In Search of Perfect Client Service

It’s instructive that the ninth step of the Twelve Step program literature (you know, the one that pops up in Seinfeld and other sitcoms—the one about making amends), also doesn’t allude to forgiveness. In fact, none of the 12 steps do.

I think this is because Beck, and the 12-Step program, recognize that life is a messy business. To forgive, one has to have a very clean heart in the first place.  And we—I’ll be clean here and just say I—rarely do.

If I’m in a rush to forgive people, I most likely am still judging them for some harm they did to me.  If I’m consternated about being forgiven, well, that’s all about me; and apologies don’t come from a good place if they’re all about me.

Apologies should not be tainted by forgiving, or by seeking forgiveness.  Those have their place, but it’s elsewhere. 

A good apology tries to set aright something that you set awry by impinging on another’s will.  It’s only appropriate that the apology itself refrain from further imposition of will. Hence the separation from forgiving or forgiveness.

Thinking about this has made me wonder about whether law firms ever really discuss handling mistakes or, better yet, provide training to their lawyers.  Mistakes are such a taboo topic that most firms seem to operate on the premise that they only happen to other firms.  Yet every day we read about one firm or another being sued on account of matters that certainly appear like ones that could have been worked out.  Time to rethink the issue.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

1.    Service is about a "sense of style, a certain friendliness."  But it must appear effortless.
2.   Great service doesn't just happen--you must plan.
3.   Once you have an idea, you can't just "do it."  Like every other skill, you must practice, practice, practice.
4.   Great service is about anticipating each guest's needs.  One size does not fit all. 
5.   You must be "hyper-aware" of the service you are providing and how your guest perceives it.
6.   Paying attention to the smallest detail is critical.
7.   Success only serves to increase expectations, which you must continue to exceed.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

No, loyalty is not dead in the business world. What's dead is a reason to be loyal. You must earn customer loyalty. You have to invest in the relationship, not just satisfy existing needs. You must move your firm from the Passive (satisfaction-based) to the Interactive (commitment-based) side of the Customer Relationship Scale and develop a long-term partnership with your customers. That is how Disney creates "Moments of Magic" and superior financial results. And you can do it, too.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

"The experience is a big deal.  The small, intimate experience where you actually get help from someone focused specifically on what you're looking for is a big deal."

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Q.     Sales nomenclature has also changed. First, "customer satisfaction," then "customer loyalty," and most recently what Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba characterize as "customer evangelism." Your own take on all this?

A.    Customer satisfaction isn't enough. In some cases, it barely matters. General Motors surveys showed a huge surge in customer satisfaction in the early to mid 1980s. Meanwhile, their sales reports showed a major decline.

Satisfaction isn't enough because no one is satisfied with merely be satisfied. And once a human being is satisfied, his or her expectations increase. They now want more, and need more, to be satisfied. This is why continuous quality improvement is necessary just to retain clients. People are uniquely restless.

As for loyalty, the term is misused. It's used most often in connection with frequent flyer programs, which are dubbed loyalty programs. But not more than five percent of travelers are loyal to any airline, and the majority are dissatisfied.

Relatively few companies have truly loyal customers. I've enjoyed the pleasure of working with one that has perhaps the most loyal customers: Harley-Davidson. The test of loyalty, ultimately, is how many people have your brand name tattooed on their biceps?

But that kind of passion is rare. You see it in well-established and iconic products like Fender Stratocasters, Tony Lama cowboy boots and some others. I'm loyal to Nike, but that's largely because I am loyal to its home, which is mine, too: Oregon. But true loyalty is rare. We are loyal to people, not to companies.

Evangelism? Evangelism was a term coined by people anxious to sell books. Businesses should worry about improving a lot before they worry about whether they're attracting religious fervor.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

"Law firms can't say they are actively seeking ways to reduce costs and then pay incoming associates $160,000 per year."
                                                            Christine Helwick, GC,
                                                            California State University

"I always ask if we can have arrangements other than the hourly fee, but law firms shy away and offer reasons why it won't work."
                                                            Christian Na, GC,
                                                            Mitel Networks

"I hold my thumb on my outside firms.  It's very labor intensive on my side to prevent a runaway budget."
                                                       Paul Risner, General Counsel,
                                                       Boca Raton Community Hospital

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

"At a famous presentation at Black and Decker, a consultant held up one of these, a drill, and asked the Black and Decker executives if this is what they sold. They all recognized the product and answered “yes”. He then suggested to them, that from the customer’s point of view, what they are selling is this, a hole in a board."

