In Search of Perfect Client Service

The Importance Of Passion

Its one of those things you know when you see it.  Its one of those things that doesn’t really fit on a bio, that can’t be readily marketed.  But its one of those things that is so important that clients should really look to see whether lawyers working for them have that trait.

What are we talking about?  Passion.  Fire in the belly.  An insatiable desire to win, combined with an equal measure of intolerance of losing.  However characterized, why is this trait so important?  There are a number of reasons.  First, so long as your outside counsel views “winning” on the same terms you do, I think everyone would agree that the stronger the desire to achieve that objective, the more comfortable you feel with your choice. But the value of the trait is so much more.  Why are so many cases settled on the courthouse steps?  Because lawyers who deep down are afraid to try cases milk every last nickel of fees out of a case before finding some excuse to recommend settling. Lawyers with passion for winning and a beyond-measure disdain for losing hate settling on the courthouse steps more than anything else.  You can be sure that if your lawyer has these traits, you will settle on the court-house steps only because the other side has capitulated.

There is, in this scheme, a problem because there are lawyers who have tried “hundreds of cases” and go through the motions of being in court quite well.  But at 7:30 at night, they’re home having a cocktail and not continuing to work to be ready to excel every minute of the next day.

Just like a pack of wolves all know instinctively who the Alpha wolf is, lawyers seem to instinctively know who the real deal is and who the pretenders are.  The Alphas get the good deals and the pretenders are always a day late and a dollar short.  Finally, when a lawyer with these passions recommends you settle rather than try a case, you know the recommendation is real, coming only after the lawyer has persuaded himself or herself that even with their potent skills, the matter most likely will be lost.

How does an in-house lawyer find this “alpha” lawyer? Are there tell-tale signs that sophisticated consumers of legal services look for?  I don’t really know.  Use the comment feature to offer you ideas about finding the right counsel. 

Home Phone Numbers? Cell Phone Numbers?

Interesting discussion in Tom Kane’s Legal Marketing Blog about making it easy for clients to reach you.  I put my home and cell phone numbers on my business card and I make sure clients know that they should never hesitate to call me at home.  “I want that call” I tell them, because I do.  I don’t want them calling somebody else in a moment of crisis.  It’s second nature for me to share that informtion.

There are a lot a lawyers I know who absolutely refuse to share this kind of information.  I have only one thing to say to them— “THANKS!”

Clients: Avoid "Kiss Up, Kick Down" Lawyers

I have to admit that I first heard this phrase used to describe John Bolton, President Bush’s nominee to be US Ambassador to the United Nations.  I do not mean to engage in any political discussion regarding the wisdom of the President’s choice, or even to suggest that the term is an apt description of Mr. Bolton.  Its just a very visually descriptive term.

And very evocative.  Kissing the butts of those above you and kicking the butts of those over whom you have power.  Not a very flattering portrait of anyone for whom the phrase fits.

Along this line, a very interesting article in the electronic magazine Business 2.0 entitled “The CEO’s Secret Handbook.  Here’s a short excerpt:

“Watch out for those with situational value systems -- people who turn the charm on and off depending on the status of the person with whom they're interacting. Those people may be good actors, but they don't become good leaders. There's a consistency in leadership that's greater than mere situational awareness. I was reminded of this recently while dining at a high-end restaurant with several other CEOs. One guy's meal didn't come out right, and he decided to take the waiter down a peg or two. The poor server didn't prepare the food -- he simply carried it from the kitchen! I looked across the table and thought, "What the hell is this guy trying to prove?" He was trying to show who was in charge, but really he was just being an ass.”

If the lawyer you are thinking of hiring isn’t a genuinely nice person—and I by that I mean fair and honest, not kumbaya namby-pamby nice—there ultimately will be a problem with that lawyer’s team.  It might not be visible until the time of maximum stress, when most fissures become evident.  But that is, of course, the very worst time from the client’s perspective.  You are better off hiring the kind of leader whose team will follow him or her to the gates of hell and back because then you will not have weak links that will jeopardize your matter.

That my perspective, FWIW.

"But that's the way its always been done."

Eight words that should be banned from the English language—at least when used in combination with one another.  I was thinking about this post from Michelle Golden’s Golden Practices blog, when it hit me. BAM!!! Well, not really a BAM, but more a gentle reminder that these words and the mentality they represent should be the bane of every lawyer, but certainly of every inhouse lawyer.  Why?

Good question.  Here’s the answer.  The world and everything about it is changing so much and so fast that ‘the way its been done before” is now frequently the wrong way, or at least an ineffective way.  But even if  TWIBDB is the right way, it ought to be done that way because fresh thinking yielded that conclusion—its a bad default position.

