In Search of Perfect Client Service

Mistakes.  Everyone hates them, but everyone makes them.  The thing that separates great client service from lawyers looking for new clients is how you deal with them.  Some time ago, I provided a prescription for dealing with mistakes in my post, After The Mistake.  Noted blogger Jim Calloway picked up on my post here, which was special for me given Jim's stature in the blogging community. 

Given the importance of dealing with mistakes, I read with great interest Charles Green's post, Apologies, Forgiving and Forgiveness, in his Trust Matters blog.  Charles obviously is the real deal, so his writing is worthy of your attention.  He picks up on an article by Martha Beck, Always Apologize, Always Explain, in Oprah magazine.  Green's post picks up on an important issue--the expectation of forgiveness that frequently accompanies an apology, and how that expectation actually undermines the apology.  He writes:

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 |

Tonight I was driving home.  It was too late for Marketplace (see this post), so I was listening to 848, original programming from Chicago Public Radio.  The restaurant Tru is one of Chicago's finest, and was just voted as having the best service of any restaurant in the country.  Because I am one of those crazies who believe that law firms can learn from non-law businesses, I was all ears.  You can listen to the full program here. 

Here are some of the notes I made as I re-listened to the program:

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.

These look like good lessons to me.  But what do I know?

(If you listen to the broadcast, you'll understand the significance of the photo.  But let me just say two words--sausage king.)

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Yesterday, I wrote about the language of customer loyalty and I just posted about the importance of the customer's experience.  Following this theme, I want to refer you to a recent post by Ron Baker on the Verasage blog, Earning My Mouse Ears, Part III: The Disney Approach To Customer Loyalty.  (Again, for those of you who believe that what happens in the real world has no relevance to the legal world, read no further.)  Here is the dominating message from Ron's post: 

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.

Part I and Part II of Ron's Disney experience trilogy are central to understanding the dynamic of one of America's leading customer service institutions.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Last night while driving home, I had a chance to listen to Marketplace, one of my favorite programs on NPR.  Good luck for me.  I heard a story that would make Kevin Roberts (originator of the Lovemarks! concept) and Dan Hull (author of What About Clients and noted proponent of the boutique experience) proud.

The story was about Tom Stemberg.  Stemberg founded supply giant Staples in 1986.  He developed something known as the "category killer," a name given to chains like Staples or Home Depot that dominate specific retail segments.  Stemberg is nimble too.  Today, he is the Managing General Partner of Highland Capital Partners, a venture capital firm.  HCP has created a fund to invest in retail, but not in "category killers."  Stemberg is quoted on the show as saying retail is not about category killers anymore.  "The real opportunities are serving consumer niches which are too small to be served by the very large stores."  He goes on to say that "I think there's lots of opportunities to serve customers better and to make a lot of money doing so."  Highland has created a $300 million Consumer Fund to invest in companies "with unique product or service attributes."

The Marketplace story went on to interview Patty Edwards, an analyst at Wenworth, Houser & Violich.  Her money quote:

"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."

Kevin Roberts has been singing this tune for a while, though in fairness to the Magic Circle and Amlaw 100, neither Roberts nor Tom Stemberg have applied this concept to the legal industry.

And we all know that the legal industry is unique, unlike any other and that we have nothing to learn from other industries.  Right?

You can listen the full Marketplace story here.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

    I recently posted (again) on the Lake Wobegon effect, the phenomenon that results in law firms chronically overestimating the quality of the relationship the firms have with their clients.  (See This Just In: General Counsel Less Than Thrilled With Their Outside Counsel.)  I am honored that two noted bloggers have picked up on the post and added some suggestions that those who wish to combat the phenomenon should study.

Edge International partner Rob Millard suggested that "when contemplating a law firm strategy formulation process, [firms] go out into the market and test empirically what your clients' perceptions of your services are."  Rob further suggested that the testing be both qualitative as well as quantitative, and that any reliance on internal perceptions be heavily discounted in light of the data on the Lake Wobegon effect.  Rob's full post is his terrific blog, The Adventure Of Strategy.  Those who read my blog regularly know that there is no bigger fan of Edge, and I am humbled by Rob's reference to my post.

