Update (September 26, 2018): Here we go again. In the linked complaint, another law firm charges Findlaw with fraud, among other causes of action, for promised web-based marketing help that fell far short of the law firm’s expectations.
Minnesota Litigator has fielded off-line calls from lawyers dissatisfied with Findlaw’s services more than once (website design, SEO marketing services, internet attorney marketing services, and social media engagement services).
Too bad these lawyers and law firms did not find our posts through a google search BEFORE hiring Findlaw (let alone before suing it).
One has to wonder what kind of due diligence these lawyers and law firms did before committing big money for Findlaw’s SEO optimization, etc. (The Friday & Cox law firm claims to have paid nearly $300,000 and Findlaw counterclaims for an additional $36,000+.)
Did these lawyers and law firms require that Findlaw meet any concrete goals? Did they require any assurances or commitments at all as to any results of Findlaw’s work? Did they seek and obtain references or testimonials from other law firms that used the same products? Did they seek competitive bids?
If you’re curious about what distinguishes supposed “good” search engine optimization, take a look at Friday & Cox’s specific complaints about Findlaw’s work for the law firm (Complaint, Para. 16, a-v). (And ask yourself, as between Findlaw and the law firm, which is responsible for these alleged short-comings?)
Many lawyers are driven, smart, and accomplished in their field (that is, lawyering) but are bad business people. In our view, Findlaw is one of the best at exploiting this vulnerability.