The problem is particularly acute among lawyers.  If ever there was a profession made up of people who are generally change resistant, it has to be the legal profession.  Stare decisis, precedent, chain cites and all that rubbish, don’t you know.  I wish I had an antidote.

Come to think of it, while I don’t have it, there is an antidote.  Inhouse counsel have it.  You use it when you make hiring decisions.  Stop hiring people who limit their thinking, who start off pleadings with “Comes Now Your Plaintiff” or other such gibberish (a personal pet peeve), who worry about being right all the time and are unwilling to float outrageous ideas.  If inhouse counsel did that, all sorts of creative minds would waken from career-long hibernation.

The Importance Of Managing Client Expectations

It is human nature to warm to pleasant surprises.  It is an axiom of legal practice that clients hate surprises, at least the “bad news” kind.  Smart lawyers do two things consistently:  they keep their client’s expectations realistic and they almost always over deliver.  In this vein, look at this post from Tom Kane in the Legal Marketing Blog.  My favorite part is this quote from Tom Peters.  “Formula for success: under promise and over deliver.”

There may be some who say “I don’t want my expectations ‘managed.’”  Don’t read “manage” to mean manipulated.  Instead, this is a variation on the “no bad news” theme noted above.  If you under promise and over deliver, the chances of negative surprises is drastically reduced.

Godspeed Discovery

I watched Discovery lift off yesterday.  The explosion into the sky no longer seemed routine.  I heard this morning that there are concerns about lost heat shield tiles.  Join me in praying for a successful flight and a safe return home.

 

To Interrupt Or Be Interrupted--That It The Question.

Let me begin with apologies to Mr. Shakespeare for my post title.

Very interest post on c/net about how often the average worker is interrupted by phone calls, emails, IMs or other distractions.  Since it takes about 8 uninterrupted minutes for the average person to get their brain in a creative state, the significance of the interruptions is pretty apparent.  And Geoffrey Gussis at Inhouse Blog has a nice way of referring his inhouse readers to a blog that discusses the research: “Head over to take a look if you have time to spare after checking your email, voicemail (at home, at work and on your cellphone), glancing at your BlackBerry, answering IMs and reviewing the faxes that were sent to your email and also delivered on paper in your office.”

Here’s the lesson for outside counsel:  Do you consciously choose the least intrusive method of communicating with your clients given the significance of what you are communicating?  Phone calls are the most distracting and should be used only when you really need to interrupt your client.  Of course, the converse is never true—your client should call you whenever (client conversations are a gift).  Emails can be ignored until a client is ready to look at them.  Just remember, your interruptions had better be worth the cost.  And for clients, there is no cost to the interruption, which is always welcome.

Yours, Mine and Ours: Why Clients Benefit From Deep Relationships With Their Law Firms

Ed Poll, who writes LawBiz Blog, makes some interesting points about succession planning in his July 20 post, Keeping Clients After A Lawyer Retires.  Among the many valuable points Ed raises are:

- Have the rainmakers introduce younger partners to their client contacts
- Build teams around the top 20 clients, and to let the client know they have a team.
- Actively start cross-selling the top 20 clients. For more info see Larry Bodine's webinar: Best Practices Of Cross Marketing and Selling New Services To Clients.

I would add to this list.  First, merely introducing younger partners to clients is not enough.  Younger partners need to be featured, given opportunities to excel for the client and then “bragged on” by the senior partner.  If the senior partner doesn’t show respect, trust and admiration for the younger partner, why should the client?  Second, I believe the client should be involved in the discussion.  Many of the rainmakers don’t want to suggest to the client that they won’t be there to service the client.  But the fact is that the clients themselves think about how deep a firm’s bench is, what would happen if the senior partner became unavailable, etc.  They view the issue as a business problem and I think it benefits the relationship to let clients know you are thinking about their needs beyond any specific case.  Finally, I think everyone in the firm needs to know who the “successor” is for any given client. Some choices might be difficult ones, but any issues regarding the choice are better addressed when the rainmaker is still around to resolve them.

Its clear how this approach benefits the law firm: the loss of a major client cuts deep, particularly for smaller firms.  But why is this important from the client's perspective?  How much institutional knowledge has the client already paid for?  What would the cost be to replace that knowledge?  In some niche practices, there may not be a real alternative.  It is as much in the client's interest as it is in the law firm's interest to have a plan to cover anticipated departures as well as unanticipated ones.  McDonald's lost two CEO's to sudden death or illness in one year.  It happens, and there is no excuse to be caught short.

