To Martindale or Not To Martindale?
When I started my practice back in 1993, I paid for a real listing in Martindale-Hubbell (as opposed to the cheapie listing in the front blue plages) that I kept for four years. By 1997, I'd not gotten so much as a phone call from the listing. Looking forward, I realized that my website (that I developed myself and went live in late 1995) was already generating more visibility for me than the M-H listing - and so I declined to renew it.
Seems that I was right, as this posting from Wired GC bears out:
When I was at the offices of one of my outside counsel this week, I noticed part of the 2005 edition of Martindale-Hubbell sitting in two huge boxes in a conference room. Not this many but still a hefty set. They do look good on the shelf (often a required back-drop for lawyer interviews), but their days have to be numbered. M-H does offer CD and online versions, as well as search through lawyers.com. All good information; but I haven't used M-H in years.
A closed system used by Martindale-Hubbell doesn't really work anymore. A9 is a threat, but the bigger challenge is a general counsel who calls a colleague for a referral, checks the firm website, and Googles them. Perhaps you check Martindale, but it's no longer the gold standard.
(from The Wired GC)
In practice, I've used Martindale-Hubbell as a way to check the backgrounds of other attorneys I encountered, but I've found websites more useful.
I can't agree with you, Carolyn. I've been in business 7 months now, not a long time, but I had my website live the day I started my practice. I also blog, speak to groups of law firm and in-house lawyers, and network as agressively as I can.
My website hasn't brough in a single phone call. On the other hand, I signed up for M-H and Lawyers.com, two weeks ago and I've gotten three calls since.
I realize that I am speaking from a very limited base of experience here, but it strikes me that, at least when a lawyer is just starting out, it may be best to go with the tried and true methods.