In Search of Perfect Client Service

It Takes A Village To Attract and Maintain Great Clients

Okay Dan, I will take the bait.

Dan Hull hates logos.  So he told us here.  That invited comment from a number of people, including me. Dan was back at it again here, pointing out a solid post from Nathan Burke, a "web designer, marketer and consultant" who writes lawfirmblogging.  Nathan's point is that if you have no competition, then a logo doesn't matter.  Consider this from Nathan:

Instead, logos are just another way to be recognized. Only after a prospect has learned about your firm (and others) would a logo help. It is something that sticks in the back of their mind, associating something visual with a level of service.

Though we might not want to admit it, design is important in our purchasing decisions. While we don’t buy a product or service because we really love a logo, we may surely decide not to buy if we perceive a company to be unprofessional.

I couldn't agree more.

One comment that I often make about politics is that the partisan desire to separate issues into distinct boxes ignores the fundamental reality that life is a series overlapping and intersecting circles--a 3-D mosaic instead of the one dimensional view articulated by most politicians in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator amongst us.  We need to avoid the same pitfall in discussions like this, as Nathan's post reminds us.  Logos alone count for nothing.  Great client service alone counts for nothing.  Like so many other areas, presenting yourself to a client, the client's choice of you as its lawyer, and the many related issues are part of a 3-D mosaic.  And all parts are important. 

Speed: The Essential Ingredient

I was absolutely stunned to read this post by Tom Collins, who writes morepartnerincome.  To set the stage, Tom tells this story:

The attorneys were talking about handling e-mail and phone calls.  The partner from the young firm bragged that he made a practice of always responding to e-mail the next day.  His practice was not to read e-mail until the morning after and then to respond to it.   He explained that it avoided interruptions to his work schedule during the day.  It was clear that he considered a next-day treatment to be “very responsive” to his clients.  The partner had given me his direct office phone number.   Since our lunch, I have had the occasion to call the same attorney on several occasions.   I always get his voice message system.  He has never actually answered his direct number.  As with e-mail, he consistently returns my calls the following day.

Tom then asks whether this is really responsive.  Of course he does not, but he wants to know what others think, and I have to take his bait.

How can people who are so out of touch with their clients still have clients to be out of touch with?  Geez, I am afraid to not respond to client inquiries within minutes.  When I am on trial, my secretary runs interference to find out if "later that night" is good enough or should someone else in the office handle the call? And she knows that if its critical, there are lunch and bathroom breaks during trial.  I know my clients like the fact that I respond like this--they tell me and they tell the people who conduct our satisfaction interviews.

But put my insecurities aside and let's think about this from the client's perspective (always a good place to start and finish, by the way).  Client Mary is sitting at her desk working away on a project that her CFO wants later that day.  A question comes up and she emails the lawyer referred to in Tom's post.  She doesn't write that this is life and death because she knows the lawyer is in his office, having spoken with him earlier in the morning.  All day long she waits for information she needs to complete her report to the CFO.  She waits.  And waits some more.

Still waiting.  The end of the day is approaching.  What is a client to do?  Wait for the lawyer in Tom's story and she hurts her career by turning a project in late to the CFO.  So she calls somebody else if she can, gets an immediate answer and timely finishes her project.  Who will she call the next time?

Clients call when they do for a reason.  Its their reason and, most of the time, it is an important reason.  You are the SERVICE PROVIDER.  It is your job to honor their reasons.

Think minutes, not hours and certainly not days.  And don't get me started again on voicemail.  Just check out this earlier post.

Good summary on Traits Clients Seek

Fascinating post by James Hassett of Law Firm Business Development summarizing a presentation by Paul Clifford at a recent New England Legal Marketing Association meeting. Clifford is a former managing partner at a mid-size Boston law firm.  Clifford's thesis is that the market for legal services is becoming more and more competitive.  Writes Hassett:

Many of the trends Paul discussed are driven by a single indisputable fact: “The market for legal services is becoming more and more competitive.” It’s a buyer’s market. As large clients continue to merge and industries continue to consolidate over the next few years, this will become even more true.

