In Search of Perfect Client Service

The Geography of Great Client Service

Eschewing the time-honored maxim of "location, location, location," The Wired GC continues his analysis of the importance (or lack thereof) of office location in a world where most client interaction occurs in the client's office, or at least somewhere other than the lawyer's office.  The post, bearing the sublime title "What Face Means For Place," addresses the question "why do most firms in large cities persist in putting all their people in pricey high-rise space under long-term leases?"  None of the common answers survive The Wired GC's pithy commentary.  The post goes on to suggest some alternatives that no doubt will be the subject of much conversation. 

Here's a statement in the post that every managing partner should memorize:

I’m sure I don’t understand all the intricacies of space selection and design of the modern law firm. But when I see firms jockeying for a new “signature” building, and later submitting their interior design to magazines for their annual awards, I know one thing: I’ve never retained a firm on the basis of its offices. And I have to think that the overhead costs inherent in the current space model are a big driver of higher rates and higher billable hour quotas. And I have decided against retaining more than one firm because of these factors.

Perhaps the driving factors on space should be minimizing cost, maximizing operating efficiency and teamwork and creating a desire to leave the office and go visit clients.

I want to relate one true observation.  The most effective office design I every saw was an open room, where the CEO and Chief Acquisition Officer had the desks in the center of the room, facing each other.  Other desks encircled this power center, with the most junior people being the ones closest to the windows but farthest away from the CEO.  There wasn't much time spent on personal calls or mindlessly surfing the internet.  There was, by contrast, a lot of time spent bouncing ideas off colleagues.  And when meetings needed to be in private, the many conference rooms were utilized.

But to get back to the topic at hand, The Wired GC's point that the price of the law firm's office (location, location, location) becomes a substantial factor in high hourly rates is a truth that cannot be escaped.  I ask this of discerning inside counsel:  Do you ever hold a firm's toney location and expensive offices against them?

And to underscore the point I made yesterday, the right place for meeting your client is your client's office.  Her convenience, not yours.  Your nickel, not his.  Your investment in the relationship.  Your chance to learn more about her business and the demands on her time.  Your chance to figure out more ways to help.  Its all about the client, not your trendy offices with the expensive artwork.

Driving Change: Chicken or Egg, Client or Law Firm?

The Greatest American Lawyer contains a very thoughtful post on the issue of whether law firms will ever lead change in the manner services are provided to clients. The GAL posits that  "[i]t has been suggested that until clients demand that law firms deliver lower cost and higher quality services, law firms will not be motivated to act. While there may be something to this notion, I am not buying it."  The GAL concludes with this:

So, what needs to change in the legal market in order to for innovation to ensue? Does the change have to come from the client side? It is my belief that law firms and lawyers will have to employ traditional marketing and sales people who can go out into the market without the demands and pressures of having to bill time or work for clients on important matters and evangelize what they are doing. Without a marketing and sales force, the reach of any particular law firm to distinguish themselves in the market and reach new clients is extremely limited. The market must be educated as to how and why the flattening of the world and the availability of technology can revolutionize the way law is practiced. Without this important piece of the puzzle, the legal market will continue to be the caboose of the global train of innovation and technology adoption. 

I'm not sure I can agree.  The implication of GAL's post is that there really isn't competition now for business.  That certainly isn't true.  In my view, the problem remains one of economic incentive.  Law firms have no reason to embrace technology or the efficiencies it creates more than is minimally necessary because technology costs them money and doesn't generate revenue. Clients make the hiring decision and law firms offer what they think the client needs from them, and no more.  If clients demanded the types of efficiencies GAL discusses ("do this or you are fired") and followed through by hiring only those who provided the innovation, the level of innovation would increase dramatically because it would be the price to play.  Now it isn't.  I leave with this thought:  if clients don't insist on change now, why will they hire based on that differentiator if the pitch is made by a professional seller?

Building A Client Service Culture

I am certain that there is no single formula for success, but a recent post by Tom Peters sums up the key ingredients as well as anyone.  The post is linked here, but I've taken the liberty of quoting it for convenience:

Chip Bell to Tom Peters (12.20.2005): "If you were asked to be the keynote speaking coach to a new company CEO eager to do a great job, what is the one thing you would advise the CEO
to do (or not do)?"

