In Search of Perfect Client Service

Alternative Fees Should Go Beyond Specific Matters To Build Strong Relationships With In-House Counsel

I consider Nat Slavin, the publisher of Corporate Legal Times, to be a friend.  But even if he were not, I would be a regular reader of Corporate Legal Times simply because every issue contains at least one nugget of insight that really makes me think and reevaluate what I believe, and most issues contain more than one.  The July 2005 issue is a great example of multiple nuggets.

Nat’s column is entitled “A New Economic Model For Law Firm Billing,” and his new model, while not that new, is presented in a way that is really intriguing.  The proposal is that law firms bill on a fixed fee basis on a quarterly basis.  The rationale for the model is the need for business people to bridge the gap between budgets and actual expenses.  The rationale is presented in the context of a public company that needs to forecast and make projections to manage Wall Street expectations.

As most who have read any this blog know, I am a staunch proponent of a modified fixed fee approach—fixed fee with a success incentive (either recovery of hold back or bonus) so law firms remain “interested” in the outcome.  Whereas Nat is looking at fixed fees for a given quarter, which allows a firm to make up any losses from the prior quarter, I have been advocated for a fixed fee on a given matter.  In the context of the business need for prediction, neither approach is on the money.  Nat’s approach fails because budges are set months in advance of a given quarter if not even more so.  During breakfast with a GC a week ago, he mentioned how he is now fixing his budget for 2006, and there is no line entry for new litigation.  The system evens out because litigation ends while other suits begin.  In this GC’s experience, things tend to even out.  My approach works on a micro, or matter, level, providing the grist for fixing a specific line item on a departmental budget.  But my approach does nothing on a macro level, which is where much of the budgetary pressure resides.  But Nat’s analysis that the gap between budgets and actual expenses has to be bridged is on the money, so my view must evolve from micro to macro, from matter budgeting to budgeting for groups of litigation.  We must move beyond matter focus to something broader.

I did say that there was more than one nugget in the July CLT.  Laura Stein, the General Counsel of The Clorox Co., authors the Inside Perspective column, which is entitled “Management Needs Lawyers It Can Trust.”  The article is about the trust relationship between inside counsel and management, but the lessons must be the same for outside counsel.  While Ms. Stein’s article does not mention fees per se, but she underscores the need to help management obtain business objectives in a cost-efficient manner.  Certainly this must include the budgetary process.  But as important, Ms. Stein underscores the importance of  a relationship built on trust.  And while a trust relationship between inside and outside counsel extends beyond fee issues, it certainly must include them.  The persistent failure to learn and understand the internal budget pressures faced by inside counsel and to respond in a manner that helps solve the problem rather than exacerbate it is certainly a cornerstone of a trusting relationship.

Listening To Ourselves Through Unbiased Ears

I’m not going to repeat all of the commentary about the “elevator speech” you need to have ready to give to anyone who asks what you do.  We all have experienced the need to have the “speech” ready and many of us have one at the ready.  But are we really ready?

I recently wrote out my “speech” and also looked at number of law firm web sites to see their “speech”.  My conclusion is that we need to take pity on the people who actually have to listen to our speeches.

Let me offer some examples of what I might say and how a prospect might react.  “I am a litigator.”  Most people don’t really know what a litigator is or does.  But clients know that “litigator” is a term that is so vanilla as to be meaningless.  Of the millions who would describe themselves as a litigator, how am I different?  Well, unlike many litigators, I actually try cases.  So then I try to distinguish myself from the many litigators who never venture into court by saying “I am a trial lawyer.”  Will my prospect think  I am one of those people who contribute heavily to the Democratic party?  Positing yourself as an adversary at worst or someone who can’t help at best is not a good way to go.  I try qualifying my speech by saying “I’m a business trial lawyer.”  Okay, so you work for businesses.  But  is trial skill the key attribute the prospect is looking for? Since 97% of all cases settle, it sounds as if I am  really suggesting I  only deal with 3% of the prospect's problems?  I know I can contribute something of value on the other 97% though.  I am an effective negotiator, a good legal strategist able to secure dismissals on motion, and so on.  Plus, I know that clients don't always view trials with the same warmth I do.  The business trial lawyer description doesn’t communicate the right message either.

What do others say?  I saw a small firm’s web site (under 20 lawyers) describe their expertise as including Tax Law,  International Trade and Transactions, Corporate Planning and Transactions , Intellectual Property (patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and licensing), Media and Communications Law,  Litigation,  Employment Law, Environmental Law, and Legislative Affairs.  How can a firm with less than 20 lawyers have the depth of expertise needed to practice in all these areas?  There are lawyers that do each of these things every day and are true specialists.  Putting aside the veracity of the claims, will they sound true? Should I try a longer speech putting in a description of more things I can do, more types of lawsuits that I have handled?  I have concluded that the risk of sounding like I am overselling is not worth it.

Another firm claims to be devoted to “working in their client interests.”  Well, that hardly sounds like a distinguishing factor.  Another claims to deliver value.  I have to confess that I haven’t seen a firm admit that it fails to deliver value.  I don’t mean to be trite, but the use of buzzwords doesn’t really make the “speech” effective.  But the notion of somehow communicating a client service orientation does make sense.  I just think it needs to be more subtle.

Back to my “litigator.”  Litigation is, at its core, just a means of resolving a dispute.  So what I really am is a “problem solver.”  I'm effective at it, and I am efficient.  I work at solving problems for businesses rather than for accused criminals, or people injured at work, for example.  What other traits do I bring to the table as a problem solver?  My best trait, in my judgment at least, is my creativity.  So, “I creatively, effectively and efficiently solve problems for businesses.”  But there’s more.  We are pushing alternative fees so we can help in-house counsel with their budgets and avoid the headaches associated with the hourly rate.  Now I’m trying this: “I creatively, effectively and efficiently  solve problems for businesses in a way that cures headaches for in-house counsel.”  And to tell them about my firm, I can add:  “I work in a firm of like-skilled people.”

My speech seems to describe what I do generally enough and in a different enough way that a prospect hearing it might ask a follow up question, starting the dialogue I was hoping for.  Am I being too generous when I listen to my own speech?  Are my ears too dulled by listening to my own music?  What do you think?

Even if you think I am full of [fill in the blank] about my own speech, hopefully this post may cause you to listen critically to your own.

Sharing Lessons Learned Is Part of Exemplary Service

I was talking to a client one day and he mentioned that he would be unavailable for several days because he was working on an acquisition.  I was happy to hear our client was growing and asked if he could tell me about the company being acquired.  He mentioned the name and when he heard me gag, he asked whether I had ever heard of the company.  I mentioned that I had run across them frequently in silica litigation.  Reading between the lines, he heard me asking him why on earth they were thinking of buying another company involved in mass tort litigation, which was completely contrary to their risk profile.

In the end, the acquisition did not happen.  The transactional lawyers had not done an exemplary job of due diligence.  Even though they knew the company was involved in silica litigation, they didn’t appreciate the extent of the problem, the myriad of related issues,or the disclosure issues created.  The upshot of the story is that I was added to the due diligence team.

This story happened more than a decade ago.  I find myself telling it to new clients and prospects to illustrate the potentially added value we can bring to them even though my colleagues and I now are just litigators.  The lessons one acquires over the course of a career are there to be shared.  And even if a client hasn’t hired you to handle a specific matter, my experience is that they are always willing to hear what experiences you’ve had that might help them avoid making mistakes made by others.  Good service, it seems to me, requires sharing the value of your experience when you see opportunities to help out. Even when you’re not directly asked.

Client Service Audits and The Chairs In Your Lobby

Matt Homann has an interesting entry in his [non]billable hour blog, picking up a post from Howard Mann who writes a blog called Dig Tank.  The gist of the article was that Mr. Mann convinced his client to sit in his own lobby to see it from the eyes of a client.  The client—the President—didn’t like how things looked and didn’t like how uncomfortable the chairs were.

I have written before about Internal Audits.  Matt’s entry and the Howard Mann post show a great example of how the internal audit process can help change the way you view your own space. 

"Mr. Lamb, I have a great stock tip for you!" (Or Why Cold Calling Has No Place In Marketing Or Sales)

Uggghhhhhhhhhhh!  I hate it when these stock brokers call out of the blue, trying to sound like they’ve got the best deal in the world.  I can’t hang up fast enough.

You might be wondering how my encounters with cold callers is particularly relevant to client service.  When a broker calls me out the blue with a “tip,” it isn’t about me, it’s about him.  He doesn’t know what my investment portfolio looks like, what my risk tolerance is, or what my investment objectives are.  He doesn’t know, for example, whether I just dumped the stock he is pushing.  Since he doesn’t know anything about me, he isn’t really worried about what’s best for me.