Hassett goes on to discuss Clifford's comments on the importance of listening, how critical client satisfaction interviews have become and how few firms actually do them, the speed of service, and the accessibility and responsiveness of the lawyers.  He also emphasized the importance of understanding the client's business. I've discussed each of these traits in prior posts.

But here is Clifford's winning line: “The biggest challenge is to get lawyers away from thinking like lawyers, and to start thinking like business people.”

Revisit Tom Kane's Top Ten Marketing List

Tom Kane  of Legal Marketing Blog kindly picked up on a couple of my recent posts and weaved them together in a way that had not occurred to me, but which makes great sense.  In the course of his post, he referred to his Top Ten Marketing Tips, which I did not recall reading.  So I searched, and WOW!  Some of his posts are true marketing, but others fall into the "great client service is great marketing" category, making it highly relevant here.  His list needs to be reposted, highlighted and repeated frequently.  Print it and tape it to your computer screen so you see it every day.  Here is it in truncated form--be sure to reach each post.

Tip 10:  Be Active in Organizations

Tip 9:  Network with Super-connectors--get to know and spend time with those people who are the kind of people who know everyone and love making introductions.

Tip 8:  Take A Reporter To Lunch

Tip 7:  Write Articles of Interest

Tip 6:  Talk It Up With More Speeches

Tip 5:  Communicate Often

Tip 4:  Offer To Make A Proposal

Tip 3:  Seek Client Feedback Often

Tip 2:  Entertain Your Clients

Tip 1:  Visit Your Clients

Its a great list.  I can't overemphasize the power of  Tips 1, 2 and 3.  Its hard to spend time with your clients, especially if your clients are "national" and not in your home town.  But its worth the investment to spend time with them.  Face time is more valuable than gold. 

Invitation To Ralph Palumbo To Join Blogosphere

From time to time, I have the opportunity to provide examples of great client service or innovative thinking in the area.  Today, I want to highlight the work of Ralph Palumbo of the The Summit Law Group in Seattle.  The firm has a great story to tell:

 We formed Summit Law Group to revolutionize the way legal services are provided to law firm customers. Most law firms provide legal services in the same way that they did 25 years ago. Those firms focus on lawyers, not customers. Their practice model relies on large numbers of people billing large numbers of hours, often without regard for the value of the work to the customer.

We reject that model. We believe that the market for legal services has dramatically changed in the last decade. Our mission is to think creatively and proactively in formulating the most effective and efficient solutions to your legal needs.

Here's the example of focusing on the client that I really like:

 Summit Law Group’s value adjustment line is a cornerstone of our billing approach. We empower each of our customers with the right to adjust our billing, upward or downward, based on our customer’s perception of the value received, not ours.

How many of us trust our clients enough to give them this discretion?  Ralph is a leading thinker in the area of client service.  To my knowledge, he is not an active blogger.  But we all would benefit it he were.  Ralph, consider this an invitation.

NBA Centers Illustrate The Value Of Being Big

The Greatest American Lawyer has a very interesting post titled "Being Big Provides No Intrinsic Value To The Client At All." GAL posits this question:

 So what value is there to the client in being big? Oh sure, big law has developed a method to bill clients more hours and to drive its own internal revenue stream. There is no question that big law is the singularly perfect business model for that. But, I am talking about the client. I am talking about providing value to the client. Value defined as efficiency. Value defined as skill. Value defined as the best legal resource per dollar. I can't think of a single advantage that big law has on those issues. Can you?

Dan Hull picked up the same theme here.  I thought I might pick up on the discussion and try to answer the question, at least from my perspective.