Arnie Herz (Go Blue!) writes the insanely great legal sanity blog.  His post, "how can law firms fix their client service problems?," also offered some solutions to the Lake Wobegon effect discussed in my post.  Arnie notes the most difficult problem is admitting that a problem exists.  Arnie then references a series of questions (here and here) posted by friend Jim Hassett, who writes Legal Business Development.  Thanks, Arnie, for using Jim's posts to bring focus to possible solutions.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Harry Beckwith was interviewed by "the authors of Knowledge Leadership, The Thomas Group.  Here is a most interesting Q and A:

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.

So, client satisfaction is not enough.  Client loyalty misses the point. Client evangelism is a marketer's term.  What term, pray tell, is appropriate?  Well, Harry doesn't offer one.  I suggest returning to any oldie, but one that hasn't been bested--Raving Fans.  The term was made popular in the early 1990s by Ken Blanchard, who wrote Raving Fans: A revolutionary approach to customer service.

There is a great deal of similarity between Harry Beckwith's "continuous improvement" views and those in Raving Fans.  The bottom line, however, is that regardless of terminology, you need to do whatever it takes so that your clients think of you first every time they have an issue in your wheelhouse.  Its even better if they are so comfortable with you and confident in your advice that your client calls you to discuss every issue of importance, regardless of whether its in your wheelhouse.  So, resist the temptation to set the "client happiness" meter low.  Instead, challenge yourself to find ways to raise the bar higher each day.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

The July 2007 edition of Inside Counsel just arrived.  This is the edition that has the results of the survey of General Counsel.  Fascinating reading.

First, the Lake Wobegon effect continues to be alive and well.  (I've covered the issue here, here and here.)  Only 19% of outside lawyers give their outside firms an "A" for overall performance (down from 21% last year and 22% in 2005).  Over 60% of the law firms give themselves an "A".   Almost 40% of surveyed in-house counsel believe law firms pad their bills.  Only 10% of outside lawyers share that belief.  Seventy percent of inside counsel disagree with the notion that law firms are actively seeking ways to reduce the cost of their services, while 56% of the outside lawyers believe firms are seeking to do so.  Almost 40% of the inside lawyers feel law firms make too much money; only 9% of the outside lawyers share that belief.  Just under 30% of inside counsel respondents believe the level of service provided by their law firms has improved over the past five years, while almost 70% of the firms agree that service has improved.

Some of the quotes in the survey report are instructive:

"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

There is little in this report that should help managing partners sleep well at night.  Save for one thing.  It appears that despite the increasing volume of complaints about matters of great importance, there is no epidemic of firms being fired.  But some day, inside counsel may realize that theirs is a buyers market.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Whether in the legal field or not, examples of great client service always convey important lessons.  Ed Poll at LawBiz Blog relates some terrific examples in his post, Building customer relationships is the key to success.  Thanks, Ed.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Just got back from a couple of days at Camp Shin Go Beek, a Cub Scout camp in northern Wisconsin.  That's my son, Steven, on the left.  The lake was low this year, and with 10 Scouts and 10 adults on the dock, there was too much risk in casting, so the fishing was pretty lame.  But Steven caught a tiny blue gill.  He couldn't have been happier.  "It didn't matter that the fish was small," he told me on the ride home.  "It just mattered that I caught a fish."

After a while, I started thinking about what he said in terms of client service.  And I remembered some of the comments I've heard in client satisfaction interviews or that I have heard directly from my own clients.  Sometimes the little things made them smile big.  Its a lesson I'll remember as a Dad and as a lawyer.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Sometimes good client service happens because 800 pound gorillas insist on it.  Here's a good example.  Kudos to the heavyweights.

| 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."

From Mark Chandler's speech, referenced in the preceding entry.

Why the beach ball?  Because perspective is everything.  From one angle, you can tell there are 3 white and 3 blue sections.  From another angle, the majority of what you see is white and, from another angle, the majority of the ball is blue. 

Everyone should have reminder to help them focus on the other person's perspective.  My reminder is the beach ball.  What's yours?

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

With thanks to Dan Hull's What About Clients for bringing this my attention (here is the post), those interested in client service should spend time thinking about "Insight #1" on Leo Bottary's Client Service Insights.  Appearing right on the top banner, it states "Client service excellence isn't about doing what no one else can do; it's about doing what anyone can do, but just doesn't." 

There is no silver bullet.  There is no magic pill.  There is no unique idea that will set you apart from everyone else--or if there is, the uniqueness will last only until others discover your idea and copy it.  But like everything else of value, execution is everything.  I've written about this before--here and here--but the point is so important that I don't hesitate to write about it again.  Focus and a willingness to work harder at the basics of client service will differentiate you from the majority who just can't be bothered or refuse to make the kind of commitment needed to really execute.