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

The ability to print boarding passes for flights is a great convenience. Unfortunately, half the time you’re in a hotel room when you check-in online and can’t print the boarding pass.  Some airlines (Northwest for one, but I always fly United) will fax the boarding pass to you—but this still requires that you get the fax. Unfortunately, lots of things can happen between the hotel fax and your room—for example, the business center is closed until after you depart.  The Hyatt Regency hotel at McCormick Place in Chicago, Illinois has a very helpful solution to this problem: an airline board pass printing kiosk. It’s very helpful and shows that someone was thinking about the customer. I hope that the person who thought of the kiosk sees this blog posting.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Integrate customer service into the mainstream. Let's see: sales makes the big bucks. Marketing does the fun stuff. Engineers, well, you leave them alone in their dark caves. Accounting cuts the paychecks. And support? Do to the dirty work of talking to pissed off customers when nothing else works. Herein lies the problem: customer service has as much to do with a company's reputation as sales, marketing, engineering, and finance. So integrate customer service into the mainstream of the company and do not consider it profit-sucking necessary evil. A customer service hero deserves all the accolades that a sales, marketing, or engineering one does.

Keep customers in the loop. Customers should never have to ask what are you doing. Let them know what's happening as you're doing something (such as look up up their account or researching an issue). Extend keeping customers in the loop beyond the actual communication as well - if you're having a service outage, post it right on the front of your support section. Be honest - tell them what's the problem, when service will be restored, and what you're doing to prevent it from happening again. Apologize profusely and don't be cheap (aka offer compensation). This way, customers feel that you appreciate them and do go out of your way to keep them in the loop.

Follow-up. Probably the biggest difference between acceptable and great customer service is how often (and how well) the customer service department follows-up. If a customer makes a suggestion, follow-up on it and give them a call or send them an email with the result. If a customer calls with a customer service problem and you believe it’s resolved, send them an email or give them a call asking if their problem has been resolved to their satisfaction. Make follow-ups personal (avoid “Our records indicate you had a problem on April 1, 2006. If you need further assistance, please contact us.”) and sincere and customers will truly appreciate it.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

 I am reading two things at the same time, and they prompt this question.  Do mobile communications devices primarily enhance or impede work/life balance?  That was the question that Korn/Ferry asked business executives.  The answer, reported in Law Firm Inc. was that 77%  say the devices enhance balance, while 18% say the devices impede the balance.  I have not seen data on how lawyers answer this question, but anecdotally, I hear many complain about always having to be "on-call" for their clients.

Anyway, at the same time I am glancing through Law Firm Inc., I am reading an article from LawPartnering.com about lawyers partnering with clients.  The former GC of Olin Corporation says that partners (lawyers and their partner clients) "are connected 24/7 by the use of technology" and calls are returned "within minutes."

So what's the right answer to the work/life question?  Law is a service business.  If you don't want confront the demands created by being in a service business, then find something else to do.  But having said that, these mobile devices allow one to be hiking in the mountains but still accessible for a critical call, as happened to me this summer.  Neither my wife nor my kids would have preferred that I be stuck in my office.  My partner Kirk Hartley routinely handles important calls while being a soccer dad, something he would not be able to do if he couldn't take the call away from the office.  Those who complain about having their "off hours" interrupted really are conceding that they would not have been accessible in the first place.  Those who put clients in second place are going to find out that they don't have to worry about the problem any more.  Those like my friend Dan Hull who live 24/7 for clients will find their client focus richly rewarded. 

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

Readers of this blawg know that I am a strong proponent of listening.  I invite you to look at earlier posts here, here and here.  Lately, I've been reading a blog called Client Service Insights, which has nothing to do with law but everything to do with client service.  Today's CSI contains a great post on listening--Two Mouths and One Ear?  The post title is drawn from a Mark Twain comment: "If we were meant to talk more than listen, we would have two mouths and one ear."   But clever quotes aside, I invite you to focus on  Leo Bottary's suggestion:

Being a truly good listener is arguably the most valuable skill you can develop - its applications both professionally and personally are too numerous to list.  For now, starting today, try to really concentrate on listening.  Don't simply focus on the next point you want to make, or on what you want to do later that evening.  Try to really listen to what others are saying.  You can't learn anything by talking, and if you're like me, there's still plenty left to learn.

