Thirty years ago, the word ‘hash’ resonated specifically with teenagers and twentysomethings – it was spliff (that’s marijuana, m’Lord) in a concentrated, strong resin form. Mix it with tobacco or pop it in a bong and let the good times roll.
Today, most teenagers and twentysomethings associate ‘hash’ with ‘tag’ to be used as a means of collating words and subjects in the micro-blogging site Twitter and other social media. For many, it is equally, if not more, fun than the resin, but, then, each to their own.
Is this something that should even remotely interest lawyers and law firms? And is it a now outdated cliché that anyone older than the age of 40 is a social media Luddite, sent into babbling paroxysms of confusion by the very mention of tweeting, Facebook walls and LinkedIn groups? Yes, answers our commentator this week with an unequivocal confidence (see page 18).

Hyperbole

Generating and keeping client relationships is crucial to any business – and the law is no different. Various legal professions around the world have embraced advertising and marketing at different rates. But the majority has moved on from the generally standard position of 40-odd years ago that advertising was a grubby business in which a profession should be banned from engaging.
Today, social networking is clearly about more than millions of spotty adolescents flirting and gossiping in cyberspace. A whole industry exists of jargon-spouting marketers espousing the view that if a business hasn’t got a full social media personality it might as well ring the insolvency specialists and pack its bags. There is undoubtedly much hyperbole wafting around social media– a lot of it contains unadulterated drivel (it is a curious social phenomenon that some people are convinced that others will be interested in the fact that their two-year-old has just coughed up her breakfast of mashed bananas and milk).
But, ultimately, social media is making a significant and unavoidable impact on global business. And whether individual lawyers are keen fans or curmudgeonly sceptics, from the perspective of their businesses, they can’t afford to ignore the hashtags.

New breed

Law firms travelling to planet social media is not the only evolution currently impacting on the profession. The first English licences for alternative business structures were granted in the past fortnight, creating a new breed of law firm in a jurisdiction that has one of the world’s strongest legal professions. But, as our commentators this week point out (see pages 12 and 13), evolution triggers forceful opposition.
A group of senior in-house lawyers in the US has suggested that any move towards multi-disciplinary partnerships – let alone full-blown alternative structures allowing external investment in law firms – is tantamount to supping with the devil. Similar cries have been heard from the traditionalist wing of the profession in continental Europe, which, to be fair, is more of the main body of practitioners than a wing.
Their protestations have a familiar ring. Similar objections over devaluing the profession were heard when advertising rules were reformed. And, while there are legitimate concerns over protecting core elements of professional privilege and independence, ultimately the hard-line traditionalists will lose this battle as well.