As promised, here’s the results of my survey of AmLaw100 firms who have a presence on Twitter. As I did my research, I was reminded how lousy the search function is on Twitter. I also came up against a search limitation after about 25 (or so) searches… I would have to wait until the top of the hour to try searching for firms. Seems a bit ridiculous.
And here’s some advice for law firms: make your firm easy to find! I can’t tell you the number of times I had to figure out what particular variant of a firm’s name was the actual account. Firms are all over the board in their Twitter identities. I understand that some firms’ names are more common than others, and there may be squatter issues. But, sheesh, it shouldn’t be that hard to find you on Twitter, right? I would guess that I might have missed a couple of firms because I simply couldn’t find them using the search function (I stopped scrolling through results after two pages). If I couldn’t find the firm’s Twitter presence, how are clients and prospects supposed to find it?
Without further ado, the results:
Amazingly, 76 of the AmLaw100 firms have a presence on Twitter. But (and it’s a big one), 31 firms have only a single or no tweets. And six firms have their accounts protected so that you can’t see any tweets and have to request to follow! (An incomprehensibly dumb move on their part, in my opinion.) So, to bury my lede, only 39 AmLaw 100 firms use Twitter in any meaningful way.
And some firms are some serious tweeters, with a serious base of followers. The two biggest rock stars are Patton Boggs (1,432 followers, 357 tweets) and Seyfarth Shaw (1,127 followers, 628 tweets). Fulbright Jaworski is the most active, with almost 2,000 tweets (and 864 followers)! Other firms with hundreds of followers and hundreds of tweets include Foley & Lardner, Akin Gump and Reed Smith.
If you want to see most of the firms that I was able to find, you can follow @AmLaw100tweets on Twitter. Or, if you have any questions, please feel free to email me.