Let me provide a bit information about me that no doubt colors my thinking.  When I left law school, I joined a firm of 70 lawyers, firmly "mid-sized" by then-existing Chicago standards.  That firm grew and grew, and by the time I left 18 years later, it was about 400 lawyers in 5 cities.  I joined a "boutique" litigation firm of 30 lawyers where I have been for the last 5 years.  I've never seen life as a solo or even a firm as small as Dan's.

I have come to believe that firms are a lot like NBA Centers.  Great teams frequently are built around great centers--Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem, Shaq, to name a few.  But not all great teams have great centers--take the Chicago Bulls of the 1990s.  Remember such luminaries as Will Perdue, Stacy King, Bill Wennington?  Probably not.  Michael and Scottie did not need a great center to have a great team. But even centers like the great ones I named have limited value in certain situations.  When North Carolina played four corners offense, who remembers their centers?  When the game is run and gun, the big guys barely have time to get up and down the floor before the game is coming back the other way.

The point of this is that "there is a season for everything."  Big firms do have their place.  When corporations have huge, immediate problems, they frequently don't have time to seek out great virtual teams or joint ventures of smaller firms.  They need highly educated, well-trained bodies immediately.  Big firms can provide that resource.  Likewise, when a corporation wants to consolidate its work in order to obtain a better overall fee, big firms have the breadth of skill to be able to offer the client what it needs.  When a transaction is complicated and involves tax, real estate, finance, benefits, labor and corporate issues, big firms tend to be the places that have people with expertise in all of those disciplines.

It used to be that people went to big firm because they had library resources unavailable to the small firm or solo.  In those days of old, big firms had the secretaries who could crank out multiple drafts of briefs, lawyers who could "cite check" and bodies who could search out answers to interrogatories while drafting similar requests so numerous that they could just overwhelm the smaller adversary.  With the advent of the computer and its ubiquity, those advantages are of historical consequence only.

One other thing remains, though it too is changing in my view, however slowly.  That is the "safety" factor.  People buy comfort.  People buy political security.  I've heard it said that no one was ever fired for hiring Skadden, at least not until the bill arrived.  But it is inescapably that where consequences matter, there is safety in size, at least if you're retaining Shaq or Kareem.  There isn't great security in retaining Will Perdue.

What does all this yammering mean? It means that there is no single right answer to GAL's question.  It means that some big firms are as worthless as a slow, uncoordinated giant who can't score, rebound or play defense.  It means that the elite big firms will continue to provide riches to their partners.  It means that sophisticated clients will look beyond size and focus on the team.  Being from Chicago, I'll stack Michael and Scottie's teams against any. 

For me, I believe that the best answer is better explained using a military metaphor.  Sometimes the number of boots on the ground matter.  That's why we have the Army and Marines.  Sometimes, and almost always for the really tough problems, you're better off with an elite Navy Seal Team or the Delta Force. Small and elite is where you get the best of the best.

GC Technology Wish List

With thanks to Dennis Kennedy who posted about this article on Between Lawyers, I would be remiss if I didn't highlight the article by two inhouse lawyers in Legal Technology.  The Article is simply called "GC Tech Wish List For 2006."  The list is short, but important.  As we move into 2006, the authors state that " corporate counsel (and general counsel in particular) will increasingly look to technology to meet demands for faster and more cost-effective legal work."  The list:

1.  Faster Communication." When every teenager has instant electronic access to two dozen friends, how long should a GC wait to hear back from her outside counsel? Even a brief acknowledgment that a message has been received is reassuring."

I find it hard to believe that this is a technology issue as much as it is a mind issue. It is so easy to be responsive these days that failure to be responsive is a matter of intent or foolishness.

2. Extranets." Law firms increasingly are providing extranets for clients with password-authorized Internet access to certain information on the firm's Web site. Law firm extranets permit outside lawyers to collaborate with clients and in-house counsel on tasks such as research, document drafting, discovery review and developing litigation strategy. They also can be set up to allow clients access to review documents, billing data, or the progress of on-going matters."