 

Amazing Firms Blog Added To Blogroll

Gerry Riskin of Edge International writes the terrific blog Amazing Firms Amazing Practices.  It consistently provokes me to think, to reflect, to reexamine.  I like that.  So I’ve added Gerry’s blog to my blogroll of favorites.

Here’s an example of why I like Gerry’s blog so much. Gerry’s July 18 post attaches an article entitled “Ten Myths About Innovations In Professional Service Firms.”  It is written by one of Gerry’s partners and contains some great common sense thinking.  Gerry lets the article speak for itself, and so will I.

Litigation And Service

Interesting post on The Wired GC about how CEOs look at their GCs.  One part of the post reminded me of a truism for corporate litigators:  There are virtually no businesses that are engaged in the business of litigation.  The CEO valued the GC who could help the business look at problems creatively and resolve them without litigation.  But an often-overlooked challenge is helping the CEO (and for outside counsel, the GC) fully appreciate the distraction a lawsuit will cause for the business.  In other words, the best litigator for a corporation might be the person who advises against litigation.

The other important lesson from the post is the importance of taking the amount of time needed from these executives and not a second more.  We all tend to think the problem we are working on is “the critical one” when the CEO or the GC have many other problems of equal or even greater importance.  Those problems demand time.  Good service is being fully prepared when you call your client, knowing exactly what you need and getting to it directly.  It also means not calling the GC when you can call her assistant or another lawyer lower down the pecking order for the information.  Remember the maxim of the highest and best use of an individual’s time.

Legacy Litigation = Service Opportunity

Rees Morrison of Hildebrandt writes a blawg named Law Department Management.  He had a recent post entitled “Legacy litigation: relative difficulty of managing.”  Mr. Morrison writes:

“Legacy litigation – lawsuits arising from discontinued operations or sold assets where the seller remains liable for associated lawsuits – can bedevil law departments. One view is that legacy litigation is easier to manage because the goal is simply to achieve the most efficient result. All you are trying to do is run-off the backlog as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Sometimes this becomes more difficult (or perhaps easier ) because there are fewer witnesses and documents and no client to contend with. A shrinking capital reserve stands as the primary milestone. Also, it can be demoralizing to work on orphan litigation.

On the contrary, litigation from ongoing operations can be easier to resolve than legacy litigation because the former involve relationships with vendors or co-venturers who want to continue the business relationship.”

The post is interesting if slightly off the mark.  Legacy litigation is amongst the most difficult litigation to manage.  The absence of witnesses, the absence of persons who own or are vested in the business problems, and the uncertainty about what your adversary knows are only the tip of the iceberg.  The presence or absence of insurance coverage, disclosure issues for public companies, and the fact that the litigation frequently involves mass torts are other problems.  But perhaps the most serious problem, at least many times, is the uncertainty about the corporate history of the entity involved.

What does this have to do with client service?  Truth, disclosure and selling.  It is shocking to me how many lawyers profess competence in legacy litigation when they don’t know the difference between an asset deal and stock deal, and couldn’t recognize a de facto merger  if it hit them in the face.  Yet because of prior experience handling the substance of the underlying litigation, the lawyer seeks to take over all problems, leaving the client to suffer for failure to fully appreciate the plethora of issues other than the actual underlying lawsuits.  Mr. Morrison’s post provides an opportunity to remember the role of truth in presenting ourselves to our clients and prospective clients.  Over selling, especially in this area, can be catastrophic.

LISTEN!

I love The Common Scold.  Yes, Scold, not cold.  (Who could ever love the common cold?)  Why?  Because Monica Bay always makes really good points  in a very compelling way.  Take her post telling the story of Jane Smith and her encounter with a vendor.  Read it.  Learn.

The first point, not using a woman’s first name until invited to do so, is a sound and often overlooked piece of advice.  Its most often overlooked by men.

The second piece of advice, to LISTEN, is of such universal importance that it applies well beyond the vendor-vendee relationship.  It applies to every relationship!  At least ones you want to be successful relationships.  Answer this one question:  How many times have you be involved in telephone conversations with your clients when you have been doing something else at the same time, like  reading email or searching through the file to find the document you know the client wants to discuss?  Listening is an active exercise.  It requires concentration, focus, attention.  Of all the attributes of the most successful client relationships, I’ll wager my house that effective listening is on everyone’s Top Five list. 

Even though its that important, how many of us are really good at it?  How many take it for granted?  How many are trained or practice listening?  That's why the importance of Monica's lesson can't be understated.

