In Search of Perfect Client Service

Good writing: Breaking From Useless Traditions

Good writing is good writing.  Or is it.  Dan Hull had a terrific post on how we write for our clients.   I posted a comment, suggesting good writing knew no venue, and it shouldn't matter whether the writing was a pleading or a letter.  Or, as I just posted, an invoice.  Communications are effective when they are clear, concise and direct.

Dan has just responded to my comment with another very thoughtful post.  In this post, he notes that the norm in many courts is to use enough legalese to fill a truck.  After considering the value of piecemeal change, he issues this challenge to himself and the rest of us: 

"Doesn't changing legal writing to just clear and simple writing come down to to leadership? Maybe I should start setting a better example. Why not buck the traditions 100%--whether it's writing to courts, to clients or to other lawyers--and never use those expressions again? Ever."

That sound you hear coming from my office is loud clapping.  A standing ovation for Dan.  Hooray!  I will be with you every step of the way.

Actually, a confession.  I practice in a lot of different states. I can't remember all the terms some courts get their kicks from.  I don't know what a demurrer is, but I do know what a motion to dismiss is.  So I use words I know.  A simple mind yields simple writing.  I'm lucky in that respect.

Under promise and over deliver is not simply falling over the goal line--its blowing through the back of the endzone!

Interesting post by Dan Hull taking issue with the "under promise and over deliver" philosophy of client service.  As I understand Dan's argument, the philosophy doesn't apply to lawyers because client expectations are so low that "over delivering" doesn't really accomplish much.  Sort of like being the tallest midget.

Dan's argument continues that lawyers really need to change the way people think about lawyers by "communicating in all aspects of your work that you care deeply about your lawyering for them, you want to serve their interests on an ongoing basis and that it's a privilege to be their lawyer."

I guess I don't see the difference here. The "under promise and over deliver" philosophy is not a suggestion to promise "2" and deliver "3".  It is a philosophy that says deliver something that defies expectations, not merely surpasses them.  Its not a negotiated set of expectations, but rather a belief that doing something radically different--better--than what is expected is the surest way to draw positive attention to yourself.  Its Harry Beckwith 101.

The Ability To Serve

Many of you know I spent the last month and half in Los Angeles on trial (non-suit against my client!).  So I'm catching up on a lot of reading that I missed.  This morning, I've been reading several weeks worth of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.  The December 1, 2005 issue contains a reprint of a Wall Street Journal article entitled "As more cases settle, firms seek pro bono work to hone associates' courtroom skills."  It leads with this paragraph:

"Marc R. Kadish, a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, recently made an offer to federal judges in Chicago, where the law firm is based: The 1,300 member firm would represent, pro bono, any prisoner with a case set for trial who didn't already have counsel."

The article discusses the inability of lawyers at big firms to develop trial skills and suggests that this is a recent phenomenon.  Actually, the problem has been around for some time.  I worked at a very large law firm before law school and was working on a large antitrust case that went to trial.  Two of the partners on the case had never tried a case before, and both had been with that firm for more than 14 years.  At my former firm, a number of people in the litigation area never tried a case during my 18 tenure with the firm.  I don't think these two experiences are atypical.

When it comes time to retain lawyers for litigation, clients need to know what they are getting.  A litigator--someone who settles cases and files motions--is different than a trial lawyer.  Make no mistake about it, your adversary will know which type of lawyer is on the case.  They know that a capable trial lawyer is a far more formidable adversary.  This issue, which requires some candor from law firms, is one that should be fronted with clients.  They should not be allowed to assume to just because a lawyer can talk a good game, they actually know how to play it.

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.

And Increasing Associate To Partner Leverage Benefits Clients Exactly How?

Was flying home from New York this afternoon catching up on some reading.  The November 28 issue of The National Law Journal had an article entitled "A hot topic: associate to partner leverage."  The article focused on several Los Angeles firms who are consciously seeking to increase the number of associates in order to increase the partner's profits.  I started laughing to myself as I was reading.