3.  Billing Software.  " How long will it be before all lawyers undertake e-billing?"

'nuff said.

4.  Document Management Software. 

5.  Electronic Data Discovery Software.    "One of the most pressing problems facing corporate counsel is compliance with electronic data discovery requests in litigation, regulatory or administrative actions. The days are long gone when discovery requests could be met by pulling some files, photocopying some documents and Bates-stamping into the evening. The volume of electronic records grows every year, and courts are more and more exacting and demanding in the EDD requirements they impose."

I posted about this precise issue here.  Lawyers focused on their clients' needs need to be ahead of the curve on this issue.

6. Document Assembly/Contract Process Software. For a terrific discussion of this topic, see Dennis Kennedy's post here.

This wish list should be target list for law firms.

If Other Institutions Can Learn, Why Can't Law Firms?

                                                                              

If hospitals can learn, maybe there's hope for lawyers.

Firing Law Firms

Corporate Counsel magazine (January 2006 issue) did a survey of General Counsel at Fortune 250 Companies.  The survey found (15% response rate) that 34% of the surveyed GCs fired a firm in 2005 for poor performance, 3% for poor technological capabilities, 3% for lack of diversity, 9% for a combination of those factors and 31% did so for other reasons.  The survey doesn't suggest whether these terminations are of primary counsel or peripheral counsel.

The same issue reports that 46% of the top 200 firms anticipate raising their hourly rates by more than 5%, while 53% expect to raise rates by 5% or less. 

I wonder whether the January 2007 issue will contain survey results showing a significant percentage of firms being fired for being too expensive.

A Substantive "Must" For Great Client Service

I saw this post on PDF for Lawyers, a site edited by Ernie Svenson (Ernie the Attorney) and Dave Fishel, just on top of participating in an ALM program on the same topic.  The referenced article from the Federal Courts Law Review is an excellent overview on electronic evidence issues.  There are, to be sure, lawyers like Dennis Kennedy who are light years ahead of most on analyzing issues relating to electronic discovery.  The issues relating to e-discovery are becoming so pervasive, however, that every firm that truly wants to be known for "client service" is going to have to have an expert on this topic.  Every case has the potential to involve electronic media, and failure to factor in the cost of securing the data that must be produced will cause resources to be wasted, and failure to produced requested and available data can result in sanctions, the discovery trick box.  Clients need help, and the outside counsel who can provide sound, reasoned advice will have a leg up on everyone else.

Insights From Inside Counsel

One great way for lawyers to learn how to best serve clients is to list what clients have to say.  To that end, check out this article reprinted at Law.com.  The article is about lawyers who went to speak to an audience of inside lawyers.  Here's the key description:

Sitting between in-house attorneys and facing a room of 100 more, Haidet and Brewster did their best to respond to their audience's pet peeves, including:

• Why outside firms are slow to send invoices but lightning-quick to demand payment.

• Why outside lawyers don't understand the business models and corporate culture of their clients.

• Why outside firms are unwilling to bend on price.

And then there was this gem:

Billing remained an issue that bothered the in-house lawyers.

"Even the firms we trust are always behind in giving us budgets," Kalil said. "On Dec. 20, I know I'll be getting a call from a senior partner at Kirkland & Ellis, asking, 'Can you do this for me tomorrow?'

"They are so slow in getting their budgets to us, but so fast in wanting to get paid," he said.

We lawyers are always fond of saying our relationships with our clients is a "business relationship."  When I say that, I mean that discussions about money issues are expected to occur--money is, after all, an integral part of the relationship.  But the word 'relationship' means that it is a two-way street.  Bending on price, providing budgets in a timely manner, invoicing in a timely manner--those are steps that give you the political capital to ask for faster than normal payment at year-end or other considerations from our clients.  Reason begets reason.  Fairness begets fairness.  But at the same time, indifference begets indifference.  Selfishness begets selfishness.

As I discussed here, you need to decide in your heart whether your clients are just wallets or whether they are really friends.