The Impact Of "Negative" Referrals

There has been a lot of recent blog buzz on the topic of referrals from current clients.  For example, here.  There’s even a blog on referrals.  But while these articles focus on the positive, few mention the risk of negative referrals.  Consider this.

On Saturday, this display screen on my phone turned white.  I could dial and receive calls, but I couldn’t access my phone book or any of the other important information stored in my phone.  Today, I went to a CINGULAR WIRELESS store where, I was told, they could not help me.  When I explained the importance of getting a new phone immediately, the person from CINGULAR WIRELESS told me that because I had only recently signed a new contract with CINGULAR WIRELESS, that they, CINGULAR WIRELESS were unable to help me.  I mentioned that I had been a customer for more than a decade, and the clerk from CINGULAR WIRELESS told me that if I was some bub off the street and signed up for service, they would give me the phone.  But because I was a long-time customer, CINGULAR WIRELESS didn’t give a damn about me and I would have to pay $317 for the phone.  To be fair, the “not giving a damn” wasn’t verbally expressed, but it was an integral part of the overall message.  Frankly, anyone who signs up with CINGULAR WIRELESS after reading this probably has a death wish.

Its unlikely a client would ever recount a story like this about your law firm.  But if its possible that you’ve been treating your client like CINGULAR WIRELESS treated me, that is, for granted and as unresponsively as is possible, what do you think your client would say about you.  But many lawyers, and in particular in-house lawyers, are adept listeners when they have to be, and if your client says your firm is “all right,” you’ve just lost out on a new client because you’ve been damned with faint praise.  Here’s the lesson: if your client isn’t going to gush over you, think twice about whether he or she is a good referral source.

And as your head hits the pillow tonight, have this dream.  You’ve just received a call on your cell phone from client trying to hire you for the biggest piece of business you’ve ever had.  He got your name from a current client who loves your service.  And like me, you have a CINGULAR WIRELESS phone on which the display screen has failed.  The prospective client didn’t leave his number because he knew your cell phone would pick up his number.  But because you have CINGULAR WIRELESS phone that’s malfunctioning, you can’t get the number. . . . Have you woken up in a cold sweat yet?

I’m not having that nightmare tonight.  I’m not even going to dream of providing the best possible client service in the whole world the way I do most nights.  Tonight, I’m going to dream that the CEO of CINGULAR WIRELESS stumbles across my blog tomorrow. 

And then finds out his display screen has failed. 

Client Service: Separating Fact from Fiction (Part III)

This series of posts began with a discussion of how almost every firm these days claims to provide exceptional quality service.  A discerning client can ask some probing questions to separate performers from pretenders.  Today’s questions circle around fee issues, hourly rates and related matters.

7.   Is there a minimum billable hour requirement for the firm’s lawyers and paralegals?  Are bonuses paid for surpassing a specified number of hours?  Designed to explore whether a firm is complicit in creating incentives for its timekeepers to “round-up” when recording time.  Certainly the mere fact that a firm has a billable hour requirement is not evidence of complicity, but a high billable hour requirement or bonuses paid for meeting specified targets, or both, should raise a red flag about just how concerned a firm is about the incentives it creates for its timekeepers and the impact those incentives have on the firm’s clients.

8.  How does the firm determine the client’s views on the cost-quality trade-off?  It is frequently true that more time on a project, be it a brief or pleading, yields a higher quality work product.  It also is true that some matters or some motions don’t require “Supreme Court” quality.  Some clients are happy to accept or even insist upon “acceptable” rather than “perfect” for certain projects, motions, etc.  How does the firm determine the client’s view?  Equally important, how does the firm judge the associate who provides his client with the requested “acceptable” work product when another associate works for a client who insists upon and pays for “Supreme Court” quality?  An answer reflecting sensitivity to the issues raised for both client and lawyer will help identify a firm that is thoughtful about client service.

9.  What fee arrangements will the firm commit to, in writing, that will align its economic interests with its client’s?  As has been discussed previously in this blog, hourly billing can put a wedge between the firm’s economic incentives and the client’s.  Some clients are now asking firms to commit to alternatives that put the firm’s skin in the game in order to align economic interests.  A firm unwilling to do so may well not be committed to partnering with its clients, rhetoric notwithstanding.

10.  What has the firm done to assess and improve its budgeting capabilities?  Matter budgeting is not taught in law school, and there are few if any seminars or other programs sponsored by the bar to help lawyers improve their budgeting skills.  Yet budgets are so very critical to clients.  If a firm can’t  point to anything its done to improve its capabilities on a topic so important to clients, just how seriously does the firm take client concerns?

