm’s success is now more dependent on what is said (and not said) on the internet.  

The most agile firms are listening closer, making better resource allocations and investing in stronger relationships with strategic partners and clients.