A piece of free advice.  If you are going to add associates (which does not automatically translate to more work), don't advertise that fact to your clients.  They already don't think they need the headcount they have on their matters.  And certainly don't brag about your brilliant strategy.  That is like throwing cold water at your clients.

It is clear the firms that continue to focus on leverage on stuck in the old way--looking at hours and hourly rates and not figuring out new ways to enhance profitability.  The slower big firms move, the better as far as I am concerned.

How Will Corporate Lawyers Respond To An Invitation To Sleep With The Enemy?

Every month my firm publishes an "Outside Perspective" article in Corporate Counsel magazine.  My partner Jim Morsch wrote this month's article on "Thinking Like Plaintiffs  About Revenue Enhancing Litigation."  Jim has made a lot of money for corporate clients and I wanted to see what he had to say to so I could try to convince my clients to talk to him about "positive revenue litigation." 

On my way to Jim's article, however, I ran across an "Outside Perspective" piece offered by Barry Cohen, called "Sleeping With The Enemy: Why Hiring A Plaintiff's Firm Can Be Smart Business."  Mr. Cohen, a Florida plaintiff's lawyer, makes the argument that many plaintiff's lawyers are really good trial lawyers, that some corporations have hired plaintiff's lawyers for business litigation, and that its good for corporations because plaintiff's lawyers are used to working under contingency fee arrangements.  This piece relied heavily on Ron Perelman's $1.4 billion verdict against Morgan Stanley.  Of course, Mr. Cohen doesn't say that the Perelman case was worked up by Jenner & Block and that the result was aided immeansurably my Morgan Stanley's discovery failings, which ultimately led to the judge telling the jury to assume the plaintiff's complaint was true and that all Mr. Perelman had to prove was the amount of his damages.  Even a defense lawyer would do okay under such favorable conditions. It is interesting that Mr. Cohen didn't mention the case where famed Texas personal injury lawyer Mark Lanier represented Kelly Moore Paint Company in a suit against Union Carbide, which had supplied Kelly Moore wth asbestos fibers incorporated into Kelly Moore products.  Even with Mr. Lanier's prodigious skills, highly capably "corporate" counsel won the case for Union Carbide.

The Cohen "Outside Perspective" piece follows on the heals of several articles about other plaintiff's firms starting to market to corporations, based on same set of arguments. I have bitten my tongue on this topic--until now.  First, I absolutely agree that there are some terrific trial lawyers who represent personal injury plaintiffs.  Some really bad ones too, as well as a lot of really mediocre trial lawyers.  Just as there are some outstanding trial lawyers who represent business interests, and some terrible and mediocre ones as well.  Trial skill and savvy is not a by-product of which side one represents.  It is a set of skills that some have and some don't.  Many lawyers try to differentiate themselves from other corporate lawyers by distinguishing between being a trial lawyer and a litigator.  The point is that a client needs to hire the necessary skill set.

But where the plaintiff's lawyers argument really falls down is on client service.  Personal injury lawyers have clients in name only.  The victims they represent are not like a corporate general counsel or chief litigation counsel who are skilled lawyers in their own right and know the business intimately.  Personal Injury lawyers don't have to be responsive to client needs the way lawyers do who represent corporations.  And finally, plaintiff's personal injury lawyers are't the only ones who are willing to work on a contingency fee arrangement.

Plaintiffs attorneys are great marketers--we've all seen the plethora of television commericals.  I, for one, believe that most corporations will be smart enough to know good schtick when they hear it.  Sleeping with the enemy may be okay in the movies, but in real life it tends to get you killed.

After Hours Training?

Tom Peters just made an interesting post on leadership.  His piece includes this most interesting observation:

Can leadership be "taught"? Oh yes. But as the USMA, USNA, Sandhurst and Parris Island demonstrate, not as a sideline. Effective leadership in the private sector or the military is an occupation, a preoccupation, a trade, a craft, an obsession ... and must be studied and practiced accordingly. For God's sake, it takes six long years to train a halfway decent graduate engineer in formulaic technical skills. Why should we expect to "pick up" leadership skills "on the side" at a B.School or corporate "university"? Fat damned chance.

