A good example of a site that was built well to begin with, so it still has legs. Not a lot has changed here since the last review. It still stands out with a touch of uniqueness, avoiding the cookie-cutter route so many firms follow. I still like the different way they identify the end-user, the vibrant look, and the mix of content. Organization of information and usability is still a shortcoming. Like the VentureVault. The “search” function only exists in certain spots, which shines a spotlight on the organizational shortcomings.
Nice splash page (I’m being facetious). And the nice design with a gavel…very legal looking (I’m being more facetious). When I get beyond the look, there is some of the more detailed and original information among similar firms. Good contact information. Areas like “quotables” and “appearances” stand out. The navigation and searching could be friendlier. There is a lot more to this site than first meets the eye. My impression is that a lot is probably missed. Another site that just needs a better system; the info is in place. WILL ALWAYS LOVE…press inquiries section.
On this day, I thought about registering for the upcoming Corporate Counsel CLE/Baseball Game in St. Louis. Now, that is a draw! Baseball & continuing legal ed credit is my cup of tea. The firm’s marketing has clearly improved. And the site has as well. It looks like there is a lot of good business development activity going on. The biggest disappointment is the failure to have all the relevant practice info in one spot. I would rather see the most recent news and events about “labor” on the “labor” page, rather than see the same news and events headlines from page to page. Going in the right direction…
Even I never know how I’ll sometimes react to these web sites. I really liked the simplicity of the DW entry page, with a focus on a few headlines (including a bold, register now – for a seminar next week!) and the search box with drop-down options to compliment the top page navigation, firm logo and simple tagline. You need to jack up the usability of “contact us” and add office pages. The industries, practice areas and related practice listings are well set out. The site is user-friendly and slimmed down.
I still hate the fact that the home page really tells you little about the law firm or the location. Some states require an address and phone number on the home page, which I happen to think, is a great rule. The option of having a brief practice description or the detailed one is a good one. The site is better populated than a year ago. And the firm has the components and sections necessary to make the presence a successful one. Honigman, like many firms, have shown tremendous web site improvement in the online decade. The “usual suspects” are present and accounted for—good bios, practice pages, etc.
Despite violating the IMA pet peeve of not having any changing or fresh news on the home page, the new Howrey site is pleasant to visit. The content is not organized in the most convenient way possible, but the site is an improvement over the previous one. The sister sites for Capanalysis and Maxiam are good additions. The branding is much more consistent than it used to be. I enjoyed the advertising section. Bio searching could be a little more flexible. Most likely a work in progress.
Extra! Extra! Read the Newsletters! That is the strength of Manatt.com. A good stable of newsletters with the ability to subscribe. I’d like to see the good search engine make itself visible throughout the site (the results are helpful). I like the division of articles “by us” and “about us”. The options for searching attorney bios could offer a few more options. I like how some articles offered up the secondary link to a pdf or external site, so I could decide it I wanted to go there. What surprised me most was that the “contact” section and/or “offices” were not better detailed. You are missing a key site basic there.
The home page “web award” fails to show that it is from 2002, and that you pay good money to have your web site reviewed. At IMA, you pay no money and get reviewed—like it or not. Nice site, but not award-winning. And as those of us in the legal profession know, we are a different animal (Just look at the Miller press release quote about their site – “Very attractive site," commented one member of the Web Marketing Association panel who reviewed entries. "It’s a nice, polished, professional-looking site – and you can find a telephone number for just about anyone in the company.”) We do not call ourselves companies. And you call that a review? Anyway, that Web Award Company sure knows how to make money “reviewing” sites. IMA should take a lesson. Oh yeah, the site. Nice, polished, professional-looking. Seriously, the site continues to put forth a good collection of materials, including the always-good “hot points”. The “polish practice” is unique, and well marketed.
The home page is improved from a year ago, but still on the bland side. There are some elementary design flaws (the logo goes flush left, not right), that is Design 101. The highlighted home page news headline on this day was two months’ old, which is inexcusable for a firm of this magnitude. On the plus side, the dedicated sister sites for Morgan Lewis Resources, Public Company Resource Center, and the online services provide firm data above and beyond the basics. It is probably a work in progress, and definitely showing signs of life, with lots of improvement from a year ago. The interactivity in regard to “contact” needs expansion and improvement. WILL ALWAYS LOVE…HSRScan. WILL ALWAYS HATE…the very slow download time of this site.
The new site is an improvement. It is clean, well-structured and organized. The home page could still be a bit more informative, although it does feature a few “highlights.” A key area, like “contact us” is buried at the bottom of the page, and does not show itself in the standard navigation. However, the site is kept up to date, and features a good mix of materials for each end-user.