The simple fact is that client service really is about culture.  Dan Hull's firm has created rules and lives by them.  Those who don't live by them don't stay.  There are a few other firms who make the institutional commitment, but far too few.  Instead, we have those who talk the talk and at many firms we find some islands of service amidst oceans of apathy. 

If you care, break a sweat.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Great story on Monday's All Things Considered on NPR about the ramifications of poor customer service.  The key is that customers who have a negative experience are more likely to talk about it, and are likely to embellish it.  The story is based on a study by the Wharton School of Business.  The critical conclusion--those who hear negative word of mouth are not likely to buy the from the seller who is the subject of the critical story.  Go here to listen to the story--its worth the short time it takes. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

From Guy Kawasaki and his wonder How to Change the World comes "Airline Boarding Pass Kiosk," a great example of someone thinking like a customer and then implementing the needed changes:

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 |

I find myself holding restaurant menus as far away as possible just to know whether I'm ordering something I actually want.  I glanced at one of my business cards the other day and I couldn't read my phone or email addresses. 

Here's the story.  I'm turning 50 in two weeks.  I have to wear reading glasses. Sometimes they are not nearby and I certainly don't want to put them on to read the business card of somebody I just met.  And I certainly don't want clients having to struggle to read my email address or phone number.  What's the answer?  Larger font on business cards.

While you're at it, think about the font size on your powerpoint slides.

Remember, old guys like me are not the exception anymore.  As baby boomers move up in the world and edge closer to retirement, there are more people with my symptoms than ever before. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Still catching up on some old blog posts I saved.  Two terrific posts from Guy Kawasaki on customer service here and here.  Here are a couple of sound bites to wet your appetite to read the entirety of both posts:

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.

If you're hungry, there is lots of food for thought in these posts.  Of course, Guy is not a lawyer and so these posts are not law-specific. You'll need to read with an open mind!

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

   My friend, Dan Hull, of What About Clients? fame, has established himself as one of the blawgosphere's leading thinkers on client service issues.  I have to resist the temptation to link to every one of his posts, but some are just so compelling that the post deserves every effort to have it read by the broadest possible audience.  So, if there are any who find this blawg who don't subscribe to WAC? (you should change that immediately!), this post is for you.

Starting by noting that The Folgers Coffee Company had just received an Ease-of-Use Commendation from the Arthritis Foundation for its new cannister, Dan asks why law firms don't develop and apply ease-of-use concepts to our services.  The full discussion is a must read.  And I strongly recommend following the link to find the "ease-of-use" standards applied by the team of scientists who conduct the reviews (click here to get there).  The key is evaluation of the product from the standpoint of a person with arthritis.  In our world, we have to ask ourselves whether any of us really look at our firms critically from the standpoint of a client. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

I just finished a terrific article by Joel Henning in the January/February issue of Executive Counsel.  Joel's article is "Law Firms and Great Hotels."  He relays his conversation with Ellen Dubois du Bellay, Vice President for Learning and Development of The Four Seasons, generally acknowledged to be at the forefront of outstanding customer service.  One of the many things that struck me was her statement that "our service excellence is based on making sure we have the right people to start with." 

That is a pretty easy thing to say--most businesses and law firms would say the same thing.  But Ms. Dubois du Bellay then explained how every single person hired by The Four Seasons, regardless of position, interviewed at least 5 times.  The last interview is by the General Manager of the Hotel at which the person will be employed.  This means that the General Manager of every Four Seasons Hotel or Resort interviews every maid, every waiter, every bellman.  Joel (ever the master of the understatement) then writes: "I know of very few law firms that explore the attitudes of job candidates as thoroughly as The Four Seasons."

Most every law firm website pays homage to the idea of client service.  A prospective client who wants to know if the firm is walking the walk or simply talking the talk would do well to ask if the law firm cares as much about client service as The Four Seasons.

I am reminded of a conversation with my friend, Gerry Riskin.  Gerry was talking about his time as a Managing Partner of a law firm, and he recounted how he thought that one of the most important interviews he did was for the receptionist, since she had more client contact than any one else in the firm.  I wonder how many other Managing Partners make it a point to do as Gerry did.