I’ve made this observation before in the context of budgeting and client service.  Training people in things that are important, be it to the operation of your business or dealing with your clients, cannot be a mere afterthought.  Few, if any, law firms provide real education and effective training in these areas.  They should. Failing to make things that are important to your business an “occupation, a preoccupation, a trade, a craft, an obsession” is a big failing. 

The Annual Rite Of Passage: Raising Rates

Check out this post on Law.com. Brenda Sandburg of The American Lawyer reports that amongst the Amlaw 200:

• Billing rates will continue to go up. Fifty-three percent of respondents expect to increase billing rates by 5 percent or less; 46 percent anticipate raising them by more than 5 percent.

• Profits will keep rising, too. Sixty-eight percent of respondents expect profits per partner to grow more than 5 percent; 27 percent think profits per partner growth will be 5 percent or lower.

Its amazing—99% of law firms “expect” to raise rates, nearly half by more than 5%.  Did they ask their clients?  Are their clients raising their prices?  How many of their client legal departments are facing cut-backs or cost constraints?

At the same time, profits per partner are going up.  More than 2/3 think the PPP will go up more than 5%.  I wonder how their clients feel about that.

I will say that this might be misleading, akin to a peacock showing off its tail feathers.  Impressive, but not relevant.  How many of these firms will be offering discounts that more than offset the increase?  How many “negotiate” the bill on top of the discounts?

As I have said before, the system is phony.  Maybe this is the year some clients will wake up and smell the coffee.

 

You Get What You Pay For, But Only To A Point

From Rees Morrison in his Law Department Management blawg, a reference to and old favorite of mine, the USF&G study showing money saved by using more expensive lawyers.  The description:  

In 1992, the insurance company USF&G evaluated its 250 law firms and dropped 100 of them. It replaced those firms, not with more $80 average an hour firms but with national firms whose average billing rates were over $200 an hour (mercy me!).

At the time, the insurer was paying 10 percent of its litigation budget for claims to law firms and 90 percent to claimants. A little over a year later, the company estimated it had saved $15 million on law firms and $35 million on claims payments!

Query: if higher-billing rate, and thus presumably better-quality lawyers produce such eye-popping savings in total claims litigation costs, why has there been only one float in this parade?

In my view, the right curve for this experiment is probably a bell curve.  After rates get to a certain point, the quality of outcome doesn’t improve, at least not by much.  That is typically the point where a client enters into a “comfort” analysis—ie, you never get second guessed if you retain Skadden (unless of course cost is a factor). 

Peter Drucker

I’ve been carrying around some information on Peter Drucker and intended to write an entry about his profound contributions to the business world.  But I was catching up on some blawg reading and ran across Bruce MacEwen’s thoughtful comments in his Adam Smith, Esq. blawg and I realized I could not improvde on what he had to say.  I found this description particularly apropos:

Drucker's views stemmed from his focus not on corporations in the abstract, or buildings and machines, processes and systems, not in creating elaborate economic or managerial theories:  Drucker's focus was on people. Management's job was to chart a course and get out of the way. People were not an expense but a resource.

It seems like a lifetime of contribution deserves more, but we should all raise our glasses to Peter Drucker.

Can I introduce you to my partner (pssst--what's your name?)?

Visiting recently with a former colleague, I was reminded of a scenario that plays out all too frequently in multi-office firms.  Relationship lawyers, faced with pressure from above to “cross sell,” try to introduce their clients to partners in the firm’s new office in (pick a city) or the latest lateral hire in (pick a city).  In most cases, and as was the case in the story being told, the referring partner had no relationship with his new partner and no understanding of how good a lawyer the new partner was.  I wonder how the client felt in these circumstances.  Perhaps she felt the way people do when confronted the notorious used car salesman— “buy this car.  I don’t anything about who drove it or how it was driven, but its a great car.”   Then the tires fall off on the way home.  Makes me wonder whether cross-selling a new office, new partner or new practice group is ever good for the client and whether any success stories are only a matter of chance.

Alternative Fees. Boutique Firms Relentlessly Focused On Client Service. I Rest My Case.

