Martindale-Hubbell opens the doors – just a crack

3 April 2009 in Social networking | 4 comments

For LexisNexis it’s simple: lawyers want a network developed by legal professionals, for legal professionals, and LexisNexis will provide it.

From their recent press release on the launch of Martindale-Hubbell Connected:

A survey conducted by Leader Networks in 2008 demonstrated the need for a private, online network for lawyers. According to the survey, while 54 percent of attorneys belong to an online network, fewer than 10 percent of lawyers can rely on current networking tools to help them work more efficiently and cost effectively. Lawyers trust other lawyers; 40 percent responded that they want a trusted, private, authenticated network….

At launch, the network is open to any private practice attorneys and corporate counsel. Non-lawyers such as law school faculty and students, law firm marketing directors, paralegals and other qualified legal professionals will be invited to join the network later this year as the network continues to evolve.

“Outsiders” from amongst legal commentators, marketing and social networking experts have not to date been given access and even many “insiders” (attorneys) have had difficulty signing up. Pulling no punches, Kevin O’Keefe thinks this stinks:

The days of launching a web based product without seeking real feedback and ownership from users and early adopters are over. The days of closed communities locking out those who may speak frankly and openly about community experiences are over. The days of a controlled PR campaign without integrity and transparency are over.

In developing MH Connected, LexisNexis seems to have interpreted the findings that less than 10 per cent of lawyers polled said they can rely on their current network to help them work more efficiently and that 40 per cent said they wanted a trusted, private, authenticated network as showing the need for a closed, lawyers-only network. But as Kevin, Doug Cornelius and other commentators have pointed out, non-lawyers should not have been excluded and useful feedback will come mainly from early adopters. Non-lawyer early adopters of legal networking should have been key to beta testing; and amongst lawyers those early adopters are that less than 10 per cent who already get value from public networks, not the 90 per cent who say they don’t. LexisNexis have belatedly discovered this.

4 comments

  1. Ohad Reshef’s avatar

    Ohad Reshef on 3 April 2009 at 1:31 pm

    Nick,

    I wish you checked the facts before writing this. Martindale-Hubbell Connected is a legal professional network and as such is built around lawyers. We have over 3,000 beta members, the majority of which are lawyers (as one would expect, these are early adopters) but some are non lawyers (law school deans, a handful of HR, marketers, procurement etc.) We do not think that opening up the network to everyone on day 1 would have been the right decision. We have used the past 9 months to add many new features and improve certain things. The network, although launched, is still in Beta. We have clearly communicated that we will open the network to non lawyer legal prfessionals in the summer.

    Regards,
    Ohad Reshef
    MH Team

    P.S. When quoting Kevin O’Keefe, full disclosure needs to mention that he’s a former Martindale-Hubbell employee.

  2. Nick Holmes’s avatar

    Nick Holmes on 3 April 2009 at 5:55 pm

    Ohad – I have read up on most that has been put out by you recently and lots of comment on the blogosphere and SNEs and I am aware of all the facts you note. I have not suggested that you should have opened up the network to everyone from day 1 but it appears to me that you’ve not been sufficiently inclusive and missed out on some valuable early feedback. Most readers of my blog will know of Kevin and many will have read his blog. Whether they knew he is ex-MH, I don’t know, but they do now. He has strong opinions which are healthily debated. I’m happy to debate mine too if you’ll address them.

  3. Doug Cornelius’s avatar

    Doug Cornelius on 3 April 2009 at 6:06 pm

    Nick -

    After talking and trading messages with the Connected folks I get the distinct impression that are committed to making Connected a useful tools for lawyers. It is clear that they made some mistakes and they acknowledge some of them. I think LexisNexis, like many big companies, are trying to figure out how to incorporate the new social internet into their business.

    The unique thing about Connected is that there is a big existing company behind it. Most social internet platforms seem to be started in someone’s basement or dorm room. I am hard-pressed to think of many other platform with a backer like this.

    On the other hand, that means you have a big company with lots of bureaucracy making it a slow-moving beast instead of a nimble start up.

  4. Nick Holmes’s avatar

    Nick Holmes on 4 April 2009 at 8:23 am

    Doug

    Thanks for stopping by. What you point up is that it’s actually extremely difficult to translate a successful publishing legacy product into a successful Web 2.0 service. All the rules have changed and the machine that worked so successfully before has to be re-engineered. Rather than transforming an existing service, a new service must be created.

    The MH/LexisNexis legacy is great, providing millions of connections between lawyers and documents from a trusted brand with the resources to ensure success. But in many ways the legacy is also an encumbrance: the existing product and user base are not necessarily the right starting points and established product development and marketing processes are not necessarily appropriate.

    As to the latter, Kevin refers to “controlled PR” and “seeking real feedback and ownership from users”. Less control, greater inclusion and openness – these are the things that make web 2.0 services work. That doesn’t mean letting everyone in, but letting in as many as might usefully contribute: accuracy, authenticity, authority, privacy can all be achieved with appropriate access rights, mediation and filtering within the tent. Less control may not sit easily with LexisNexis, but if it were me, I’d far rather have Kevin inside my tent than p*****g in from the outside.

    I’m sure MH want to produce a useful tool and I’m sure they can. I’ve seen and linked to what they’ve learned (the last link) and that’s a good start. Better late than never.

Comments are now closed.