Good Writing: What Lawyers Do To Christmas

I received this via email today.  I know its a joke.  But, its way too easy to see how many lawyers would do exactly this if required to write this for real.  That said, its pretty darn funny.

 

The Night Before Christmas (An Attorney's Version)

Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the House") a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a mouse.

And Whereas, a variety of foot apparel, e.g., stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a/ St. Nicholas a/k/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus") would arrive at some time thereafter. The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein vision of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance, cavort and otherwise appear.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "I"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the party of the second part (hereinafter "Mamma"), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g., kerchief and cap.

Now, therefore, Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e., the lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter "the Vehicle") being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically identified the animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter "the Deer"). (Upon information and belief, it is further asserted that an additional co-conspirator named "Rudolph" may have been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad (on information and belief) in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items.

He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stockings of the minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute "gifts" to said minor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as "lookouts." Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim: "Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!" Or words to that effect.

Further, the parties sayeth not. 

Magnetic Service

I just started reading Magnetic Service by Chip and Bilijack Bell. I haven't gotten too far into it yet, but the introduction captured my attention.  "We selected 'magnetic' to describe the kind of service experience for customers that fosters their enduring passionate devotion ..." the authors write.  In speaking about 'magnetic' personalities, the authors say that it is synonymous with compelling, alluring or captivating.  But the word has different meanings, such as the characteristics of a regular magnet: hold, pull, attraction.  But a magnet adds the word 'steady' as an adjective--a steady hold, a steady pull, a steady attraction. Service that creates a constant attraction that creates an experience that is good enough to result in enduring passionate devotion by clients. 

I am going to like this book.

Are Your Clients Really Friends Or Just Wallets?

Sometimes my kids make me feel like I am a giant wallet.  I hate the feeling.  But that experience makes a question raised by Tom Kane all the more poignant.  Do we make our clients feel the same way, or do we treat them as real friends?  That is the gist of  Tom's terrific summary of an article by David Maister that I highlighted here.  Anyone committed to client service should read Tom's post.

Remember, David beat Goliath, not the other way around

Nice posts by Tom Kane and Dan Hull about a topic close to my heart. Both talk about the fact that GCs do, in fact, hire smaller law firms.

I made the move from very large to boutique firm, so I have seen this from both sides.  The best way for me to discuss this issue is to use a military analogy.  Sometimes, you do need the Army and Marines.  But sometimes, its better to use Navy Seals or Delta Force.  There are strategic reasons to pick the small, elite force rather than the large force.  Most cases don't require the large force, and hiring the large firm for the routine case is an invitation to overstaffing, overbilling, overlitigating.

I agree with Dan's comment that a client is far more likely to get high quality client service from a boutique than from a large firm.  Small firms can much more easily create the institutional focus on service necessary to provide quality service.

On becoming a Trusted Advisor

David Maister is one of the leading thinkers on client service, if not the leading thinker.   His book The Trusted Advisor was an incredibly insightful work.  He focused on the nature of the relationships between inside and outside counsel, and how lawyers should aspire to be "trusted advisors" to their clients.  David Maister has written a  new article that succinctly summarizes the kind of relationship lawyers should aspire to develop with their clients.   Its a worthy read.

Speakerphone Etiquette

I’ve posted on this before, and I don’t think repeating myself is necessarily a good thing.  But I was on a conference call yesterday, and I was reminded yet again why anyone who uses a speaker phone with a client is playing with fire.  Fortunately, I was not on my speaker phone, but another outside lawyer was, and he was rambling, making it impossible for the General Counsel to make his point.  When the lawyer stopped to take a breath, the GC said, “John (not his real name), do you mind if I say something?”  John, still not catching on, said “sure go ahead.”  Which elicited this withering comment: “As long as I’m paying for the call, don’t use your speaker phone again.”  Point taken.

Lexus As A Model For Law Firms?

