The history and the reputation of marketing departments in law firms are, shall we say, checkered.  Theories of why that's so abound, and among the usual suspects are that:

• the value and the impact of highly sophisticated legal services is ineffable (so it cannot be reduced to a slogan, a pitch, or a presentation);
• good work speaks for itself;
• the cultures of law and of marketing are worlds apart, and (truth be told) each harbors a secret disdain for the other; and
• F500 clients are too sophisticated to be swayed by the superficial and the slick.

I could go on, but I suspect most readers of this blog are amply familiar with the syndrome. 

I propose to start a periodic dialogue on the role of marketing in law firms, what's wrong with it, how it could be fixed, and why (IMHO) it's a woefully underappreciated expertise—and the fact that I'm married to a senior marketing and advertising executive has nothing to do with my motivation!  A good place to start is this piece by a Kellogg Business School professor discussing what's wrong with marketing in much of corporate America and what needs to be done.   My own personal god among writers about management, Peter Drucker, once said that the only two functions of a firm that matter are "marketing and innovation."   I take that as meaning that innovation is the only (credible, enduring) way to distinguish oneself from the competition, and that without marketing to explain the precise benefits of your innovative products and services to potential customers, you are wasting your time.

Perhaps the key "take-away" from the article is that marketing's "Job #1" is to understand the client, what they want, and how they understand "value."  This requires both analytic rigor and intuition; sounds like it could be an interesting place to be.