How are our first encounters with prospective clients different?  I hear lawyers talk about the cases they tried years ago, or who they know or who they’ve worked with.  Straight resume material.  The only time the lawyer asks a question is when he notices that the client’s plate is cleaner than his and he needs the client to talk a bit so he can catch up.  Too frequently, though, the question asked is something akin to “so what do you think about my great accomplishments?”

As Anne Gallagher pointed out in her recent comment, a lawyer has to build a relationship with a prospective client.  How do you do that?  Ask questions!  Its about the client, not the lawyer.  You need to understand the client’s business. You need to understand the reporting structure.  The risk profile.  Business objectives.  Personal objectives.  Pet peeves.  Issues.  Problems.  The amount you need to know is not a one-lunch amount.  Its a month of lunches if not more.  Because a relationship isn’t built over one lunch, its built over time.  At the end, the unasked question you must answer is what needs of the client are you in a position to address.  Its not asking what you can do for the client.  Its knowing what solutions you can provide and discussing whether they are the right solutions for the client’s particular needs.

Don’t cold call. But more importantly, don’t treat opportunities to meet prospective clients like cold calls.

Talk About A Power Breakfast!

This morning, I was fortunate enough to have breakfast with Jeff Carr, General Counsel of FMC Technologies; Peter Jenkins, the President of Law Partnering Institute and founder of  the Law Department Consortium; and Steve Lauer, Director of Integrity Interactive.  Jeff is one the most outspoken proponents of aligning the economic interests of clients and their counsel, and he can legitimately claim to be one of the prophets who have moved the industry in this area.  Peter is on the cusp of really changing the management of mid-size law departments with the Law Department Consortium. Having served as in-house counsel for a number of years, Steve is now working at Integrity Interactive, the premier ethics and compliance partner to Global 2000 corporations. All were in town of the Corporate Counsel Superconference, sponsored by Corporate Legal Times.

I doubt I contributed a single meaningful thought during our 90 minutes, but I sure learned a lot.  Thanks to my friends for their insights.  I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two of the lessons from this morning find their way into this blog.

 

Comfort Is Not A Recipe

Many years ago, I did almost all of my work for two partners in a large firm.  They were good friends, but they could not have been more different to work for.  But what I am today, I am in large measure because of them.  Once, I was traveling with one of the partners and we were talking over cocktails.  The partner told me I was the best associate that had ever worked for him.  I asked how he had reached that conclusion.  His answer was something that has stuck with me since: “I never wake up in the middle of night thinking about cases you’re working on.” 

Another time, I was having cocktails with my other mentor, and I asked how I was doing.  He said “you give me what I need to be able to do my job well.”  When I told him about his partner’s comments over cocktails, he laughed and said if I did for him the things that I did for his friend, he would never sleep a wink.  The key to my success, he said, was knowing what I needed to do for one was not the same as what I needed to do for the other. 

The point of these two stories is not to relive my glory years as an associate, although Bruce Springsteen wrote a great song about doing so.  Rather, the point is that there was no recipe that either of my mentors had for judging me. And there was no recipe I had for providing the service that either them wanted.

Years later, in his outstanding book What Clients Love, Harry Beckwith wrote:

Ask loyal clients of any company why they remain loyal, and they will give one answer more than all others combined.  Do they mention excellence, quality, skill or price?  Not often.  They answer “comfort.”

Beckwith’s book is filled with tips that help create comfort.  But as with my mentors, what creates comfort for one client will differ from that which provides comfort for another.  The hard part about being a service-oriented lawyer  is to learn what it takes for each client to be comfortable, and then do everything possible to provide it.  Read voraciously about what it takes to provide great service, but do not succumb to the theories of any one writer or consultant.  Great service is personalized service.  Great service is unique service.

Response to Comment: Does Good Marketing Eliminate The Need For Sales?

Anne Gallagher of Extreme Marketing comments that one of her favorite authors on professional services (probably herself or her equally insightful partner, Merry Neitlich) “says that when marketing is done right, ‘sales’ becomes superfluous.  Think this means that relationship selling is about developing and deepening relationships rather than using traditional ‘closing’ techniques to get commitment.”  Agree or disagree?

On a very general level, its hard to disagree with the comment.  Many inside counsel say that they hire “the lawyer,” not her law firm.  Those that do hire the lawyer tend to hire someone they know and like.  Like any other relationship, the deeper and stronger it is, the more likely it is to be productive.  I wholeheartedly support the idea of building relationships, so much so that I suggested (and my partners agreed) that a portion of our compensation be based on relationship building efforts (rather than actual clients delivered to the firm).  I so firmly believe that building relationships will pay off, I am prepared to tie compensation to the effort not the result.