Brilliant post by Bruce MacEwen in his Adam Smith, Esq. blog (one of my must read blogs).  Drawing on a story in Barron’s about the creation, rise and dominance of Lexus in the luxury car market, Bruce hypothesizes about a law firm following the same model:

The Lexus story is the story of an outsider challenging entrenched incumbents by providing something customers would respond to even though the incumbents thought it vaguely beneath them:

• a reliable,
• quality,
• "perfect" customer experience
• without exotic styling, over-the-top luxury touches (the new Rolls Royce has an umbrella holder built into each rear door; need I say more?), or blistering performance.

Now, imagine an AmLaw 50 firm deciding to emulate Lexus.  The mantra switches from things like "best of breed," "biggest deals," and "your most arcane problems solved" to "quality," "reliability," and the "perfect" client experience.  Not "the exotic, the ne plus ultra, head-turning guaranteed," but "here for you, solid, always dependable."

Do you think clients would flock to this largely unoccupied positioning?  Wouldn't it be fascinating to watch someone try?

I, for one, would love to.  But unlike car owners who routinely turn over their vehicles every few years, inside counsel build relationships and many are loathe to experiment with new relationships, just as they are loathe to try alternative billing and other other “cutting edge” changes in the relationships between clients and their law firms.  I hope that resistance is lessening and I hope Bruce’s hypothesis turns out to be on the money.

A Rose By Any Other Name Still Stinks If Service Is Lousy

For those of you outside Chicago, this won’t resonate quite as much. 

The lead story in both papers today is that Federated has decided to replace the venerable “Marshall Field’s” name with Macy’s.  The only story that would cause more consternation is the relocation of Wrigley Field to the South Side.  But there is a silver lining in every story.  The silver lining in this story is Dawn Turner Trice’s column in today’s Chicago Tribune.  The lead paragraph tells you exactly what you’re in for:

Renaming Marshall Field's indeed is a boneheaded move.

But, beyond the cachet a name carries, what stores have to offer that's far more valuable is service. No--good service.

Good service trumps a venerable name any day. It's what keeps consumers coming back year after year, and it's what eventually gets them waxing nostalgic.

Truer words were never typed.  Ms. Trice goes on to talk about her experiences at Field’s and contrasts them to her experiences at one particular “big opulent department store … along Michigan Avenue not far from Tribune Tower” (Nordstrom’s, folks).  She compares her Field’s experiences (where she feels compelled to say “thank you” and wondering if she should add “You appreciate my business and I hope I’ll come again soon” with the sales people at Nordstrom’s “seem forever at the ready to help you navigate the acreage.”

The moral of the story comes in Ms. Trice’s last paragraph:

 The new owners of Marshall Field's are counting on brand-loyalists one day forgiving them for changing the store's name to Macy's. And that may happen.

But the grudge consumers hold about not-so-good service is far more difficult to shake. 

As a Chicagoan who gave up on Field’s long ago (in favor of Nordstrom’s), I would like to thank Ms. Trice for validating my feelings on service and for providing a fabulous example for those of us who believe service counts for a lot.
.

Passion For Serving

Monday night football.  Nike commercial.  An old coach tells a young player: “ A man thinks he can.  Another man thinks he can’t.  Both are right.  Which one are you?” Personal expectations.  Passion for success.  An insane zeal for excellence.  Harry Beckwith, author of the book “What Clients Love,” writes in his July newsletter that:

It started on a visit to Microsoft. I entered Building 26 of what were then 28 on the seemingly endless Redmond campus, and felt something. I realized I had felt that before.

It had come on a visit to Nike, years before, on my first of many visits to pick up some prototype shoes which they had me test in the early 80s. Nike employees were passionate. That feeling was so intense, in fact, that when their director of marketing Rob Strasser left Nike to assume the same role at rival Adidas, most Nike employees, when they would see Rob approaching on a Portland sidewalk, would cross to the other side to avoid him.