TP: (A) Read 2 books. (1) Bossidy (& Charan) on execution ... Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. Main takeaway: Bedrock #1 for corporate success is a "culture of execution." (FYI, Bob Nardelli did this brilliantly at Home Depot, despite pressure to do sexier stuff first.) (2) Read Lou Gerstner's book ... Who Says Elephants Can't Dance: Inside IBM's Historic Turnaround. Main takeaways: Listen first, then do vision no matter how high the pressure for a "scintillating vision." Also, you must tackle head-on the extant culture head; Gerstner reluctantly did this and did it well, but Carly Fiorina didn't at HP (she led with "vision").

(B) And: LISTEN! LISTEN! LISTEN! (The answers are already out there, typically among the most exercised and disenchanted.)

(C) And: COMMUNICATE! COMMUNICATE! COMMUNICATE! (Esp: Keep the board informed of everything, especially hiccups!)

(D) And: Work proactively in every "little" which way, each and every day to "live" and "ooze" INTEGRITY! (Integrity begets trust which begets a good place to work which begets performance.)

(E) And: Remove or marginalize ASAP the career "career corporate politicians."

(F) And: "Do a GE": Elevate HR to the head table on the Right Hand of God, with great HR talent and an HR seat with equal power to that of the CFO. (Again, Nardelli did this spectacularly at Home Depot!)

Chip: "One thing" is cute ... but the above SIX are musts! Use all six of 'em, but do NOT feel free to choose "the best one"—SIX or naught!

 Those who have read my prior posts know that I am a big fan of Tom Peters.  While not every point is directly applicable to a professional service firm (like keeping the board informed), the points apply more broadly (i.e., keep your partners informed). 

Clients--Is this the kind of team you want on your matter?

My December American Lawyer arrived today.  As I always do, I turned to Aric Press' column.  Aric is the Editor-in-Chief of American Lawyer.  If there is anyone more attuned to the state of the profession, I would be surprised.  Aric's column is about the results the survey of the Am Law 200.  One of the questions asked this year was about the number of firms that lamented their loss of associates.  Aric writes:

The days when associates would hang around confident that they would snare a partnership are long gone -- and are not coming back.  Now may who linger stay only until their student loans are under control, and then they map a quick exit.  Firms complain bitterly that these young lawyers are leaving before the firms can fully recoup their investments in them.  They have no one to blame but themselves.  The profitability model is built on churn, and even the cream resent getting battered into butter.

Great prose (a hallmark of Aric's column) but very insightful as well (another hallmark).  Large firms losing associates need to look in a mirror.  Otherwise, its like the rancher opening the barn door and then complaining that the horses are running out the door. 

But my mission here is not to tell large firms how to run themselves--its to talk about client service.  There is no mistaking the significant role associates play on most matters.  Clients need to ask themselves whether they want to create teams where integral players are looking for the exit.  At what cost to the client is the associate's departure?

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.

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. 

Six Sigma A Tool To Serve

I have long been intrigued by the concept of Six Sigma.  Ever since reading “Jack Welch and the GE Way,” I’ve wondered how law firms could use the concept to improve their service. In this vein, I’ve also spent time with Lean Six Sigma For Service.  I’ve always thought myself somewhat the loner in my thinking on this, however.  For that reason, I was delighted to see this post in More Partner Income. Some of the wisdom of the post:

Can Six Sigma work in a law firm? The answer is, of course.  But a Six Sigma vision can only come from the firm’s recognized “leader”.  It can only thrive in an environment of constant change—recognition that excellence can only be achieved through change. It must place the client’s wants and desires first. It must believe to its very core that when the firm improves the success of their customer, it improves the law firm’s success as well. It must be willing to honestly determine what its clients want and be prepared to deliver it. Those wants may be at odds with the law firm’s traditions but if you break those traditions in favor of the client—you will have a superior competitive advantage.  If you do so while eliminating deviations from client expectations, your competitive position will be unassailable.

Why Not Listening Training?