Having said that, I also take the view that “sales” is nothing more than helping people meet a need or solve a problem.  No matter what you think, sales in professional services will never be like a used car salesman’s approach or the cold call from a large investment house.  If your goal is to help someone meet a need, you necessarily have to know what needs they have do some thinking about what solutions may work.  But I am not prepared to trust marketing to cause the client or prospect to make the right decision.  You do not live or work in a vacuum.  Others are trying to build the same relationships you are, and some might be further along in the process.  To the extent that “sales” includes “asking for the business” and utilizing some techniques to ensure that the call come to you instead of a competitor, I’m all for sales.

Here’s an example.  I grew up in an environment where associates heard from day 1 that if you don’t ask for business, you won’t get it, and that lesson has stuck with me.  Years ago, I was marketing a client—paying a visit to the office to visit with my contacts.  Just that day, a class action complaint had come in.  It was a big piece of work.  I remembered my lesson and asked for the case, and used some very basic “closing” techniques and left that day with the case in my briefcase.

So my real response to Anne’s comment is that I don’t think marketing really displaces sales.  In professional services I think good marketing and good sales really are the same thing with slightly different points of emphasis.

Blocking and Tackling=Sales

I ran across the Revenue Roundtable blog the other day.  The Roundtable is made up a panel of experts, who describe their mission this way: 

“The Revenue Roundtable team’s saying is “Be practical, or be quiet.” So, head off to academia if you want to read jargon-laden management theory. Stick with us if you want specific advice on marketing strategy, lead generation, managing a complex sale, and expanding your business with your existing customers. And that’s just the start.”

With that as an introduction, I wanted to highlight an interesting Roundtable article titled How to Sell More--Back to Basics, which contained a mixed bunch of sports metaphors (“home runs and moving the ball down the field”).  But the punch line is pure wisdom:

“This particular sales manager loved to say “Kevin, if you want to be good at sales, remember it’s all about blocking and tackling!” In sales, “blocking and tackling” is actually three activities:

1. Connecting with people
2. Asking questions
3. Getting commitment

If you don’t do these things you will not develop the relationships needed to make sales. You won’t discover how you can be of service to anyone. And you’ll never close the deal. It’s that simple. Blocking and tackling.”

He then goes on to say that his list of three really boils down to one:  Be of Service.  Good discussion of what service is—helping others get what they want.  But then they screw it up by asking  “what do you consider the basics of selling in your organization?”  We know what the fundamental is (“blocking and tackling”)—service.  The better question is what we consider the elements of service?  Sometimes its hard to discern elements but easy to know good service when you see it, so let’s also ask for examples of good service.  LET’S HAVE A DISCUSSION!  COMMENTS ARE GOOD!

Courage. (And no, this is not a tribute to Dan Rather)

Much has been written here and elsewhere about the utter significant problems inherent in the billable hour system.  Indeed, there seems to be something meaningful happening, if only rhetorically.  The question remains, when will conduct match rhetoric?  When will inside counsel begin to insist on budgets with meaning, on alternative fees, on their counsel having skin in the game?  When will outside counsel offer, and really push, alternative fee arrangements that are mutually beneficial?  When will we be sufficiently motivated to take that first step into the unknown?

Tom Peters has an interesting entry today about Steve Jobs and his commencement address at Stanford.  The entire address can be read here, but the gist of the speech is captured in Tom’s slides.  Speaking of the importance of work in our lives, Jobs says:

“ Sometimes life's going to hit you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love, and that is as true for work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work, and the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking, and don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it, and like any great relationship it just gets better and better as the years roll on.  So keep looking. Don't settle.”

Having told us of the importance our job plays in our lives, Jobs has a few words of advice on how to do our jobs in a manner that is personally rewarding:

“But someday, not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it's quite true. Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is Secondary.”

Having told us of the importance of our jobs and the need to do things our way (think, Frank Sinatra singing “My Way”), Jobs concludes with this:

“Stuart and his team put out several issues of the The Whole Earth Catalogue, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-Seventies and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath were the words, "Stay hungry, stay foolish." It was their farewell message as they signed off. "Stay hungry, stay foolish." And I have always wished that for myself, and now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you. Stay hungry, stay foolish.”

Maybe we don’t need to be out there on the lunatic fringe (to quote Jack Welch), but then again, maybe what seems bold today will seem as mainstream as Apple just a few years from now.