I felt that fire in Milwaukee, too, when I entered the headquarters of Harley-Davidson.

These companies share a palpable trait: passion.

Beckwith goes on to note how Jim Collins and others have focused on the same trait:

Jim Collins has seen it, too. In Good to Great, he concluded from his diligent research that great companies focus on whatever they can do better than anyone else, on that which drives them economically -- and about which they feel truly passionate.

Two other professors -- a group more inclined to focus on process than feelings -- noticed it, too. In their influential 1994 book Competing for the Future, Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad observed that every successful company must articulate a statement of strategic intent that "contains pathos and passion."

So these really smart guys all believe that passion is critical. Who am I to argue?

The challenge, it seems to me, is identifying what it is that each person is passionate about and melding the items of passion into something of value to clients. 

Do clients, in turn, look for passion?

Expect Good Things

Those who have read this blog before know that I have great admiration for Gerry Riskin.  Another reason to admire Gerry and his work is his post entitled The Power of Positive Expectancy.  Here’s the concept:

What if this is true (and, by the way, it is):

“If you expect your clients to be thrilled with your services - they will”

“If you flat out expect your clients to refer business your way - they will…”

“…Have you ever found yourself so excited about a … service that people [retained] you because they almost had to?”

Set the service bar.  Expect that clients will be thrilled with your service.  Ask them if they are.  If they are, raise the bar (because expectations will grow!).  If they are not, ask why, fix whatever didn’t work right, and raise the bar (because you have to deliver more on a second chance!).

Underpromise and Overdeliver

I was in my local pharmacy the other day and dropped off two prescriptions.  I needed to be at my kids’ school in thirty minutes.  I asked how long it would take to get the prescriptions filled.  Fifteen minutes, I was told.  I decided to wait.  Fifteen minutes passed, and my name wasn’t called.  At twenty minutes, I went up and asked how much longer.  “Just a couple of minutes.”  To cut to the chase, I ended up leaving without my prescriptions, mad as hell and vowing to take my prescription to the other local pharmacy next time to see if they had any greater concern for my time.

Not a big deal, but a nice reminder that most of the time, its not how long or how much that is important, but rather setting expectations that you either meet or exceed.  If I could find a good picture to go with the “underpromise and overdeliver” mantra, I’d have it framed and hanging in my office.

When Service Becomes Substance: The Merck/Vioxx Trial

Today’s Wall Street Journal contains a fullsome report on the $253 million verdict against Merck in the first Vioxx trial.  Two things jumped out at me as being significant from a client perspective standpoint.  First, the jurors referenced the absence of Merck CEO and another senior executive from the courtroom.  They gave videotaped testimony.  What, a reasonable shareholder may wonder, could be more important than testifying live in a trial that sets the table for tens of thousands of other trials and billions of dollars in litigation and judgment expense.  How is it possible that Merck’s lawyers failed to convince their clients of the importance of spending a few days in the courtroom?

The other thing of concern was the failure of the trial lawyers to educate the jurors about Merck’s scientific themes.  One juror compared the presentation the sound Charlie Brown’s teacher makes on TV—”wah, wah, wah.”  William Bowen, an outside director at the company, is quoted as saying the company will seek ways in future trials “to make basic scientific points as simple as possible.”  I hope it was not news to Merck that they needed to do that it in this case.  If Merck didn’t run its scientific themes and evidence past 30 or more different mock jurors or other panels of lay people to be certain, absolutely certain, that every lay person in America could understand their trial themes, the trial lawyers woefully served their clients.

Finally, although not technically a service issue, I sure hope Merck’s commitment to try every case was a strategy reached over the objection of outside counsel.  They could have settled a whole lot of cases for $26 million ( the amount the verdict likely will be reduced to) and its willingness would have no greater impact of the likelihood of future claims than this verdict will have.  Goodwill could have been maintained.  Publicity could have been kept to a minimum. 