I’ve written about listening before. But it is of fundamental importance that every good post on the topic needs to be highlighted.  Tom Kane over The Legal Marketing Blog has just such a post.  Some great thoughts on how to handle face to face client meetings:

• Tell your staff person to hold all calls (if there are exceptions, let client know up front),
• Let client know they have your full, uninterrupted attention (except as noted),
• Look at the client while they talk,
• Take notes, and frequently summarize your understanding of what client said, and
• At the conclusion of meeting, ask client if there is anything they want to say or ask – then pause for a period of time to give them a chance to respond.

I especially liked this advice, about something said by Jay Foonberg:  “As his father told him, with two ears and one mouth, you should listen twice as much as you speak. Good advice.”

My question for law firms is this:  When a skill is so demonstrably important to your business, why do you fail to provide training on how to do it better?

The Value Of Speaking To A Person

I just read an interesting post on Michelle Golden’s Golden Practices weblog about voicemail message content.  It made me wonder, however, about the best use of voicemail.   In an age where secretaries are become scarcer or are working for 73 professionals at the same time, it is pretty common that you bypass humans when you call someone and get that person’s voicemail.  Almost all voicemail messages tell you how to escape, but odds are when you try, you only end up with someone else’s voicemail.  Sometimes it drives me crazy.

One form of message is that “let me tell you where I am and what I am doing each and every day” kind of message.  Other’s don’t even bother with a message.  You get the annoying system message interrupted by the person saying their own name, sounding like they are stretched out on a torture rack just about to have their entrails ripped from their body.  Or there is the general “I am away from my desk” message that frequently adds options like “or I am out of the office doing really important stuff for somebody else so that I don’t have time to talk to you.”

My own thought on voicemail is this.  I make sure my secretary answer my phone.  A lot of times, its a client calling while I am discussing nothing of moment with a colleague.  I want the client’s call to trump, and only a person answering the phone can do that.  If I am busy, I want my secretary to find out when the best time for me to call back is.  Or if its an emergency, I want her to interrupt me or find someone else to handle the emergency right then.  MY THESIS:  GOOD CLIENT SERVICE MANDATES THAT THE CHOICE TO LEAVE A VOICEMAIL MESSAGE BE THE CLIENT’S CHOICE, NOT A DEFAULT RESULT BECAUSE NO ONE EVER PICKS UP THE PHONE!

It takes a Village

With due regard to the author of a book by the same name, I believe that in today’s corporate environment, one person cannot service a client alone.  It takes a team.  For example, while I am away on trial, my colleagues are doing yeoman work for “my” (really, our) clients and I am lucky to be working with people who are so willing to jump into help out.  With this as framework, I read with great interest Gerry Riskin’s post Witmer thinks some lawyers just fertilize the queen.  Gerry read Larry Bodine’s post on comments by Neil Wittmer, Ph. D. and takes considerable umbrage with Dr. Wittmer’s thoughts.

The issue boils down to this:

“According to Witmer, the grinders and drones lack the essential personality elements to develop new business. You cannot change their personalities, and they may be unable to change themselves.”

Witmer’s theory is that the “drones” (I agree with Gerry that it is a most unfortunate choice of terms) should be left in their offices to “do the work” that other lawyers bring in.  Gerry’s view is that

It is not personality that drives the client attraction process, but a combination of what the lawyer does and the skill to convey it — skill that almost every lawyer has or is quite capable of acquiring. If you look closely at a law firm’s top rainmakers, you will notice a wide diversity of personalities.

While there is a lot of team-oriented work in a law firm, in many cases the client is choosing the surgeon for the operation — the more specialized the work, the less relevant the personality. If heaven forbid, a dear one needed brain surgery, the doctor's personality is probably the last factor for consideration. (I will yield that in an undifferentiated commodity market personality is far more important but most top firms keep that work to a minimum in favor of specialty work.)

My view is decidely closer to Gerry’s, but not as extreme.  As I said above, I believe it takes a village to serve a client.  That said, I don’t see room on the team for people who cannot develop a relationship with a client and instill confidence.  Talent and personality are minimum traits for everyone in law firm.

Beyond the client service issue, there is room for everyone to market.  Marketing is not just sales, and it is not necessarily face to face.  But someone needs to generate articles that the rainmaker can bring to a prospect’s attention.  Someone needs to put content on the web site.  And so forth.  We have not yet arrived at the place in life where law firms are nothing more than groups of individual silos.  It takes a village (but not a metropolis!).