ILNews

LaBret: Demystifying online reputation defense

January 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

By Jabez LeBret
 

labret-jabez-mug LeBret

Often, we have clients that come to us completely unaware of what is being said about them online. In a few alarming cases, an online search for the attorney’s name included results for people of the same name who had been arrested for DUI, larceny and, in two cases, sexual assault.

Managing your online reputation does not have to keep you up at night. The best reputation defense is a good offense.

We are going to walk step-by-step through how you can easily manage your professional image online. This article will not hide anything. If you follow these simple steps, you will quickly be in control of your online image without ever having to hire a reputation management company.

The great news is that less than 1.8 percent of people searching on Google ever click on the second page. The first logical step in online reputation management is assessing what is said about you on page one.

When you or a potential client searches for your name or your firm name, this is called a “branded keyword search.” The proper way to conduct a branded search to check your online reputation is to log out of all your email accounts and social media profiles. Then, clear your search history and cache in the tools section of your browser (e.g. Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer). Now you are searching on a clean browser that is not being influenced by your search history, social media connections or email. Skipping this step may cause the search engine to show you skewed, personalized results that differ from what a potential client would see.

To get the most accurate search results for your firm, type your firm name surrounded by quotation marks in a Google search. If I were to search for my company, the search term would be “Get Noticed Get Found.” You can also search for yourself and your fellow partners separately by name, each with quotation marks around the search term.

Your goal is to control the information about your firm name and every attorney’s name in your office on page one of Google and page two, if possible. If you find something negative, do not get upset. Follow the exact steps below, and in a month or two, you will start to gain more control of page one.

Clean up your citations: Anywhere your firm appears online with its name, address and phone number is called a citation or directory listing. Make sure that every one of your firm’s citations has an identical firm name, address, website and phone number. These citation websites include Google+ Local, Yelp, Merchant Circle, AVVO, etc. When you Google your firm name in quotes, you will likely find that several citations have already been created. If this is the case, find the “claim this listing” or similar button on the page, and follow the instructions to manage and edit that listing.

Do not use a forwarding phone number: It was great advice about nine months ago to use a forwarding phone number on your citation listings and even your firm’s website; however, this is no longer a good practice. The search engines have indicated that you will fall in the search rankings if you are caught using forwarding numbers. Immediately take down a forwarding number that appears anywhere online.

Set up a blog on your website: A blog is a great tool for controlling information on page one of search engines while also helping your website get a better ranking. You should be blogging once a week at the minimum. The key to good blogging is consistency, so avoid posting four blogs in one week and none the rest of the month.

Link your firm’s social media profiles to your blog: You do not need to post on Twitter about the coffee you drank this morning. You should, however, have profiles on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and Linkedin where you can post links to your firm’s blogs.

Create one press release per month: These press releases do not have to be about breaking news. Topics like hiring a new employee or someone in your firm participating in a local 5K race all make for easy press releases. Note that you get what you pay for: submitting your press release to free online syndication sites gets you almost no credit in search results.

Update your website: Your firm’s website is not a static object. You should be updating it often with new content, images and blog posts. This helps your search ranking and really pushes that website to page one of Google.

Create a video series: Forget a lengthy $30,000 production. One option is to hire a film crew from Craigslist to shoot a simple series of question and answers. You and the other attorneys at your firm can answer common questions that clients ask you about your practice areas. Break the video into multiple video snippets, and then syndicate those videos on as many free video syndication websites as you can find, including YouTube, MetaCafe and others.

Following all of the above steps will allow you to easily command the first page of Google’s search results for your name and firm name. With numerous search results for your firm’s website, directory listings, blog, videos, social media accounts and press releases showing up on the first page, any objectionable results relating to your name or your firm’s name will be pushed to the second or even third page – where nearly no one will see them.•

__________

Jabez LeBret is co-author of Online Law Practice Strategies and a partner at Get Noticed Get Found Inc. His agency provides custom digital marketing solutions exclusively for attorneys. For more information, visit http://www.GetNoticedGetFound.com or call 513-444-2016.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT