Went to Birmingham once with an old girlfriend who had family there. Let’s just say I will not hold that against BA. The girlfriend that is, not the city. It was fine. The home page is clean and simple. I especially liked the “publications” section and choices. The only thing that I’d like to see change is the “year” category—2001-present is not real helpful. Give me a year by year drop down. The Alabama court opinions page and the continuing great use of online seminars rounds out the strongest section of the site. On this date, “no upcoming events or seminars”. Not a CLE? Nothing? Come on, the “largest law firm in Birmingham” (says one of the scrolling headlines)? The site is improved, but there is always room for a little bit more.
I was happy that the URL no longer required a dash between Dickinson and Wright. The site was a little thin in the news center and contact sections. Maybe I’m wrong, but I get the impression the site could be tended to a little more. The structure is sound. Still user-friendly and not overwhelming (in a positive way). Free suggestion – get me two to three sentences about DW—on the home page—pronto. And do not say you are a full-service firm that does lots of stuff for lots of people—all important.
If the home page was any duller, I would have hit my head on the computer keyboard from nodding off, possibly blowing up the IMA review document. Of course, if you remember the last site, you’ll be glad to know the firm has presented the typical standard large firm fare. Which is totally fine. Outside of the sleepy design, the site is straightforward and professional. But, if you paid more than $50k for it, you got gypped.
Outside of randomly clicking on a few attorney bios that turned out to have very attractive photos attached, the site did not stand out positively or negatively—which can be an issue. All the relevant pieces are in place. I just like to see more in the form of a brand or identity. Make me remember you.
While the site looked way too much like so many other sites, with mirrored functionality, it is fine. For some reason, I never have much to say about Katten, which is both good (nobody gets ripped) and bad (nothing really stands out). The information was very current, and the site is constantly updated—which are good things. I always appreciate seeing the PDF symbol next to a link, so I know that Adobe is about to open. The careers site had a little more oomph than the regular site—which is expected—but still provided more of a firm flavor.
I’m sure the highlighted phrase “Legally sophisticated and enormously capable, without being unwieldy in size and attitude” is not a shot at Piper or DLA or whatever that nine ton gorilla that once was a nice Baltimore firm is called today. No. Not at all. I’ve got to watch what I say about M&S, because if I want to do business with any firms in the town where I was raised, there are few big ones remaining. Who else is left in Charm City? Another firm with smart practice pages that show experience and results. Still like the matrix. Some of the home page news could be a little fresher and sharper.
Essentially the same site from last time around—heavy on graphics—literally with pictures and sounds of rain and fury—from a firm in New Orleans! Believe me, the irony is not lost. The previous shortcomings still exist—too much focus on look. But the site is up to date and there was an upcoming breakfast briefing in New Orleans—so I’m happy to see things running well in one of my favorite cities. When things calm down, working on improving usability is a key here.
I would have bet my last dollar that this firm would not still be here in 2006; and that would have made me—wrong (and broke). The site is adequate, and in Philadelphia, probably above-average. One of the biggest weaknesses is a lot of pages (mostly practice descriptions) that are too long-winded. Speaking of long-winded, chop that home page description of the firm wayyyy down. Do you really think anybody (but me) is going to read all that? Bottom line – in writing and design – tighten it up! Now, since a partner is a key member of my softball team, and as you may remember from IMA reviews past, a former firm administrator and associate essentially set me up with my wife, I’ll leave my criticism at that. And thank you for the softball wins and my spouse—good for at least one intangible point on the IMA score.
This was not the only site to promote a blog without giving the topic. Maybe everybody else knows what LNG is, but not me—don’t make me look. And for goodness sake, nobody is going to scroll through the home page news items. Outside of that, nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary. Although, the attorney photos were nice and a little different. The news & events search and layout needs to be friendlier. Having said all that, the site is improved from two years’ ago.
Well, I knew the Hale people had the web as a higher priority than the Wilmer people, so the marriage had to mean one set of principles wins out. As a husband, I’ll assume Hale is the wife, since it is closer to the presence that survives the merger. “Get rid of that site before we move in together,” I can hear Ms. Hale saying to Ms. Wilmer. Even though Wilmer is the stronger player in the union. The home page is a bit of a sleeper. However, the content is potent (even RSS feeds), with good interactive communication tools and strong sections for press, alumni and careers. I even liked the new WH logo. Now, which waffle iron did they keep and which went to Goodwill?