One of the blogs I read regularly is The Wired GC.  I just read this post in which the Wired One analyzes the results of American Lawyer’s recent mid-level associate survey in terms of what the results mean for client service.  One great observation:

Since midlevel associates are often regular service providers for many law firms, I do cringe when I think that those entries on the monthly invoice represent clock-fixated young lawyers who resent their firm’s partners. What do they think about the firm’s clients? Am I part of the problem?

The Wired One the analyzes what clients should do about this problem.  He says:

Well, you could choose firms based upon quality-of-life surveys. In reality, however, that’s not the way firms are selected–it is nice to see, but not a sufficient criterion.

The other thing a GC could do is migrate work appropriately to good firms that have lower billable hours targets. Would these firms have associates with better attitudes? Maybe. Would the firm charge less per hour? Probably.

But his conclusion is killer:

Most clients of major law firms have probably restructured operations and staffing in the last 10 years to reduce costs, increase quality, and meet competitive challenges.

How long can law firms continue to meet their challenges by raising rates and hourly targets?

The survey says: perhaps not much longer.

Let me add a couple of suggestions for clients to consider.  The real solution is abandoning hourly rates.  But I realize most clients won’t just jump wholesale to this model.  So my advice?Experiment.  Send some of your work to firms that will do it on a modified fixed fee arrangement. (I say modified because I am a big believer in law firms having “skin in the game” so that the incentive to get the best result is palpable.)  Not worrying about hours or hourly rates is liberating.  Try it.  Also, try a firm who doesn’t have a list of blue chip clients a mile long.  See what it means to be a prized client.  And find a firm whose commitment to client service is demonstrated.  Find out what it means to be treated by a law firm the way you are when you check in at the Ritz or the Four Seasons.  You can get much more for your legal dollar than you do.  You just have to demand more.

Advertising to Lawyers Still Pushes Increasing Billable Hours

Dennis Kennedy has a nice post on Intel’s new advertisement for lawyers on the benefits of mobile computing.  So I followed the link he provided and went to the right column as he directed.  Finally, I hit the “Explore Legal Demo” link and Intel’s ad popped up. And what does Intel say?  “You need to be more efficient.  You need to increase billable hours.  You need an edge.”  There is a whole section of this ad devoted to increasing billable hours.

Here’s the rub.  Efficiency should provide a benefit to a client in the form of lower billable hours, or at least the same billable hours in a shorter time frame.  But someone who knows a lot about selling to lawyers believes that focusing on “more billable hours” is a good sales pitch.

I wonder if clients react positively when they see ads like this talking about ways for outside counsel to bill more hours to their matters.

Where do you find a representative for this class?

Corporate Legal Times reports in its August issue about an interesting case from Ohio.  “The maker of pills that purportedly enlarge penis size and improve female sexual response is appealing an Ohio state court decision to certify a class action lawsuit that alleges the company misrepresented its products capabilities.”   Its hard (no pun intneded) to believe that there is someone out there who is going to testify that he believed the claim for penis enlargement and made a decision based on it.  Think of the people lining up to make claims.  I have to stop now before I start typing the many comments popping into my head at the moment.  But if you want to comment, please don’t feel constrained!

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Listening To Ourselves Through Unbiased Ears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why might mid-size firms survive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What Happened to McGuire Woods Now?

Today’s Chicago Sun Times reports that McGuire Woods has ousted Chicago partner Ted Tetzlaff, who had been serving in the dual role as firm partner and General Counsel of  Peoples Energy, and has severed its relationship with Peoples, which last year paid the firm $8.7 million in fees.  According the article, Tetzlaff denied he was forced out.  That’s credible.  A firm fires a $8.7 million client, but his departure is amicable.  What on earth am I missing here.  Somebody must have erased part of the press release.

Tetzlaff also is quoted as saying that “I am committed to producing quality representation and fair price.  Sometimes that creates tension.”  What happened to the firm’s discovery that client service was a key factor in competing with the major firms in Chicago?  What happened to the vaunted alternative fee arrangements the firm was going to pursue to help its clients?

Oh well.   Never mind.