In Search of Perfect Client Service

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?