There is no scorecard for right or wrong answers to most of these questions, and most firms cannot answer all of them in the “right” way.  But the answers provided should provide meaningful insights to clients looking to find firms which really do walk the client service walk.

 

Client Service: Separating Fact from Fiction (Part II)

Yesterday, I began a discussion of questions a client could ask a prospective (or current) firm to determine whether the firm is truly committed to providing outstanding client service.  Today, three addition questions.

4.   How many client satisfaction surveys does the firm conduct each year?  If the answer is few or none, how can a firm boast of providing great service.  Not only is it part of great service to ensure a client is pleased, but only by asking and being judged can you determine, from the client’s perspective, whether the service your provide is exceptional or not.

5.  What changes have been implemented or adopted as a result of client satisfaction surveys?  No one is perfect, and changes adopted because of a client’s suggestion reflect a firm that listens and one that is seeking to improve.  Both are measures of a firm committed to providing outstanding client service.

6.  What happens to a lawyer who is criticized?  There’s only one acceptable answer here.  Nothing.  Why is that?  Because if criticism is viewed as anything other than an opportunity to improve, to do something better, to provide better service, no one will want to hear it.  And if there is any hint of penalty (other than perhaps for repeat offenders), its hard to imagine that there will be meaningful commitment to hearing all possible criticism no matter how constructive.

Tomorrow, in Part III of this series, questions a client can ask about fees and what the answers mean in terms of client service.

Client Service: Separating Fact from Fiction (Part I)

Everyone, it seems, has realized that clients want good service.  Most have responded by saying they provide great service.  Only a few, however, really do provide it.  How is a client to distinguish between those who talk the talk from the few who actually walk the walk?

The separation really starts with expectations.  Last week, I was having dinner with a friend (also a lawyer) who was complaining that a client had become upset when it took them a bit over a day to return a phone call.  Quite frankly, I was dumb struck.  I feel guilty if the time to return a call is measured in hours rather than minutes.  Measuring in days is just not acceptable.  Its easy to understand why my friend and I view this differently.  He was born and raised in a big firm, and grew up working on huge lawsuits.  He probably did not have to return a call to a client for years, and when he first did, it was the kind of call where the discussion would entail a huge document production.  In other words, not a time sensitive issue.  I was fortunate enough to grow up in a firm where our matters were smaller, and where we were dealing directly with CEOs and other senior officers early on.  My former partners drilled the message into everyone’s head that these senior officers were busy and it was our obligation to get back to them while they still remembered why they had called us.  As time goes by, the need for immediate call backs becomes even more apparent.  The worst thing that can happen to a client relationship is for the client to ask the next lawyer she speaks to the question she had called to ask you. 

So, for my friend, good service is same day call backs.  For others, good service is same hour call backs.  How does a client learn which kind of person she is dealing with?  Its hard to ask how fast you return calls, because no one will every respond with a precise number.  I’ve come up with a list of surrogate questions, however, that should provide information that will allow a client to meaningfully assess whether the lawyer or firm at issue really walks the client service walk.

1.  How many times every year do the firm’s lawyers gather to listen to clients or prospects discuss client service?  If client service is truly a firm priority, an annual meeting or retreat to focus on this issue, to renew, to fortify, seems the least that should be expected.

2.  How does a firm identify what it means to provide “exceptional service,” and how is that information communicated to everyone in the firm?  Knowledge of exceptional client service is not innate.  It must be learned.  If a firm is truly committed to providing exceptional client service, there must be both a systematic means of learning what great service is, and an equally systematic means of communicating it to everyone in the firm.  If a firm doesn’t have such systems, it is just stumbling around hoping that whatever they provide as service actually measures up.

3.  What type of client service training is provided to the firm’s non-lawyer staff?  There are, to be sure, lawyers who provide great service in firms that don’t care about it.  But to test whether a firm is institutionally committed to service, to determine whether it will be more than serendipity whether you receive it from their lawyers, ask about how non-lawyers are trained.  Anyone truly committed to providing exceptional client service will know that everyone must be committed to it, from receptionist, to managing partner.  And there will be a training program in place.

In my next entry, I will continue with a list of questions clients can ask to find out if the firm they are speaking with really cares about client service, or whether those lines in the brochure promising “client-focused service” are just empty rhetoric.

Service Lessons From The World Of Accounting

Michelle Golden, President of Golden Marketing, recently made a post to her blog, Golden Practices, about what A-Level clients like and don’t like about their CPAs.  Read the entire post here.  I was drawn to a couple of the comments the CEOs made:

• Be there when we need you. A great example is when my accountant was on vacation but was able to be reached and even came in, off the beach in his shorts, to the attorney's office to help us finalize a critical deal.
• I feel like my firm sees me as a "nobody." I just can't get good service. My firm checks in with my CFO who thinks things are fine but I'm going to fire my firm in the next few weeks because they aren't meeting MY needs. I may go back to a sole practitioner.
• I don't really have anything to say when you ask if my firm has ever done anything "above and beyond."
• I don't appreciate when a firm acts like they can be all things to all people.
• Ultimately, know my business and me personally.
• Don't answer a question with "it depends." Instead, put yourself in my shoes and answer the question!
• I know I'm under-served because my financial advisor keeps pointing out certain needs and the services I should be getting. I may be small but I'll pay for quality.
• Continuity of staff is pretty important. We don't want different people every year.
• The devil is in the details. Remember that I don't know what you know.

But I was really struck by these comments:

• How can you measure my satisfaction? If I'm happy, I refer a LOT of business.
• Another panelist agrees this is the best way to know if you are doing a good job.
• The occasional survey is okay, but I may be too busy to fill it out.
• An in-person survey is good.
• Come see me and ask me.

Its hard to ask for a critical evaluation, but it is so worth it.  And yet year after year, one publication after another publishes statistics showing the very few law firms do surveys of their clients, let alone in-person surveys.  The same surveys show GCs really want those surveys to be conducted.  When will law firms learn that in this area, for them, 2+2=5?

Commitment Must Trump Doubt

Gerry Riskin of Edge International recently posted a fabulous entry about commitment and doubt.  Read the entry here.  Gerry’s comments in the context of firm leadership are very insightful.  The key is not the resolution of doubt about an objective, but rather once a decision is made, the commitment to make the decision work.  He correctly notes that this kind of commitment is hard for lawyers, and it is even harder in the more political, cutthroat environments that seem to exist in too many firms. Makings you think of the “herding cats” analogy.

The same lesson applies to client service.  No initiative is 100% guaranteed to make everybody happy everyday all the time.  Can’t be done.  But the mere fact that no initiative is perfect, no service flawless, is not an excuse to not experiment, to not relentlessly seek to improve.  In the area of client service, I believe there is no acceptable excuse for not constantly striving to improve, to set a new standard.  Clients deserve it.

Speakerphones Bad, Handwritten Notes Good

Absolutely great post by Tom Kane, author of Legal Marketing Blog on the use of speaker phones with clients and other basic “good manners” that would make your Mom proud.  Tom rightly reminds us to ask permission rather than just assuming use of a speaker phone is okay, since there might be a problem with confidentiality or some other reason why your client might not want even others in your office to hear the call.  The other items mentioned include using a firm hand shake, proper business card etiquette and use of email thank-yous, a definite no-no. 

The fundamentals can never be stressed enough.

SURVEY OF IN-HOUSE LAWYERS

This appeared recently on Adam Smith, Esq.:

At a meeting at Milbank yesterday, a senior partner had occasion to recount the tale of the pencil-sharpener, which was an actual employee at the firm decades ago.

The pencil-sharpener's role was to circulate throughout the office collecting used pencils and replacing them with sharp ones. So far, so good, and so far, so invisible.

But one day the senior partner had reason to visit a paralegal's cubicle and noticed that all the pencils, while sharp, were very short; and all of his pencils were very long.

You can intuit the rest. The pencil-sharpener provided partners with long pencils, associates with medium-length ones, and paralegals with short ones. Legend has it that a partner presented with a short pencil threw it back at the pencil-sharpener, and a lesson was learned.

A quaint tale of a bygone time where associates and paralegals were duly put in their place, silently and (almost) invisibly, but with utter certitude and devastating effects were they to be reflected upon for a moment.

Isn't it great we all know better now?

Now for the survey questions:

1)  How happy would you be paying for such essential overhead today?

2)  Do you think firms have eliminated this kind of waste?

For an answer to the second question, check out this entry from Anonymous Lawyer, a blog written by a large firm lawyer (oh yeah, its all “fictional” too):

" I got a call at seven in the morning on my cell phone from a summer associate, frantic.

"I couldn't sleep all night and I wanted to catch you right when you got up."

"How'd you even get my number?"

"The firm directory."

"What is it you need?"