Happy Fathers Day!

Happy Fathers Day to all Dads out there.  Today is worth a second or two to remember the important place our kids have in our lives.  Give ‘em a hug and let them know. 

"After The Mistake" Post Getting Some Play

My June 3, 2005 post entitled “After The Mistake” has been getting some play in the blog world.  Jim Colloway featured the post in his blog, Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips Blog, on June 17.  Jim is the Director of the Oklahoma Bar Association's Management Assistance Program and was the chair of ABA TECHSHOW 2005, which I attended and which was a great program. Jim frequently writes and speaks on legal technology issues, Internet research, law office management and organization and legal ethics. I make several dozen presentations per year to county bar meetings and other CLE events within Oklahoma. I met Jim at LexThink, which I’ve mentioned in prior posts.  He’s a formidable thinker in the client service area (as well as several others) and I’m honored that he would mention one of my posts.

Stephen Terrell, who pens the Hoosier Lawyer blog and is the editor of  the newsletter for the Indiana State Bar Assn's General Practice Solo & Small Firm Section, wrote and kindly asked if he could reprint the post.

It’s always nice when you say something that other people want to repeat.

RFP Responses and Client Service

My LexThink friend Matt Homann has a really intriguing blog entry today.  In the [non]billable hour, Matt quotes a guy named Craig Arthur, who writes that you should respond to Requests For Proposal in this manner: 

… [Y]ou should respond by sending a letter politely explaining why you don't answer RFPs or bids and why it isn't appropriate for either party to do business this way. The letter should make it very clear that you would like to talk with them to explore the full range of their issues to determine if you may be of service to them. If they choose not to do this then that is their choice.

After all, at some point you must eventually get face to face with them if they are to become a client. Why not start that process early? Do this and you will eliminate a lot of wasted time.

I just can’t agree that the right way to start a relationship is by telling the person you’re trying to get as a client that they’re idiots for submitting an RFP.  I mean, if you don’t think you can get the work, then ignore the RFP.  There is no obligation to respond.  If you do respond, don’t be defensive about how you price your work.  Don’t make the assumption that the lowest quote will win.  Demonstrate the value of your work.  But above all, never have the attitude that you are doing a client a favor by working for them.  Clients are to be cherished.

Can Starbucks Improve Client Service?

Earlier today, Tom Peters wrote:

“I've written a lot positive about Starbucks ... and will continue to do so. But the fact is that I am one of those "line intolerant" people ... and for the life of me I can't understand why so many people tolerate the long Starbucks lines (even though handled well ... for a line), when short lines, equally good coffee, and decent seating are sometimes (often in urban areas?) 100 yards away.

Was on Newbury Street in Boston this morning, popped into a Starbucks; line was about 15 deep ... I ran for the exit. 2 blocks away was Torrefazione. Line 3. Latte Triplo great. Biscotti better than Starbucks'. Seating fine and available (contra S'bucks), with much more daylight (big deal) (and outside seating available).

Why?????????????????????”

Now here’s a guy who travels the world, pulling down a bajillion dollars a year, and he leaves a place he likes, walks two blocks away, waits in a short line, and is now singing the praises of a competitor.  (I wonder how close to the front of the line he would have been had he stayed at Starbucks.)  Now I have no standing to begin to make suggestions to Starbucks about how to run its business.   They are doing fine without me.  But there is a moral here for we lawyers.  If a guy like Tom Peters has a positive experience with a competitor of Starbucks and writes nice things about it, shouldn’t we be worried that even the smallest thing might cause a client to try another firm?  I wrote earlier about conflicts, but as with the Starbucks example, the dissatisfaction may have nothing to do with the product but instead with the experience.  If a client gets upset because a phone call isn’t returned quickly enough, or some other fundamental basic, maybe they will do just what Tom Peters did and try someone else.

The little things matter.  Appearances matter.  The fundamentals matter.  A lot.  Don’t overlook them.

Summer Associates and Client Service

Its that time of the year.  Young adults (for the most part), most with no experience in the business world and none practicing law, arrive at their chosen law firms to begin several weeks of fun, merriment, and just enough work to get an offer.  Ahh, heck, I don’t want to overstate it.  Some law firms make their summer associates really work.  For the law firms, its a time to shine and really impress these potential future partners.  Each firm wants the cream of the law school crop to choose them.