Great suggestion.  Now, what was I going to say?

| 2 Comments | Permalink |

On August 30, 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported (pg. B1) that Holland & Knight was involved in a billing dispute with a client.  The article was reprinted in the September 4, 2006 issue of the Chicago Sun-Times: it is the firm's Chicago office that is embroiled in the dispute.  The details of the dispute are not of great moment, and in the interest of full disclosure, two of my partners (former Holland & Knight partners) are quoted in the article.  But while the details of this situation are not of moment, the article does beg the question of how a firm should handle a major billing issue with its client.

Let's assume one of the facts in the Holland & Knight story--a young partner claims that the billing partner, not involved in a piece of litigation--has dramatically overbilled the client for that matter.  From that, let's go to a place the Holland & Knight story does not go--that the young partner is threatening to make his complaint known to the client.  What should the firm do?

I have written previously about how to handle mistakes.   But that post involved errors in judgment, while this example involves an allegation of fraud.  Even if not true, the allegation itself can threaten the client relationship, with even the most loyal client wondering why the young partner made the allegations, and why.  It seems to me that simply denying the allegation is an incomplete response, potentially fatally so since it does not address the underlying questions that most certainly exist.

At the same time, simply offering to make an adjustment to the bill almost seems to validate the charge by the young partner, so that approach is not the preferred one either.  While potentially expensive, the response I propose is based on the notion that our integrity and credibility are traits that can never have an associated price tag.  With that as the premise, someone from the firm must be in the client's office as swiftly as humanly possible.  The issue must be identified candidly and the obvious distress to the firm and the client must be recognized.  The client must be assured that its confidence in the law firm and its lawyers is the firm's paramount objective, and to that end, the firm is prepared to refund the entirety of the fee paid by the client if, after investigation, there is any doubt on either side about the integrity of the bills and the billing process.  The firm should then volunteer to submit the entirety of its bill to examination by a neutral party agreeable to the client, with the firm to bear the entire expense.

There may perhaps be other ideas on how to retain the client's trust without putting the entirety of the fee at risk.  Perhaps the client herself will be the source of ideas, and most certainly the query should be made.

There remains the obvious personnel issue.  While retaining the whistleblower may be distasteful, terminating him sends a powerful and negative message.  To the extent there is merit to the claimed breach of trust, the person responsible to the lapse may need to leave, but at a minimum cannot be left in a position where the firm's integrity can again be compromised. 

To the extent the matter has become public, as in the Holland & Knight story, it seems to me that the matter must be addressed publicly and that the firm's clients need to be individually reassured that such behavior is an aberration and is not tolerated at the firm.  Toward this end, actions will always speak louder than words.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

  What do snakes and planes have to do with good client service?  That is the question I asked myself when I began reading Rob Millard's post Snakes On A Plane.  He answers the question.  Please read his post--it underscores some very fundamental truths.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

Interesting post in Rees Morrison's Law Department Management blog. Thoughts on Why Law Departments Retain Outside Counsel discusses several theories.  First,  brains vs brawn.  This theory postulates that inside counsel handle the routine stuff but turn to outside counsel for more challenging work.  Second, the overflow theory.  Here, outside counsel are retained whenever there is too much work for inside counsel to handle.  Third, the theory of core competency.  By this theory, inside counsel concentrate on those areas where they excel and outsource the rest.  The kissing cousin of this theory is the CYA theory--use outside counsel whenever a potential scapegoat is necessary.

I am hardly in a position to argue whether there is any truth to these theories.  But I have to say that they are strangers to my personal experience.  In my experience, good inside counsel want good teammates.  They can better leverage their skills, experience and understanding of the business by working with people who view them, and treat them, as a teammate.  And I always benefit from having inside counsel as a teammate precisely because they have to know more than I do about the business and typically the dispute.  Invariably, they're great brainstroming buddies.  They already have earned the confidence of inside management and potential witnesses.  I want that confidence to rub off on me--it makes my life so much easier.  And so on.