The litigation math is interesting:  Assume 5,000 cases.  Assume half are dismissed.  Assume Merck keeps its commitment to try everyone.  2,500 trials.  Merck wins 9 of every 10.  250 losses at an average of $5 million a piece.  Thats $1.250 billion.  But winning 90% is not likely, so let's assume they win half (again, pretty generous).  1,250 trials at $5 million.  $6.250 billion, not including legal fees.  Then you can start figuring what will happen if the $5 million turns out to be more like $10 million.  Or toss in a few punitive damage verdicts.  The numbers are staggering.  I can only hope for the sake of Merck's shareholders that this "damn the torpedos, try every case" rhetoric is somebody's idea of a public relations ploy and not what the insiders really are thinking.

This made me feel good

We had just concluded a couple of days of arbitration, with more to go.  We met with our clients and some others in the early evening, after which we broke up.  Our client and a another were going to dinner at a place where getting a cab afterwards would not be automatic.  My colleague immediately and without prompting offered to arrange for a car to meet the diners at the restaurant when they were done.  I smiled to myself.  I was clearly in the presence of someone who "gets it."  And a terrific trial partner to boot.

Eating The Big Guys' Lunch

Those who have read my prior posts know that I am a big fan of Tom Peters.  His blog is one of my favorites and his posts generally are provocative.  As an example, his Rummy in Philadelphia post, talking about Donald Rumsfeld’s recent warning to Iraquis to get the Constitution done timely rather than right and how that approach might have played out played out in 1776 in Philadelphia.  Changing the light in which you look at an issue really makes a difference in how you see things.

This post is not about Donald Rumsfeld.  Nor is it about Iraq.  Its about what, in Tom Peters’ eyes, a little guy (little firm, etc.) must do to eat the big guys’ lunch. Tom’s post is a great read.  Among the points he makes:

• Focus on women
• Emotionally connect with your clients
• Compete on value/experience/intimacy, not price.
• Creativity/innovation are important tools.
• Technology is a great equalizer.

The moral of the story is that the big guys will always be there.  And they will always be big targets.  And they can be had.

 

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.

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.

 

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!

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

An example of service

Last night, I was staying at a hotel in Houston.  My cell phone was running out of juice, and I had forgotten my charger cord.  I called down to the front desk and asked if there was a store nearby where I could buy one.  The person on the phone asked what my problem was, and when I confessed my poor packing, she asked what kind of cell phone I had.  When I told her, she said she would have a charger brought up to my room.  Three minutes later, my phone was charging.

Now, if a client was in your office, how many of us could offer this kind of service?  Its a little thing to have a bag full of charging cords, but it would be nice to meet that need when it arises.

The dirtiest word in law

Is Budgeting!  I went through 3 years of law school and the only time I heard the word "budgeting" was when my mother told me I had to budget for food and beer money.  I joined a firm that grew to be one of the 50 largest in the country, and as an associate, the word budget was never mentioned.  When I became a partner, I heard about budgets for compensation and other business issues, but only rarely for a piece of litigation.  And even then, we had to make sure the client understood they couldn't actually rely on the budget we prepared, nothwithstanding the signficant "fudge factor" that was built in.

I am at a smaller firm now.  We speak to our clients and many others in the industry.  Budgets are critical for our clients.  Some of them live and die by their budgets. 

If lawyers don't learn budgeting in law school or on-the-job (at least at big firms), how are they going to meet this most important client need?  But its far worse than just not having training.  Everything about being an associate at a larger law firm (and many small ones too, I suspect) is anti-budgeting.  Associates are judged on work quality and hours.  The institutions brainwash associates into thinking more hours are better.  Bonuses are paid if you bill a certain number of hours, but I have never once heard of an associate paid a bonus because he or she exercised restraint on an issue that didn't deserve to be treated like a Supreme Court appeal.  In other words, the way associates advance is to behave 180 degrees differently that what many businesses want. 

Great way to run a business.  More later.