Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn all exist and, indeed, several practice groups have accounts \u2013 albeit that I seem to be administering most of them; many are sure that they should be doing something, if only they could work out what that was. That coupled with the traditional conservatism of the legal world and issues of client and business confidentiality make the whole raison d\u2019etre of social networking difficult to attain. Several of us tweet, albeit under our own names rather than the firm name which makes comments, relevant or acerbic, easier to publish. It is often too difficult to moderate all tweets to ensure that no client would be offended from an official source; even so, a degree of restraint is needed to minimise the risk of offending someone whose stance has been publicly described as mistaken.<\/p>\n
Another difficulty for many lawyers and law firms in the use of social media is the fact that it is a social medium; in order to benefit to the fullest it is important that the relationship is two-way. Merely having the marketing department recycle the press releases or news updates is, whilst a start, unlikely to bring the necessary followers or friends to sustain a vibrant network. Having conversations (not as we have seen recently with a deselected election candidate, a rant) with third parties is likely to expand one\u2019s influence and therefore the reach of the marketing material which is generated by the lawyer or his\/her firm.<\/p>\n
Although I seem to have over 300 contacts on LinkedIn, I am unsure what to do with them \u2013 although I\u2019m certain that they will be very useful when the day arrives that I need to do something. It has helped me regain contact with people from whom I haven\u2019t heard in years. The group discussions on LinkedIn can be a useful source of information and knowledge although the poll type questions which are asked from time to time do become irritating if all the replies are sent to all members of the Group. I must try to use the contacts in a more positive fashion in order to gain more from my (lack of) participation. (I have just started a discussion so we\u2019ll see if it bears fruit).<\/p>\n
Whilst we do have a corporate page on FaceBook and although we do seem to get 40+ visits every week, I do not really know why. FaceBook do little to encourage businesses to what is really a personal networking site. The interface for the non-personal user is beyond belief and it indicates that Facebook really doesn\u2019t want us there. This is OK with me as I am not convinced that it is a medium that is likely to bear fruit.<\/p>\n
And that\u2019s about it for systems of choice; despite regular invitations to other systems, I cannot keep up with what I do have let alone start any more \u2013 so if you\u2019ve encouraged me to join Namyz or Plaxo or Viadeo or any of the others, please accept my apologies. In the absence of a full time social secretary, social networking is even more complicated than normal networking.<\/p>\n
What other uses are being made of social networking in Scotland? As far as I can determine, our experience is fairly typical of many of the larger firms \u2013 and indeed we seem to be using more IT and internet than many, although much of the activity is inevitably hidden from view. Our website has encouraged over 7,500 people to subscribe to our e-updates<\/a> and we have a steady stream of subscribers to our e-update podcasts<\/a>; the SayIT application has been used over 5,000 times to allow visitors to have pages read to them; the technology behind this has now been taken up by Govan Law Centre in their Blog<\/a> and it helps us to meet our Corporate social responsibility (CSR) targets.<\/p>\n Probably the greatest increase in the use of social media recently has been the rise of Twitter: from being a geek thing to do, it is now seen as a major communication tool with the regular press, news services, law societies and government all using it as a medium to disseminate their message. In the recent debate over the much criticised Digital Economy Act 2010, whilst 20,000 letters were sent to MPs, in the final three days of the debate more than 60,000 messages were sent on Twitter with the #debill hashtag. Unfortunately, no-one in government appeared to be reading the tweets but it was the largest campaign of its type to date in the UK.<\/p>\n The ongoing debate in Scottish legal circles in relation to the possibility of the introduction of ABS and \u201cTesco Law\u201d has been conducted heavily on line, with both sides of the debate making their arguments on websites and blogs: the Law Society<\/a> on and the Law Society of Scotland Journal site<\/a>; the opponents on the Govan Law Centre Blog<\/a>; and both sides in the online columns of the Firm Magazine<\/a>. Additionally, both sides, and their respective followers are using Twitter to draw attention to new postings on the various websites, to articles and correspondence in the press and to comments made for or against their respective positions. How many solicitors actually read such tweets is difficult to assess, but they must be read by more than would have been the case had that medium not been used. Which really sums up the media; it is not clear what the impact is, but it must be more impact than doing nothing.<\/p>\n Other lawyers are using the power of Twitter to promote their firm. Michelle Hynes-McIlroy (@legaleagleMHM) tweets at an alarming rate to promote not only her interests but also the business of roadtrafficlaw.com<\/a> who have not only 24\/7 availability through their website but also a YouTube channel<\/a> which the statistics suggest has delivered some 4,785 videos to interested viewers.<\/p>\n Brian Inkster<\/a> uses his website as the principal window to his law firm and uses Twitter both personally (@brianinkster) and as a law firm (@Inksters) to promote services and ideas.<\/p>\n Our involvement in Twitter and the heightened visibility which that has given has led to real-world new social media breakfast meetings and podcasts (@podcastmatters) being contributed by my colleague Valerie Surgenor (@techmeerkat), as well as client contact, re-engagement and new opportunities throughout the UK.<\/p>\n So what conclusions can I draw from all this? Probably that there is a lot going on, but as far as Web 2.0 is concerned, it is all in a very tentative fashion with all concerned feeling their way to a greater or lesser extent. There is a natural reluctance and hesitancy to embrace something so new and for many in the legal fraternity, social media and social networking is something of an anathema given their background. Sharing does not come easily to many in the law!<\/p>\nTwitter<\/h3>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.infolaw.co.uk\/images\/inl\/n1005inksters.jpg\")
<\/p>\nFinally …<\/h3>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.infolaw.co.uk\/images\/macroberts.jpg\")
<\/a>David Flint is a partner in MacRoberts LLP<\/a> where he heads the Technology Media and Communications Group. MacRoberts can be found on Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter (@macroberts; @macroberts_TMC; @macroberts_RE). David tweets @dfscot where the views expressed are (at best) his own.<\/i><\/p>\n