A few minutes ago, I was reviewing some senior associate biographies on a law firm website. I was pretty surprised. They all said the same thing: where the person went to law school, when they graduated, and any activities they did in law school. Some of the biographies ended with sentences such as, “Jim was involved in the urban housing clinic during his second year of law school.”
Despite the fact that many of these associates were 5, 6, or 7 years out of law school, the bios barely discussed their current practice, other than saying “Joe Smith practices in the area of complex commercial litigation.” The bios did not mention their strengths as an attorney, what makes them capable of doing a good job, or provide any other information that would make a client feel comfortable that they were hiring somebody that was guaranteed to do a good job. They were extremely bare-bones, and hardly compelling or interesting. It was as if the attorneys didn’t care enough to make their biographies interesting.
Attorneys are trained to be persuasive communicators. Especially in terms of persuasive writing. Especially litigators. But why do so many litigators have biographies that are completely unpersuasive about their skills as an attorney? Don’t you think it would make sense for attorneys to illustrate and highlight their persuasive skills when it comes to advocating for themselves? If associates can’t advocate for themselves or make a compelling case whey they have something to offer their clients, what impression does this leave potential clients who are reviewing the firm’s website?