"I think I gave you the wrong advice yesterday. I've been torturing myself over it. I told you the provision cut in favor of the client, but I've been re-reading the case law over and over and I think it cuts the other way. I don't think there's a case here. I'm so sorry. I know you were counting on me, and I screwed it up. I feel terrible about this. I don't want this to be your first impression of me."

"You think I take your advice without checking with an associate first?"

"Excuse me?"

"You think I actually believe a summer associate can do anything right? The project I gave you wasn't even for a current client. We solved it months ago. It was just busy work. You needed something to do, so I dug that up from my e-mail. You think it mattered?"

"But I was in the office until 2:30 in the morning working on it."

"No one told you to stay that late."

"But I thought--"

"You're here to get a taste of life as an associate. But we're not expecting you to actually do anything. Don't worry about it. I don't care if you got the answer wrong. The important thing is you got some experience. Calm down."

"But I thought--"

"I'll see you in the office later this morning. You probably still have time for a couple of hours of sleep."

"But I thought--"

"Goodbye." 

Just imagine what a Six Sigma Black Belt Efficiency Expert could do at law firms.

Email an Impediment To Perfect Service?

Coincident with a post in The Wired GC about his review of of “notice by email” provision in a draft agreement (which The Wired GC did not endorse), I had a “miscommunication” with a vendor about something that was sent to me last week.  The document never got through because of my spam filter.  This SNAFU caused me to wonder whether anything I sent to clients (or prospects), especially when the email was unexpected or unsolicited, was similarly captured by filters and never made it to the intended recipient.  My assistant and I now have a practice of follow-up calling to make sure things got through. Good service means getting your message to your client.

The Morphine Made Him Say It! Service Lessons From A Hospital Stay

Absolutely great post on Larry Bodine's Professional Marketing Blog today.  Larry had to spend some time at Edward Hospital in Naperville, Illinois, having his shoulder repaired.  Apparently still enjoying the morphine they gave him, Larry took advantage of his new Speech Recognition Software to post some suggestions for service professionals.  Let’s review them!

Larry woke up from surgery and was hungry.  He was able to order a cheeseburger that was delivered in 5 minutes (nothing like special preparation for each meal).  Larry now recommends that professional firms should have a tray of snacks, fruit and drinks in the reception area and all conference rooms. GONG!  Better solution is to not make your clients wait in the reception room.  Get them into a conference room where a set-up is appropriate.

There were signs saying the hospital really cared and a lot of nurses asked Larry if was comfortable, and he got a morphine shot to make sure he slept well.  Fortunately, Larry is not recommending that firms hire nurses to walk in and ask clients if they’re feeling okay, and he is not advocating morphine shots for clients.  But he does suggest that “professional firms should demonstrate that they care personally about their clients too.  This is what clients really want.”  I agree!  The critical question is how should firms accomplish this objective.

Larry enjoyed leg massages on his calves so he wouldn’t develop blood clots.  But he enjoyed it so much that he recommends this for professional service firms, especially for accounting firms during tax season.  I don’t think this goes far enough.  I think firms should have several full-time masseurs and masseuses.  And don’t limit the massages to calves.  Backs, shoulders and necks should all be available for clients.

Larry spent some time watching cable TV and liked having more than 100 channels at his control.  He now recommends that every reception area have a cable TV set.  Again, I think a better solution is to make sure your clients don’t spend time waiting when they come to see you, or that you get them into a conference room where they can use a phone or their computer.  But if you put a TV in your conference room and hook it up to cable, make sure you use the parental controls to make sure you’re not showing porn!

Finding bathrooms.  Larry thinks the first thing a professional should tell a visiting client is where the restrooms are located.  Hmmmmmm.  “Hi Mr. Immelt, let me tell you where the restroom is.”   I don’t think so.  But I do think it is appropriate for the receptionist to mention it when he or she offers the client something to drink or to take their coats.

Lastly, Larry has a great recommendation on communication.  The doctors and nurses did a great job telling him what was going to happen, why and when.  He recommends that “professionals should communicate this well, explain the purpose for what they're doing and de-mystify the process.”  A great suggestion.

Hey Larry, great post.  Here’s to a speedy and pain-free recovery!

Peace At Last? Who'ya kidding?

The 16th Annual Corporate Legal Times/Lexis Nexis Martindale Hubbel Survey of General Counsel is included in the July Corporate Legal Times.  The results are fascinating, although not as surprising as the title-“Peace At Last.”  The subtitle goes on to say: “The GC-law firm relationship was once marked by tension and downright hostility.  Those days are over.”  One can only wonder what survey results the headline writer was reviewing.  We’ll circle back to that issue at the end of this post.