So now we've heard from a consultant and an outside counsel.  Inside counsel, what's the answer?

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Inside Counsel just published their 17th Annual Survey Of General Counsel.  Fascinating stuff.  Consistent with my recent posts on the Lake Wobegon Effect (here and here), the Survey reveals that 52% of law firm respondents graded their relationship with clients an A.  On the flip side, only 25% of General Counsel graded their relationship with law firms an A.  Seven percent graded the relationship a C, while no law firms graded the relationship a C.  68% of the firms said that the quality of service had improved over the past five years, but only 32% of the General Counsel Agreed.  At the other end, almost twice as many General Counsel as firms believed that service quality had declined (35% to 18%).

Do the law firms even care?  It doesn't seem so--80% of firms said they did not sent out client satisfaction surveys at the conclusion of matters.  One quote I found insightful came from Robert Johnson, Managing Counsel of McDonald's, who said "Firms claim to understand our business model, but many do not walk the walk.  They're more interested in impressing us with their esoteric philosophies than in reaching a resolution."  Ouch.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Dan Hull of What About Clients is the leader of the Good-Writing-Is-A-Necessity Bandwagon.  See some of his posts here.  But kudos to Michelle Golden of Golden Practices for keeping this critical topic front and center with her post highlighting the cost Rogers Communications, Inc. from a misplaced comma. (The cost is $2.13 million, by the way.) 

Its tempting to dismiss such stories with a dismissive "other-people-make-those mistakes-not-me" wave.  Resist that temptation.  Use the story as a reminder that a great deal rides on everything you do for your client, and your client is entitled to your very best, most-focused and concerted effort.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

I've long advocated face-to-face time with clients.  (See prior posts here and here.)  Larry Bodine put some real life spin on this advice in a great post.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

A couple of weeks ago, drawing on some material from Harry Beckwith, I wrote about Overcoming The Lake Wobegon Effect, the phenomenon by which law firms always overestimate the degree to which their clients are satisfied.  Now comes a nice post from Jim Hassett at Legal Business Development that provides some data to support the point.  The pervasiveness of The Lake Wobegon Effect should hardly be surprising--it is perfectly consistent with the self serving role bias found in studies by the Harvard Business School in research on negotiations.

Hopefully we are beyond the debate of whether the phenomenon exists and whether we suffer from it.  The real question is what to do about it.  More on that later.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

David Maister is well-known for his articulation of the concept of "the trusted advisor" and his book by the same title is an absolute must-read for anyone who wishes to develop the closest possible relationship with his or her client.  This book had a profound effect on my approach to my own clients, as it no doubt influenced so many others.

Because the topic is so close to my heart, I read Arnie Herz's post "lawyers as trusted advisors" with great interest.  Arnie writes the insightful legal sanity blog, and his post pulls together a number of important resources on the trusted advisor topic.  While not recent (written waaaaaay back in February), it is a contribution worth rereading.  One of the articles Arnie references contains a nice pyramid diagram of relationship development, starting with Level 1 "commodity work" and ending with Level 4 "trusted advisor."  I wonder how many of us know that we are stuck at Level 3, categorized as "consultative, well thought out advice."  How hard it must be to move up that one spot!  But the bottom line--that 46% of the surveyed executives had not forged this kind of close relationship with a legal advisor--makes it clear that a lot of lawyers have not crossed that critical threshold.  There not only is room for us to be better, but a demand for us to be better too.

Thanks to my friend Dan Hull whose post  brought Arnie's piece to my attention. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Picture this:  I'm driving to dinner with my four kids.  My wife is at her book club.  Desperate for a sound other than gameboys, I turn on NPR's Marketplace program.  The host, Kai Ryssdal, is interviewing Anne Mulcahy, the CEO of Xerox.  She had been with the company for 30 years when she was unexpectedly tapped to be the CEO, and it happened at a time when Xerox was not doing well.  You can read or listen to the interview here, but check this out:

RYSSDAL: So what did you do? You sat down in your office that day, that very first day in the corner office. How did you start thinking about how to turn this place around?

