Featured · Video
What to film, with what, and why most firm video fails
Video does one thing no amount of writing achieves: it answers what this person will be like to deal with. For a purchase as personal and anxious as instructing a lawyer, that is not a small thing.
It also has the worst effort-to-output ratio of any channel when done badly, which is why so many firms have three videos from 2021 and nothing since.
What is actually worth filming
Ordered by return. The first two are worth more than everything below them combined.
The people who will take the call, introducing themselves and the work they do, in about ninety seconds each. This is the whole point of video for a law firm.
What happens next — the process, plainly narrated, for your two or three commonest matters. It is the most-watched thing on most firm sites that have one.
The question you are asked repeatedly, answered in under two minutes.
Client testimonials where your regulator permits them and the client is genuinely willing, which is rarer and more constrained than firms assume.
The premises, briefly, for practices where people will visit.
And almost never: a firm overview video, which nobody watches and which dates immediately.
Notice that the highest-value items are the least produced. A ninety-second introduction filmed on a phone in a quiet room outperforms a polished brand film for the purpose that matters here.
The reason is that the viewer is not evaluating production. They are deciding whether they want to talk to this person, which a plain, well-lit, honestly delivered piece answers better than anything scripted.
Why firm video stops after three
The pattern is consistent, and every cause is a decision that was not made at the outset.
Treating it as a production rather than a habit, so each video needs scheduling, a crew and a budget.
Scripting it word for word, which produces delivery that reads as insincere and takes four times as long to film.
Filming one at a time. The setup is most of the cost, so a single video carries the whole overhead.
Waiting for a studio, when a quiet room with a window is sufficient for the videos that matter.
Involving everybody, so scheduling becomes impossible and the reluctant fee-earners set the pace.
And no owner, so after the first batch nobody organises the second.
A version that keeps going
Built around batching, because the setup is the expensive part and the filming is not.
Film in batches — four to six pieces in one sitting, twice a year. This single decision is what makes it sustainable.
Use a phone on a tripod, a window for light, and a clip microphone. That is genuinely enough for the pieces that matter.
Work from bullet points rather than a script, and film each in two or three takes.
Start with the people who take the calls, and the what-happens-next explainer.
Subtitle everything, because a large share of viewing happens without sound.
Keep them short — ninety seconds for an introduction, two minutes for an explanation.
Check testimonial content against your regulator's rules before filming rather than after, since testimonials and outcome claims are where video most often strays.
And put them where they matter: attorney pages, practice-area pages, and the what-happens-next page — not a video gallery nobody visits.
Two filming sessions a year, on a phone, from bullet points, produces more usable video than most firms manage with a production budget — and it answers the question the client actually has.
FAQs
What should a law firm film first?
The people who will take the call, introducing themselves in about ninety seconds, and a plain explanation of what happens next for your commonest matters. Those two are worth more than everything else combined.
Do we need professional production?
For the videos that matter, no. A phone on a tripod, a window for light and a clip microphone is genuinely sufficient — the viewer is deciding whether they want to talk to this person, not evaluating the cinematography.
Why does firm video usually stop?
Because it was treated as a production rather than a habit. The setup is most of the cost, so filming one at a time carries the whole overhead each time, and scripting word for word makes it slower and less convincing.
How do we make it sustainable?
Batch it — four to six pieces in one sitting, twice a year, from bullet points rather than a script. Two sessions a year produces more usable video than most firms manage with a budget.
Are client testimonials allowed on video?
It depends on your jurisdiction and is more constrained than firms assume. Testimonials and anything resembling an outcome claim are where video most often strays, so check the current rules before filming rather than afterwards.
End Note
Most firms own three videos made in one expensive week and nothing since, because the thing was set up as a production instead of a habit.
Film the people who answer the phone, explain what happens next, work from bullet points, batch it twice a year, and put the results where somebody is actually deciding.
Key Takeaways
Video answers what text cannot: what this person will be like.
Introductions and what-happens-next beat everything else combined.
A phone, a tripod, a window and a clip microphone is enough.
Batch twice a year — the setup is the cost, not the filming.
Check testimonial rules before filming, not after.
