I read all the answers and wonder what everyone thinks about Martindale
now linking to LinkedIn and also developing their own
social/professional networking tools. Will that add enough value to
Martindale to convince you it's worth sticking with Martindale?
--Best Regards,
Carole
Carole Levitt J.D., M.L.S. President,Internet For Lawyers clevitt@netforlawyers.com / www.netforlawyers.com <http://www.netforlawyers.com/>
7820 Enchanted Hills Blvd., Ste A-215, Rio Rancho, NM, 87144; phone: 310/559-2247
SEMINAR SPEAKER: <http://www.livecleseminars.com/> http://www.livecleseminars.com/
AUTHOR: The Lawyer's Guide to Fact Finding on the Internet, ABA 2006 ( <http://www.internetfactfinder.com/> http://www.internetfactfinder.com)
AUTHOR: The Cybersleuth's Guide to the Internet, IFL Press 2008 ( <http://www.netforlawyers.com/prod01.htm> http://www.netforlawyers.com/prod01.htm)
EDITOR: Internet Fact Finding For Lawyers, ALI-ABA (http://iffl.ali-aba.org <http://iffl.ali-aba.org/> )
PAST CHAIR: California State Bar LPMT Section(http://www.calbar.ca.gov/lpmt)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Altman, Russell Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:08 PM To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu Subject: [LAW-LIB:57093] Martindale Hubbell Responses including the AMLAW 200 survey
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
__________ NOD32 1.1164 (20050708) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 03 2008 - 09:17:41 PST