I have say as a personal observation that the theory that the relationship  between inside and outside counsel has improved (if it has at all) because there are more former law firm partners who have transitioned to the General Counsel position is terribly condescending and inaccurate. Most law firm partners don’t understand how to run a business.  It's a bit much to believe that the transition from outside counsel to inside counsel produced an epiphany of such epic proportions.  Rather, I think all of business has become more sophisticated in the last two decades and law departments, once the bastard step-child of the company, are now much more an integral part of the business and been forced to adapt to the same demands for sophistication as other parts of the business.  That’s my theory at least. 

Let’s look at the statistics and see if its kumbaya time just yet.  More than one-third of all GC respondents believe law firms pad their bills.  How’s that for trust?  Sixty-five percent disagree or are neutral with the claim that the quality of service has improved over the past five years.  Almost half believe law firms still don’t appreciate the inside lawyer’s budget constraints.  Just about two-thirds believe laws firms are not actively seeking ways to reduce the costs of the legal services they provide.  Almost all said that firms rarely or never seek feedback.  More than a quarter plan to fire some of their firms in 2005 (or have already done so). 

Nearly half of the inside counsel respondents said the single most important thing their law firms could do is reduce costs, and budget constraints are and remain the biggest in-house challenge. In contrast, just over 12% of the law firm respondents said reducing costs was the single most important thing a law firm could do to improve client relationships.  You have to love the meeting of the minds.

I don’t have statistics from past surveys.  Maybe there is reason to be giddy because these numbers are so good by comparison.  But bearing in mind that ours is a service industry, I can’t imagine anyone really thinks these numbers are anything to be proud of.  More than anything, they suggest to me that even after years of harping on the financial and service issues, most law firms still don’t get it.

"Business" Training Should Not Be Limited To Those Running The Firm

Bruce MacEwen has a very interesting post on his Adam Smith, Esq. blog about DLA Piper starting a program with Harvard Business School to train its top lawyer/managers to better manage the firm.  The program is described here.  It is similar to one Reed Smith started a year ago that is described in this Adam Smith, Esq. post.

I love the idea of law firms providing management and leadership training to its managers and leaders.  All too frequently, lawyers are “rewarded” with those posts because of their stature within the firm or because they have the muscle to demand the title.  To be honest, I have never heard of someone being put into a high management or leadership position because they were good managers or leaders unless they were, at the same time, significant business generators in their firms.  But with five Amlaw 100 firms posting revenues of more than $1 billion and even those at the bottom of the list showing revenues of more than $200 million, law firms, it appears, are starting to realize that management means a lot more than a large book of business.

What does any of this have to do with client service?  While DLA Piper and Reed Smith are lauded for their revolutionary step, would it not be even more revolutionary for a firm to send the partners who most interface with clients to business school so they can better understand the running of the client’s business—budgeting, finance, solving problems through praise (ie, people skills), knowing when butts need to be kicked, shareholder and board pressures, leadership demands.  The DLA Piper and Reed Smith programs are an acknowledgment that their senior lawyers (who are no different than senior lawyers at virtually every firm) lack the business skills necessary to optimize performance of the firm as a business.  Given that, how are these people, or others who likewise lack these skills, supposed to act in the role as “trusted advisor” to the firm’s clients?  And if the firms are going engage is their training for their own benefit, should not the firm’s clients be insisting that their lawyers be admitted to the program too?

Happy 4th of July!

I’ve always thought that one of the great moments in sports is at the conclusion of a hockey playoff series, no matter how hard the teams have fought, the teams skate past each other and everyone shakes hands with every member of the opposing team.  Its a poignant reminder that the heat of the battle is momentary, but the bonds of sport are permanent.

Countries don’t have such moments.  But many need them.  I think we do.  Right now, the vitriol of partisanship, the political attacks on the judiciary, the histrionics of the Senate and the sacrifice of statemenship are much like the heat of the battle.  When a United States Senator compares the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo to the barbarism of Nazi concentration camps, histrionics not only have overwhelmed common sense, but also the respect due both survivors and victims of the holocaust.

We need to take a collective deep breath, and the 4th of July is the time to do it.  We need to remember that the sacrifices of our soldiers are not for some of us, but for all of us.  We need to recognize that despite its flaws, America is still the greatest country in the world.  We need to realize that our greatness is tarnished when politics becomes personal and the battle of ideas is obscured by the desire to score political points, when progress is sacrificed for political benefit.  Let’s “shake hands” this holiday weekend and remember that the bonds of citizenship are permanent.  The battles can resume on Tuesday.