MULCAHY: I think I began by asking for advice. I knew that we had a very tough set of problems and that my best shot was really getting some great counsel and listening to what the issues were, so I took advantage of getting counsel from people that I thought could help me, and I basically got on a plane for 90 days and talked to our employees.

I talked to our customers. I talked to industry analysts, and I should say most of that time was listening, not talking, just really getting a handle on what had happened, what the real issues were, not the superficial kinds of implications, but what were the real fundamental issues and how could we put together a plan to solve them.

RYSSDAL: When you spent that 90 days on the airplane -- listening mostly, as you say -- what were people saying; the analysts, and, I guess, most importantly, the people who work here at Xerox?

MULCAHY: Well, I'll begin with our customers, who said that they loved our technology, but that our responsiveness was not what it needed to be. And the industry analysts would also agree this was a company that had great technology and innovation, but we'd spread ourselves too thin. We'd better make some pretty clear choices about who we wanted to be in the future and invest and focus on those.

And our people -- and this was the most encouraging part -- it was clear they would do anything that they needed to do to help this company survive. Very loyal, very strong culture, but they needed very clear direction.

RYSSDAL: Obviously, you did more things right than wrong because, first of all, we're sitting here today, and people who know way more about this than you or I talk about you in the same breath as people like Lou Gerstner, you know? That said, you didn't do everything right, probably. How did you recognize your mistakes and work around them?

MULCAHY: Well, there's no question that not everything was done right, and I think, from the outside, perhaps the progress looks a little bit more brilliant than it actually was. I would call this blocking and tackling; a lot of logic, a lot of back to basics, a lot of discipline.

It wasn't really the brilliance of the strategy. It was the discipline of the execution that turned this company around. So I think credit where credit's due would say it would go to the people of Xerox in terms of their combined set of actions that allowed us to execute with a great deal of discipline.

Imagine!  Going to your customers and listening to what they say, even when its not positive.  Responding to their input.  Having the discipline to execute your plan.  Part of me thinks "Business Success 101."  But the more knowing part of me can't help but admire the rarity of this formula.  Lessons for all of us.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

I was reading the "In-House Counsel" feature of The National Law Journal of April 10, 2006.  The featured lawyer was Andrew A. Merdek of Cox Enterprises, Inc.  In the section about his legal team and outside counsel, Merdek had this to say about his law firm, Washington-based  Dow, Lohnes & Albertson: "We don't have their phone number, we have their DNA."  Nice.  Sounds like a lawyer who is more than satisfied with his outside counsel.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

The Greatest American Lawyer has an interesting post--Lawyers Need to Get Their Priorities Straight--that is worth reading.  The post draws on GAL's new practice of having a routing sheet attached to paper that comes in the office that sets a priority for the paper.  GAL explains:

When documents arrive at our office by mail, fax or otherwise, a document routing cover sheet gets attached. That document routing cover sheet indicates everything that needs to happen to that document. This sheet identifies where the document is going to be filed on our file server. It indicates everyone the document needs to be transmitted to and how the document is transmitted either by email, leap file, mail, and fax or otherwise. All the calendaring gets Identified and due dates marked on the routing sheet. There are spots and check boxes for uploading the information into the extranet etc.

But the most important part of the routing sheet from my point of view is the priority, 1-4. My secretary attaches a routing sheet filling in the information which is within her control. She routes the paper based on her priority belief to my office. There is a spot for priority 1, priority 2, priority 3 and priority 4 items. I review the documents and reprioritize as necessary (seldom needed). I then fill in the rest of the information on the routing sheet and send it back to my staff, again on a priority bases.

Every piece of paper gets treated as quickly as the priority dictates. Those items which are priority 1 (Urgent) move through the office swiftly and almost always within a couple of hours. Level 2 priority items are next and typically move through the office the same day or within 24 hours. Category 3 priority items are taken care of as soon as the top two top priorities are taken care of.

