Using social media to boost business

October 25, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In our latest issue of Indiana Lawyer, reporter Michael Hoskins looks at social media polices some courts have instituted to prevent employees from discussing their employers online, especially in a negative way. Social media, such as offensive tweets and posting pictures from the adults-only Halloween party that you only kind of remember due to a few too many beers, are some of the poor ways in which we use social media. In our efforts to have our lives be an open book (or would it be more like an open Kindle now?), we sometimes hastily post things that we shouldn’t – things that could have negative repercussions on our professional and social lives.

But social media isn’t all bad. It can be an excellent tool for reaching your public. I’ve read numerous stories about companies reaching out to customers who have tweeted about their negative experiences with a particular product/company.

In your legal practice, do you use social media to find new clients, keep people informed on topics in your practice area, or find referrals? If you are part of an office or firm, does your company encourage you to get on Facebook to increase your office’s online presence?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Pro Social Media
    Social media gives firms another way to reach potential clients or referral sources. Any time you can stay at the top of someone's mind, you're more likely to get a phone call.

    It also gives your firm a personal touch. You can share things that you normally wouldn't be able to in more traditional types of advertising.
  • rules need to catch up
    From what I have read in professional articles about all sorts of trouble one can get into for using social media, I think maybe think the current ethical rules may be overbroad. These rules need to adapt to changing modes of communication or they can become obsolete.

    Lawyers shouldn't have to give up all sorts of different types of communications media and speech, just because we have a law license.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT