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?

  • 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

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
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.