But what does the client see?  To start with, they know that summer associates don’t have experience and can’t work unsupervised.  They know that only the highest quality work product will suffice.  If they’ve worked inside big firms, they know there is a scramble right before the summer associates arrive to come up with enough assignments.  They know that some significant portion of the assignments are make-work.  That is, assignments that would not be done if the summer associate was not there to do it.  They see an unconscionable billing rate assigned to this person.  And often times, they see a bill for the work performed by this the inexperienced, untrained, not-yet-a-lawyer student.

Several years ago, Butler Rubin did away with our summer program.  Economics and client service were not the only reasons, but they were important ones.  The issue goes obviously beyond one firm, and really requires a systemic change.

Isn’t it time to start thinking about apprenticeships?

Just Added--My Favorite Blogs

With the help of Monica Bay ( editor-in-chief of Law Technology News, editorial director of Law Firm Inc. and Small Firm Business, and a rabid Yankees fan), I was able to figure out how to add a list of my favorite blogs.  Thanks Monica!  Anyway, I wanted to explain why each was chosen.

In no particular order:  Tom Peters’ blog contains some of the most forward thinking on business subjects that I’ve encountered.  There are no sacred cows and conventional wisdom is fodder for rethinking. The Wired GC, Law Department Management and In house Blog—News for In house lawyers were included as a convenience to in house lawyers who (I hope) read this site from time to time and because they are a good source of information for me to learn how my clients and prospective clients are thinking and what kind of challenges they might be facing.  Monica Bay’s blog—The Common Scold is an insightful look at many different topics, frequently involving the practice of law, and Monica’s irreverence and insight gives me a goal worthy of maximum effort. Adam Smith, Esq. is Bruce MacEwan’s investigation into the economics of law firms.  Let’s face it, he focuses on big law firms, and I love his stuff because it frequently exposes the gulf between the big firm’s business interests and the objectives of their clients.

I included Larry Bodine’s Professional Marketing Blog and Duct Tape Marketing because client service and focus is intrinsically connected with marketing.  These two blogs are the best law marketing blogs I’ve run across.  Dennis Kennedy.com and Matt Homann’s [non]billable hour make the list because I’ve met both Matt and Dennis through LexThink, and both are technologically gifted (certainly by comparison to me) and both are devoted to the use of technology to improve the service and work product they provide clients.  Robert Ambrogi’s Lawsites has offered me a number of sites and insights worthy of attention.  And finally, I included Greatest American Lawyer because the posts make me laugh, or make me think, and some make me do both.

Finally, I included my other website, Legacy Liabilities.  Its not in the same league as any of these others, but by listing it, I am challenging myself to invest the time to make it worthy of the company. 

I will be adding more blogs as time passes.  If you know of one I should post, include it as a comment.

Bucking The Merger Trend

The June issue of Chicago Lawyer (not related to American Lawyer) contains the publication’s annual list of the largest firms in Chicago, as well as an interesting story on some top-notch small (by Chicago standards) firms that are not giving in to merger-mania.  Each of the firm leaders quoted in the article spoke about the relationship they are able to have with their client, the special attention the client receives and the speed with which they are able to serve the client.

On the flip side, one lawyer relates a story of a deal lost because someone wanted a “name” to handle the deal.  Clearly when it comes to branding, big firms are in an enviable position to spend resources creating and supporting a brand.  Fortunately, not everyone hires based on this type of thinking.  Many people talk about hiring the lawyer, not the firm.  Still others value their relationships with small and mid-sized firms because those firms are able to respond faster to the client’s needs, have fewer conflicts, and so forth.  What is left unsaid in all of this is that the quality of lawyering at top small firms equals or exceeds that found in big firms.  Not to say that there are not terrific lawyers in many big firms.  There are.  In fact, many of the finest lawyers in small and mid-sized firms grew up in big firms.  But because of big firm bureaucracies and the tendency toward group think, those lawyers with an willings to take risks moved on.  Many clients find that the ability to assess risk is better in people who take measured risks in their own practices.  Likewise, the business savvy one develops running a small business provides collateral benefit to clients as well.

There is no right answer every time for everyone.  Fortunately.

The Mechanics of an Internal Client Service Audit

You’ve seen the movies with military inspections of barracks.  Louis Gossett, Jr. does a great barracks inspection in “An Officer and a Gentleman.”  Some refer to it as the “white glove” test.   But at its core, a good inspection of any kind is a detailed, in-depth, painstaking examination of everything involved in the inspection, done by someone who knows exactly what he or she is looking at and who knows exactly the applicable standard.

If your firm has someone who by all accounts provides extraordinary client service, and who has invested the time to learn the “state of the art” thinking on client service, that person should be able to do the audit.  Otherwise, you may have to outsource it.  Even with that person, you may want to outsource the audit just to get a fresh perspective.

The audit includes a visit to your offices.  How does a client feel when in your space.  Is there an office to work from or does the spare conference room the client finds herself in provide a measure of privacy?  Easy telephone service, or does the client have to find and dial a code for every call?  Do you have someone who can help change travel arrangements?Do you offer to do so?  Cell phone charger?  (See my April 26, 2005 entry.) Parking? Car service?  Cab?  Beverage and food service?  Do you offer to provide someone to type a document?  Take dictation?  Make photocopies?   What do your restrooms look like to a client—are basic sundries available?  Are senior partners alerted to the client’s presence and do they stop by to say hello and thank-you?  Every client should feel special in your office.

Next is the administrative external contacts.  Are your bills simple, organized and easy to read and understand.  Do they include all of the information the client wants in the best way for the client to review it.  I had one client ask for a summary of our bills for all matters that included totals fees on a year-to-date and matter-to-date basis.  I was chagrined that I had never asked, but now I ask every client.  What about other firm emails and mailings.  Does the client welcome announcements or would they prefer not to receive them?  What about other substantive mailings (regular or electronic)?  As important as they from a marketing perspective, it is more important to hear and follow a client’s wishes—after all, she may be receiving scores of similar mailings and have to spend time just deleting these emails.  Does your firm have a standard way of learning this information and adapting to it?

Finally, what is your protocol for evaluating the quality of all substantive external contacts?  We conduct annual (or as near as we can) annual client surveys of major clients on a face-to-face basis.  For others, it may be done over the phone.  But there is a set protocol designed to elicit information and identify problems.  Do you have a similar program in place.  If there is no system for learning what criticisms your client has of you, you are missing out on incredibly significant information. 

There is so much more that is part of a real stem to stern audit of a firm’s client service attributes.  Hopefully these examples suffice to allow you to know whether you are candidly evaluating your client service program.  It is, after all, designed to check the health of the manner in which you maintain the most important relationships your firm has.

Internal Audits For Client Service

Congratulations, you’ve just been retained by a new client!

Okay, now for  show of hands.  Having been retained, how many of you ask your new client the follow questions: 

• do you prefer emails or telephone calls when I am calling to update you on ordinary developments
• do you prefer emails or telephone calls when I need information from you or to have a decision made
• do you work in the evenings (should I give you my home number so you can reach me)?
• do you want to review and edit substantive filings and if so, how much time do you need in advance of filing deadlines?

And so on.   There a scores of questions that you should ask your new client because the answers will make a difference in her life.  Are your lawyers trained to ask these kinds of questions?

Not knowing answer to this question about your firm is the first sign than an internal client service audit may be in order.  How do you do an internal audit about client service?  More on that in a future post.

Valuing Your Client's Time

Although not written for lawyers or about the legal profession, Tom Peters’ blog had a great entry today about productive use of meeting time.  As lawyers, we spend our time in many meetings, some with clients and some about clients, that is, meetings for which a client is paying us.  Meetings can seem endless and many don’t product results.  The entry, posted by Cathy Mosca, contains this noteworthy statement:

“ It seems to me that the currency of work is conversation—in person, telephonic, electronic—and we're all trying to manage this conversation. Meetings are an attempt at a structured form of live conversation. If so, how they're set up and conducted can make all the difference. And given the resources tied up in meetings, they should produce results. How are meetings in YOUR business conducted? “

Interesting question?  Another one is what obligation we have to use our time more efficiently.  Agendas and preparation should be the norm, but rarely seem to be.

Why might mid-size firms survive?

Larry Bodine had an interesting post on his Professional Marketing Blog today entitled “The Abrupt Resurrection of Mid-Size Law Firms.  With mid-sized firm being defined as between 30 and 100 lawyers in a major city, Larry refers some recent thinking by Ward Bower of Altman Weil, and then he identifies several advantages of mid-size firms, including the fact that mid-size firms:

• Can match the expertise of the mega-firms with global networks.

Have equal access to cutting-edge technology, which has become less expensive in the last 5 years.

Have the speed and agility that mega-firms can't offer.

Offer lower pricing, because smaller firms have less overhead and there are no economies of scale in law firms.  Big firms have many inefficiencies, redundancies and bureaucracies.  And pricing counts.