We have a lot to learn from businesses like The Four Seasons.  More to come.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

My friend Dan Hull has a short post reminding us of the International Business Law Consortium (which Dan's firm and my firm, courtesy of Dan, are members of).   That reminder, by itself, is a good thing.  But the better part of Dan's post is his link to a prior post on the IBLC.  His prior post, comparing expanding US and UK law firms to "a spastic hamburger franchise, is a must read for anyone doing business internationally (which has to be almost everyone these days).

  

So, to Dan's point, Big Mac?  Or perhaps something a little more, umm, tailored to your desires?

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Thanks to Tom Kane, I was referred to a post by Pamela Slim in  Escape From Cubicle Nation (by the way, I love the blog's subtitle--"How to go from corporate prisoner to thriving entrepreneur").  The post is "The key to small business success: be the sharpest knife in the drawer."  It's a wonderful story--Pamela's mother buys her a sharp knife for Christmas and suddenly Pamela is left wondering how she survived without it.  She offers her insurance agent as an example of someone in business being a sharp knife.  Pamela goes on to offer 5 rules for staying sharp, all of which influence the quality of customer service.  Rather than repeat them all, check out her post.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Thought leaders like Tom Peters and Kevin Roberts have written about the transformation of service into experience.  That is, simply providing great service is not enough to develop the intense loyalty one wants from clients.  Instead, the client's entire experience must be so intensely satisfying and special that the client wants to repeat it.  Those who want to think further along this line should read Daniel Pink's "A Whole New Mind."  Great book.  Very thought provoking. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Everybody knows the Miranda warnings.  You have the right to remain silent.  You have the right to an attorney.  And so forth.  I was involved in a conversation recently that made me wonder whether we in the legal profession ought not have a similar set of rights for our clients that all lawyers could recite as easily as any fan of TV cop shows can recite the Miranda warnings.

Here was the exchange.  I asked this question:  Should a client have the right to approve a course of conduct that will cause fees to exceed an agreed upon budget?  I was shocked by some of the answers I heard.  More than half the lawyers who answered me said that the client should simply pay the bill if the work was properly done.  More than half!!!!  Client "Miranda" warning number 1:  You have the right to approve a course of conduct that will cost you money!  And corollary number 1:  If I forget to ask your permission to do something that costs you money, you have the right to not pay me.  That's right, if a lawyer exceeds a budget for a task or a time period without telling the client it is about to happen and discussing the best way to handle the situation, the lawyer ought not be paid.

The operative concept here is budget discipline.  Our clients live by it.  Those that don't live by it all to frequently die by it--that is, are fired because of it.  In this day and age, with all the technology available to track expenditures and time, there is no excuse for exceeding a budget.  Indifference doesn't count.

| 2 Comments | Permalink |

On November 8, 2006,  a judge in Fulton County, Georgia, disqualified Duane Morris from representing Nan Smith and Alex Smith in an arbitration brought by McKesson Information Solutions, LLC because Duane Morris also represented two other McKesson subsidiaries in an unrelated bankruptcy proceeding.  Since this decision was announced, two clients has lamented about the hubris of "big firms" when it comes to retention letters and the prospective waivers such letters generally include.  One of these clients has gone so far as to implement a corporate policy that it will not sign retention letters: law firms either sign the company's policies for outside counsel or do not represent the client.  The other client advised me to have the Butler Rubin web site feature prominently that we generally do not have conflicts of interest.  That simple fact of geometric progression aside, I am left to wonder about the "client focus" bona-fides of any firm that chooses to pursue a matter adverse to a client where the client has refused to waive the conflict.  That pursuit signifies that the firm has decided that one client is more important than the other, and that rather than step to the sidelines, it will risk its relationship with the client for a single matter.  Maybe I am missing something--and if so, I'd love to hear the contrary position--but the thinking in such decision-making seems to be anything but client-focused.

| 1 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.

What are the reasons so many fail to make that final jump to Level 4, trusted advisors? From the comments made in the article Arnie references, I am left wondering whether the pressure to bill hours is at least one of the culprits. The article talks about the frequency that invoicing issues get in the way of the relationship. Although not expressed, I get the impression that the executives who have that Level 4 relationship with their legal advisors spend more time (and most likely more time off the clock) with their lawyers. It is so very true that face time is great time, especially when it is invested time rather than billed time. I would love to hear what others think about the primary barriers to moving from Level 3 to Level 4.

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