LawCrossing.com: Cleaner Image or Smarter Marketing?

Without a doubt, more and more legal job seekers are finding their listings online, and more and more legal job listings sites are popping up everywhere. One company, Lawcrossing.com, came busting onto the scene in 2002 as one of the few job sites which actually charged a subscription fee to job seekers, and also proclaimed itself as the largest consolidator of legal jobs.  Over the years LawCrossing.com has had some tough critics, including the Better Business Bureau.  The BBB assigned LawCrossing.com its lowest company rating, an F.  Their reasoning included that the company’s adverting was grossly misleading, their complaints contain serious allegations, and the company failed to respond to complaints.

In 2007 the BBB highlighted a few of the typical complaints it received from clients.  One client complained that the listings on the company’s website were bogus and that 20 to 30 of the jobs he applied to didn’t exist.  Others complained that they were charged for use of the website long after they canceled.  Say you originally signed up for a discounted 3 month subscription, and canceled the day after that subscription ended.  Too bad!! You would be locked in for another three month ride.

The BBB isn’t the only one bashing LawCrossing.com.  Type in Lawcrossing.com into any search engine and you’ll come across a plethora of testimonials referring to LawCrossing as a “scam” with clients detailing horrible customer service experiences, and an inability to find “real” job listings (some of the job listings give generic contact information such as a company’s corporate offices halfway around the country  for a local job posted on the site).

Most troubling, in 2008, one blogger (Statements of Interest) noticed an onslaught of overly positive comments posted to his blog after he posted an entry about the job search site.  Some handy investigative work revealed that LawCrossing posted a hit on an Amazon service which offered to pay anyone who posted a testimonial on the blogger’s site.

In 2010 yet another blogger (ButIDidEverythingRight) commented on the “reverse psychology” employed by LawCrossing.com in an email sent to law students.  And today the web is littered with former LawCrossing clients still complaining about the company’s billing and cancellation policy.

This seems like an easy fix to me.  Instead of flooding Youtube with videos attempting to convince out-of-work legal personnel to sign up for your service, LawCrossing should simply offer a prorated cancellation policy (you pay only for the time you’ve used after your initial contract period expires) and of course, more accurate job leads.  Perfect your product and let your TRUE clients do your marketing for you.

3 Responsesto “LawCrossing.com: Cleaner Image or Smarter Marketing?”

  1. James Robertson says:

    Offering a prorated cancellation policy will certainly help LawCrossing fend off internet abuse over its questionable billing practices. In the end, however, I am doubtful that it will do anything to increase the viability of the company long-term. As the blog post points out, simply type in “LawCrossing” into Google and, along with the main company website, one gets a plethora of highly critical (and highly negative) opinions and posts. The damage has already been done, and said damage is quite extensive.

    Its questionable whether or not the company will reach its decade anniversary. I, for certain, will never use LawCrossing in the hunt for attorney jobs.

    Great and illuminating post!

Leave a Reply