Are more flexible about pricing and more willing to offer flat fees, success bonuses in exchange for lower rates.

Have partners who will work on a case and won't hand off the client to a less-experienced associate.

Corporate counsel hire lawyers, not law firms.  He who has the best relationship gets the client, regardless of firm size.

The idea of one-stop shopping isn't that important.  Corporations are happy to hire regional firms for specific projects.

This is a terrific list, but a cautionary note is in order.  Mid-size firms will not succeed because of their size.  Rather, in my view, mid-size firms will succeed because of other characteristics, such as being service-centric, entrepreneurial and willing to take risks on behalf of clients.  It is true that these characteristics will be much easier to find in mid-size firms (and virtually impossible to find in big firms), but clearly many (an perhaps most) mid-size firms do not manifest these traits.  Those firms will struggle. 

 

The Importance of Leadership

I know for a fact that there are lawyers in many firms who “get it” when it comes to client service, but whose firms don’t.  In my experience and and from discussions with many in-house counsel, there aren’t many firms that “get it” on an institutional level.  From where I sit, the difference is one of leadership.  If a leader is thoroughly committed to client service, it is more likely that the firm will show evidence of “getting it” as well.

Why the focus on leadership?  Some lawyers may focus on client service as a means of enhancing relationships that generate revenue for the firm and compensation for them.  But others not similarly motivated or invested may not.  Leaders can provide examples for everyone and set the tone by rewarding client service focus at all levels.  The powerful message is hard for others to miss.

Equally important, however, is the leader’s direction to teaching, training and mentoring.  Client service can be taught, and it is the leader’s obligation to make sure the firm devotes the necessary resources to a quality education program.  From teaching receptionists how to answer phones, to effective use of phone mail, email, blackberries and other internal features, to eliciting input from the firm’s clients on their personal preferences, it is the leader who provides the impetus for such actions.

The other key aspect of quality leadership is his or her attitude toward mistakes.  Law is a human endeavor, so mistakes will be made.  It is the leader who sets the attitude toward mistakes.  Viewing mistakes negatively drives mistakes underground, hidden from discovery (an punishment).  Instead, mistakes must be welcomed as a chance to improve relationships.  This isn’t to say that there should never be negative consequences from mistakes, but good faith errors will be made and need to be recognized, pointed out to clients and turned into learning opportunities for everyone.  Its obvious to see how a weak or ineffective leader could fail to set the right tone on the issue of mistakes.

 

After The Mistake

Interesting post on Ed Poll’s LawBiz Blog about how lawyers respond after the inevitable mistake.  Other than just noting the value of making recompense, the article doesn’t offer much real advice.  Perhaps because I have such great experience making mistakes, let me offer some thoughts on how to deal with he mistake when it arises:

1.   Call the client immediately.  There is nothing worse for you or the client than the client hearing bad news from someone other than you.

2.   Take ownership of the mistake.  There is nothing so bad as a lawyer looking to blame his associate, the secretary, the client’s assistant, etc.  You’re the leader.  You’re responsible.  Own up to it.  And apologize for it.  Remorse is an undervalued trait.

3.   Focus first on how to work around, avoid, limit or otherwise address the substantive problem.  Fix the problem first.

4.    Think about how to avoid similar problems in the future and make sure you share your thoughts with your client.  Make equally sure you ask for her input and suggestions on changes that can be made too.

5.  Figure out how to make the client whole.  If your mistake cost the client money, if only in extra fees, make sure you suggest to them an adjustment.  Preferably an adjustment that makes it clear that you are not profiting by having made the mistake.  And if you truly believe in the client relationship, I suggest making an even larger adjustment “for the client’s time and trouble.”

Why do I think these five steps work?  The next time someone screws up your reservation, see if you would have responded positively had the clerk followed these five steps.

The Importance Of Time

No, not billable hour kind of time.  Rather, the importance of time to think.

Changing how you do business, or changing with whom you do business are not easy decisions.  The decisions have to be justified, sometimes to people who have become your friends, to your CFO or even the CEO.  In other words, the decisions have to be thoughtful and deliberate.  Those characteristics more often than not demand time.  But what is one thing most striking in its scarcity in the lives of most in-house counsel?  Time.

So what does this mean?  For one thing, it means that movement to alternative fees and replacement of lawyers will be a slow process.  Second, it means that a succinct, compelling case for change needs to be made when marketing your interest in alternative fees.  And finally, it means that inside counsel will have to decide the real priority associated with obtaining the advantages of alternative fees.