Sure seems like a thoughtful way to reduce mistakes and make sure work is handled at the least expensive level.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Many fellow bloggers have followed up on the story in the New York Times that women represent only 17% of the partners in the nation's major firms.  I ended up posting a comment to Monica Bay's take on this story.  I would love to see the statistics because I suspect that what they show is that the 17% share is skewed toward the bottom of the partnership pool.  When it comes to statistics, firms have demonstrated phenomenal creativity to color the story.  Wanna bet some count income, non-equity partners in this mix, but of course wouldn't dream of doing so when calculating profits per partner

Monica ends her post by saying "duh!  We'll keep on hammering and hammering."  I might ask why?  I left a big firm rather than try to beat them at their game, and I am much happier for doing so.  There are enough women controlling enough business that starting new firms should be the norm for those stars whose talent is ignored or taken for granted.  

| 4 Comments | Permalink |

The March 27, 2006 issue of U.S. News & World Report contains a disturbing article on "The Fight For The Future: What America Must Do To Keep Up With Roaring Economies Like Those Of China, India, and South Korea."  Why disturbing?  Let me refer to some statistics cited:

• $194 billion spent by US companies on R&D.  $205 billion spent by US companies on tort litigation.
• 9-Rank of American eighth graders in science proficiency among 45 countries.  15-Rank of American eighth graders in math proficiency among 45 countries.
• 56--percentage of engineering Ph.D.'s awarded in the US that go to foreign-born students
• 6--number of the world's Top 25 information-technology companies based in US.  14--number of the world's Top 25 information-technology companies based in Asia.
• $33 billion--1990 US trade balance in high-tech manufactured goods.  -$24 billion--2004 US trade balance in high-tech manufactured goods.

I see these statistics and I think back to how "The Greatest Generation" responded when America was challenged.  US News writes:

For all the talk about what to do--which is likely to get louder in the years ahead--it may simply take a national dose of humility before America musters its famed resolve and strives once again for global leadership.

Unfortunately, the problems that lead to this statistics are ones that took years to create and will take decades to change.  Can America muster that kind of resolve for that length of time? 

You might be asking what this has to do with client service.  Let me respond with two questions:  Do you have the resolve it takes to provide great client service over an extended period of time?  Clients, do you have the resolve to get great client service over an extended period of time?  The challenges are dissimilar, but the character required to address them is not.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

  Michelle Golden posted on what I call the GC BS barometer.  She actually called her post "GC Sense That Building Relationships' Is A Euphemism For 'Give Us More Work.'"  From Michelle's post:

Little wonder that in law, for example, increasing numbers of General Counsel sense that when your firm talks about "building relationships" it becomes nothing more than a euphemism for "give us more work," while "providing added value" becomes interpreted to mean, "at higher rates!"

Let me begin with this premise.  One does not become the General Counsel of a business without being smart.  Book smart, sure.  But more so, street smart.  Savvy.  Good at reading people.  Knowing the smell of BS when the aroma is disguised with sweet perfume.

With that premise, one has to wonder whether lawyers preaching "added value" and "partnering" and "relationship building" are ready to acknowledge that these tools are used because they provide--at least they should provide--reciprocal benefits.  These are tools that law firms can use to build stronger relationships, which, over time, provide enormous benefits to the firm.  Those benefits should be known and acknowledged.  But the words themselves provide no inherent value to the client.  That, too, needs to be acknowledged.  In order to avoid triggering the BS barometer, it is essential that clients be shown exactly what benefits they receive from the promise of a "better relationship." 

There are, to be sure, great benefits that law firms can provide as part of an effort to build stronger relationships with clients.  The key to avoiding the problem identified in Michelle's post is to be specific and view the offering from the GC's perspective first and foremost.  Because if you can't get past the BS barometer, there will be no benefits for the firm.

By the way, this exquisitely honed barometer is precisely why, in my view at least, there should be nothing remotely resembling selling that takes place during a client satisfaction survey.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Last July, I posted a comment about negative referrals, using a personal experience. Because negative comments can be so devastating, I wanted to draw your attention to a great post by Larry Bodine.
Larry's post "Ain't Nothin' Worse Than Bad Word Of Mouth" relates several key findings from a study by the Verde Group, Consumer Contact, and the Baker Retailing Initiative at Wharton. Its a strong post with several compelling lessons, and I urge you to read it.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

In a private email congratulating me on the new appearance of ISOPCS, The Wired GC kindly sent me a picture to remind me of the juxtaposition between the idlyllic picture above and what we are if lose sight of the importance of client service.

Thanks for reminding us to keep our eye on the ball, John.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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. 

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

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."

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

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. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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?

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

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!).

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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!

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

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.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

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. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |