[LAW-LIB:57093] Martindale Hubbell Responses including the AMLAW 200 survey

From: Altman, Russell (raltman@hsblawfirm.com)
Date: Thu Oct 30 2008 - 14:07:49 PDT

  • Next message: Mattingly, William C.: "[LAW-LIB:57094] HAVE THE INFO!!! - Attorney General for Northern Mariana Islands e-mail address"

    Listed below are the responses I received from my inquiry about MH, some
    folks also sent me the AMLAW 200 information and another librarian sent
    me a list of ALA responses to the same question..
    Thank you all for your responses

    Russell F. Altman
    Director of Information Services
    Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.
    1201 Main Street
    Suite 2200
    Columbia, SC 29201
    email- raltman@hsblawfirm.com
    Phone- 803-540-7858

     <<Copy of Martindale Hubbell review (AmLaw 200).XLS>>

    I am not a firm, but at this point, I will be keeping MH because it is
    an old school reference that people want to see in the public law
    library. Which for local firms here means firms can dump it and if they
    really need to see it, they can call me and I will provide...I bet it is
    similar in your area. Why have multiple sets when one per county or even
    region will do?
    Yes, we are considering declining representation in Martindale. They
    came back with a serious discount. One thing we did was look at the
    AmLaw 200. I'll attach a table that shows who buys profiles and at which
    level.

    We had the same managing partner for more than a decade, a few years
    back. He mulled-over the possibility of dropping MH, but never decided
    to actually do so.
    For the past few years, the managing partner position has rotated every
    year; and there has been no discussion of MH that has filtered down to
    my level.
    I am presuming that the partners still consider MH to be more useful
    than not, notwithstanding its ever-increasing cost.
    I know that this is sort of a "non-answer", but perhaps it will be
    useful in the scope of the greater discussion...

    We cancelled our subscription last year. It became too expensive for
    what we felt was beneficial to us. I would be interested to know what
    others have done.

    Our marketing department is going through the same determination
    currently. For what it's worth, we surveyed the Am Law 200 firms to
    determine which ones are still paying for listings in the print
    directory. We found that 29 firms are currently not listing. This
    excludes Heller, which is basically dissolved at this point. Also, two
    of the firms not listing in the directory have merged, so they probably
    only count as one.

    yes, as far as I know, since it is a marketing budget item. possibly the
    books allocate to the Library so far as is possible to separate the
    costs

    I stopped purchasing Martindale-Hubbell with the 2005 edition.

    We did make the decision to continue at least for another year for a
    variety of reasons including that some of our clients do request our
    MH's ratings. Martindale is also apparently changing to explore other
    avenues for connecting potential clients to lawyers within their
    directory. I would like to remain anonymous both in name and firm, but
    also would love to know where everyone else is going on this and why.
    We've stopped getting new editions. But are keeping a few past editions
    on the shelf.

    We signed up for a 2 year contract that included access to another
    product at a reduced price. We are going to continue for now. Our
    contract is up for renewal shortly and we will re-evaluate the status
    and the value at that time.

    we have discontinued due to cost and lack of apparent results. the firm
    can not account for a single reference from our listing with them.

    We stopped subscribing years ago. We just didn't think it was a value
    proposition. If you closely review listings for big firms you'll see
    most have them very limited profiles and those are often unpaid. (i.e.
    we cancel but they keep publishing it)

    We surveyed some folks through our ALA group in Sept. of this year and
    the answers are below.

    (ALA Group Responses)
    We are still with MH and always will be...........its expensive but the
    reputation of MH outlives the cost.
    We go with MDH. Not FindLaw.
    We just reduced our M-H listing to the very basics - where they were
    admitted, where they went to school, and what their practice areas are -
    and it's still outrageously expensive. I think this will be the last
    year we do M-H.
    We are still with Martindale,
    Donnell: We still have our listing with MH but we have cut back the
    descriptions tremendously. We also list with Findlaw. We have had many
    discussions regarding dropping MH but the attorneys still like their
    rating system. Good luck. Connie
    We called our local representative in and told him we thought it was too
    expensive. He offered us a discount and told me something that I did not
    know. They charge about $265.00 for four lines of text. He advised us to
    cut down on our Associate biographies as a way to cut costs. We are
    thinking of going to Findlaw as well.
    We are exploring this option as well. Would you be willing to share your
    responses?
    We cancelled our MH listing a couple of years ago. A smooth talking
    sales person recently convinced one of our partners to give it another
    try based on all of the improvements they have made. I find myself right
    back in the same mess we were in before: they are trying to charge us
    more for things we didn't agree to; errors on the online listing; adding
    a website that we didn't ask for. That same partner came into my office
    today and told me that he was playing on the MH online site, typed his
    name in and nothing came up. If it was up to me we would have continued
    fine without it.
    We have greatly scaled ours back.
    We still use MN. Our marketing director feels it is necessary.
    think they are outrageously priced and I recently questioned the same.
    Our final decision was to list the attorneys without bios, list their
    email address and link to our website. This reduced the cost
    significantly. We will invest part of the savings to enhance the
    website. We are not listed with FindLaw.
    We are still listed with MH.
    We have looked at this carefully the last two years. Last year we
    whittled our listing down a little but, as you know, they charge you the
    most for the "mast head" so it doesn't end up saving you much money.
    This year, we decided to beef up our Firm Profile and reduce the bios to
    birth information (required), Education and Areas of Practice. We also
    added another reference to our website with the hope that if people want
    more information, they'll go there. It only saved us about $1,000 to do
    that so it is still frustrating. They just don't "get it" that their
    listing is getting less and less valuable as time goes on.
    We have a minimal listing with Martindale Hubbell; Our website is hosted
    by FindLaw so we're also listed there.
    Still with Martindale
    Tried findlaw-ineffective. Expanded contract with MH.
    This year we reduced the text in our Martindale listing by about half
    (items such as long bios, speaking engagements, papers written, etc.)
    and reduced our subscription cost by several thousand dollars. Our
    current listing simply shows attorney names, education and areas of
    practice. We have determined that the people using Martindale are others
    in the legal field and they are merely looking for a website address for
    the firm or attorney. Our firm's website contains all the information we
    removed from our Martindale listing - and more.
    We're still with Martindale, but have really cut back on our listings
    because of the price. The only reason we've continued with them is to
    keep the AV rating for our shareholders; they feel that's important to
    their clients. If not for that, we'd have dropped it entirely.
    We still have Martindale Hubble.
    We are still with M-H but the price has gotten completely ridiculous!
    I'm curious to hear what you learn. Would you mind sharing? Our costs
    are very high because last year we updated our company profile and added
    a whole bunch of additional text. I am going back now and deleting a lot
    of the text and will refer to our website instead. They told us that is
    why our costs increased so much last year. Thanks! Roxanne
    We remain with MH, but begrudgingly! I hate their fees, so we've reduced
    our content quite a bit. Good luck with your decision; our partners were
    not comfortable letting it go altogether.
    We are not for sure what we are going to do this upcoming year either.
    If you don't mind -Please share any info you receive. Thanks so much
    We just renewed our listing and do get referrals from M-H and Findlaw.
    We cut down the size of our listing though, to keep it more in line with
    our expectation of cost. Kim
    We still have our listing.
    We gave up MH a few years ago to invest in our website.

    *******************************************************************
    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with
    it are confidential and may contain information which is legally
    privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure. They are intended
    solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail
    is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipients or
    otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this
    message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete
    this message immediately from your computer. Any other use,
    retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
    e-mail is strictly prohibited.

    IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Internal Revenue Service regulations
    generally provide that, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax
    penalties, a taxpayer may rely only on formal written advice meeting
    specific requirements. Any tax advice in this message, or in any
    attachment to this message, does not meet those requirements.
    Accordingly, any such tax advice was not intended or written to be
    used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax
    penalties that may be imposed on you or for the purpose of promoting,
    marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters.
    mmcorp





    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 30 2008 - 14:10:04 PDT