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. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT