In Search of Perfect Client Service

It is year end.  Have the senior managers of your firm visited your firm's most important clients this month?  Has there at least been a phone call to each of the primary personnel you deal with at key clients?  If not, what on earth are you waiting for?  You should be looking for opportunities to ask your clients how you're doing and year end is one of the very best opportunities to ask. 

Remember, clients rarely fire their attorneys.  They simply stop hiring them.  So don't be foolish enough to believe that "if they had anything to say they'd say it" line.  You don't believe "the check is in the mail," do you?  So why would you be so gullible on client satisfaction.

Drop a dime.  It's a great investment.  No, make that it's the best investment.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

John DiJulius writes that the customer experience can be viewed through this formula: Reality - Experience = Customer Experience. I would change this a bit, to Reality - Expectation = Customer Experience.  Clearly, this formula can lead to a negative number.  The nice thing about this formula is that it forces the person employing it, in our context a lawyer, to recognize that its about what the customer thinks he or she experienced and what the customer expected, rather than what the lawyer's thinks the customer experienced or expected.  Focus on the Customer Experience from the customer's perspective is critical if you want to be known for the quality of your customer service.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Over the weekend, I was cleaning out some old files on my computer and I ran across a slide show I had put together for a presentation on client service.  I thought I would post them here.

There were two over-arching points to the presentation that are worth reminding yourself of everyday:

1.   You need to know what your client thinks about you.  In detail. Not asking, assuming you know, drawing inferences--those approaches are for losers.  Ask.  Ask aggressively, by which I mean you should frame your questions in ways that are design to elicit criticism.  You must never lose sight of the truth that no lawyer is perfect. Because that is so, every client should have criticisms are suggestions on how you can improve performance or the delivery of value. 

2.   The second truth is that if you hear the word "fine" (as in, "everything is fine"), understand that you've just been sentenced to death.  And if you doubt me, remember this post the next time you're out at a restaurant having a mediocre or worse meal, and your waiter asks how everything is, and you answer with "everything is fine."  You need clients who are more than satisfied, more than pleased.  You need clients who are advocates, who think you are so great that they want to have legal problems just so they can deal with you. 

Certain companies have effectively branded themselves by providing such extraordinary products and services that they become the standard by which competitors are judged.  If your service firm is not the benchmark by which others in your industry are judged, you have room to improve, and improving enough to become the industry benchmark should be a focal point of your efforts.  Anyone who is not the standard is at grave risk of losing clients.

| Continue Reading | 0 Comments | Permalink |

Trust me, for a moment at least, that all of the following points eventually will come together.

Every time I have the opportunity, I ask in-house counsel about whether their lawyers conduct formal or informal satisfaction meetings.  Almost invariably, the answer is no.  I always follow up by asking whether the client would find such meetings useful.  With equal frequency, the answer is yes.

From time to time, I ask lawyers whether they conduct formal or informal satisfaction meetings.  Almost invariably the answer is no.  When explaining why, lawyers almost always say the same thing:  if there is anything wrong, my client will tell me.  The gist of their point is that their relationship with their client is special and how dare for me for even implying that something so gauche as a discussion is needed.

Last night, as I am watching multiple channels at once, I am caught by a moment on a Dr. Phil-type show where the husband and wife are discussing their most intimate problems in front of a nationwide audience (and with syndication, perhaps a world-wide audience).  Breakthrough after breakthrough.  The Dr. Phil-type host offers this profound insight:  "your problem is that the two of you don't talk about your problems" (except in front of this nationwide audience).  He then goes on at length about how every relationship has problems (I think "hiccups" was the technical term) and that only by identifying them and talking them through can you hope to keep them from growing from small problems to bigger ones and, with good and candid talk, put them behind you.  Hardly profound, but most certainly true.

Also last night, I watched two of my kids, within the space of a few minutes, go from being BFFs to being unable to be in the same room to being, once again, BFFs.  The solution, a short but candid talk (with yours truly in the Dr. Phi-type role) asking each to explain why she was upset and what her perspective on the problem was.   The eye-opening moment?  When each saw the other's perspective, their own assessment seemed "less correct" and their judgment less harsh.

How do these three vignettes tie together?  Many (most?) outside lawyers operate on the premise that their personal relationship with their client is different that all other relationships that exist between people on our planet.  Every relationship has its problems.  Oh, excuse me--every relationship except for that individual lawyer's relationship with his or her client.  That one relationship is special.  But do the math.  It can't be that every relationship between every lawyer and every client is "special"--that is, immune from the rules of relationships that apply in every other kind of relationship.  And if not all lawyer and client relationships are special, the question that must be asked by each lawyer is why my relationships are different from all others?  Lawyers are never good at asking that question and it is doubtful that this short rant will cause any epiphanies.  But suffice it to say, until lawyers wake up and smell the relationship coffee, they will be missing the opportunity to "bulletproof" their relationships.  (Click here for a discussion of BulletProofing, a Gerry Riskin term that is more important than ever in today's difficult economic times.)

Now, does anyone what to discuss being shortsighted?

| 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 |

Over the past several months, Jim Hassett, Dan Hull, Michelle Golden, Tom Kane, Tom Collins (via guest blogger Jim Remsen) and I (and if I have left out anyone involved in the dialogue, my profound apologies) have been having an on-going dialogue about client satisfaction surveys. Good summary posts are here and here.

Jim Hassett then advanced the ball even further with a provacative post "Should You Sell During Client Satisfaction Reviews." Jim quoted Womble Carlyle's Director of Sales, Steve Bell:

"At a client service review,the lawyer and his/her client are supposed to dig in and candidly discuss what's going on at the company. It's a chance for the client to wax eloquent about problems and dreams... At least to this salesman, for a lawyer to uncover problems (or opportunities) and not to provide a solution (yes, even one that the lawyer himself can address for a fee), is the equivalent of a doctor knowing that you have heart palpitations and not doing anything about it....When a client talks about problems (or opportunities), he/she wants advice and suggestions from a lawyer every bit as much as a patient does from a doctor."

This led to some further comment by Michelle Golden (here and here)and Dan Hull (here). Jim Hassett then provided input from the inestimable Gerry Riskin (here). Gerry's take is this:

I believe that both Steven and I view the primary purpose of a client visit as an opportunity to ensure that there is a high level of client satisfaction and to reduce the probability that the client might migrate to a different law firm. This is achieved through listening and learning. Few lawyers understand their clients' businesses or industries as well as the clients would like and we agree that this is a critical objective for the visit. It follows that this is a key ingredient of the training of lawyers require to make such visits.

The delicate question is this: What is the appropriate reaction in a client visitation when it becomes obvious that there is a legal need that your firm is not currently fulfilling. My view is that the primary purpose of the visit must not be abandoned (or appear to be abandoned). At the same time I agree completely with Steven Bell that the doctor must help the patient. I don't believe that Steven is advocating throwing the patient onto the gurney and tossing our note pads into the trash. I used the word "delicate" because there is some judgment to be exercised here.

Tom Kane then followed with an insightful post (here). Tom offered his thoughts on whether you can sell during a client satisfaction meeting:

In my mind, you can't ask a law firm client for feedback on "how the firm/attorneys are doing?" and "what can we do better?", while at the same meeting and in the next breath say, "oh, by the way, can we also take on your employment litigation cases."

Although this is unlikely to be the final word on this topic, my take from the long and terrific exchange on this topic is this: A lawyer or law firm gains from every face to face meeting with the client, and those meetings should be as frequent as possible. Most of those meetings should be directed to providing service or exploring needs that the client has. The client satisfaction meeting, however, is critical and must be treated as distinct, both in form and in substance. It is a chance for the spotlight to be shifted from the client to the firm, and for the client to provide insights that the firm should desperately want to hear about how it can render service in a way that makes the client happier, more satisfied and more committed to the firm. This keeps the client satisfaction meetings separate in the critical spot they deserve.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

In late January, I was one of several bloggers posting about who should be conducting client surveys and whether the surveys should be a disguised or blantant selling vehicle. Check this post for background. Jim Hassett continues this dialogue today with his post at Law Firm Business Development.

Its a very interesting post. The Director of Sales at Wombyle Carlyle takes issue with the notion that selling should not be a part of a client service survey. Jim quotes him:

"At a client service review, the lawyer and his/her client are supposed to dig in and candidly discuss what's going on at the company. It's a chance for the client to wax eloquent about problems and dreams... At least to this salesman, for a lawyer to uncover problems (or opportunities) and not to provide a solution (yes, even one that the lawyer himself can address for a fee), is the equivalent of a doctor knowing that you have heart palpitations and not doing anything about it....When a client talks about problems (or opportunities), he/she wants advice and suggestions from a lawyer every bit as much as a patient does from a doctor."

I beg to differ, and strongly. Maybe it is a matter of semantics, but there is a difference between a doctor knowing you have heart palpitations and fixing the problem with a prescription and a doctor listening to your symptoms and ordering a battery of tests to figure out what ails the patient. The latter requires investigation, analysis and listening. There is a difference between hearing what the law firm can do to improve the work it is currently doing and whether there is more work to handle. I've done north of twenty client service interviews. I know clients are savvy enough to distinguish between a discussion about how you can serve them better and how you can serve them more.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Tom Kane of Legal Marketing Blog weighs in here.  His post's title aside, Tom most certainly is not part of the "peanut gallery."  Its a strong post.  Please read it.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Latest in the series--Jim Hassert at Law Firm Business Development with Part 5 of his series on this most important topic.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Four posts today follow up on a conversation among Jim Hassert, Dan Hull and me.  For a summary, see this post.  The issue we discussed was whether the person conducting the satisfaction survey should be associated with the firm.  Jim followed up with some further thoughts today, reaching the conclusion that he was comfortable with his original opinion that someone from the firm should do the interview.  Dan Hull then posted that he was persuaded that Jim and I were right (putting aside for a moment the fact that I stated I no longer was sure that the interviews should be conducted by firm members).  Then Michelle Golden weighed in with a terrific post (even though she ignored my post on the topic!) in which she persuasively argues that the interviews should be conducted by a neutral third party. Dan Hull then threw up his hands!

As I said in my post, I was impressed with BTI Consulting's data-driven analysis:  "The most interesting things for me where its conclusions that outsiders can more effectively get the client's real feelings and that the number one question for determining client satisfaction is not a ranking on any kind of scale, but instead whether the client has referred the firm to someone else." At the moment, my feeling is that the lead should be an outsider, but that a senior partner should be present.  The insider can sense nuance that the outsider may not, and certainly the presence of the senior partner communicates both the importance the firm attaches to the process as well as the value of the client to the firm.  Completely outsourcing the process makes it appear to be a checkbook issue, clearly the wrong impression.

As a final note, I could not agree more strongly with Michelle Golden that these encounters should not be for marketing.  Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

I've written several times about client surveys.  For example, here and here.  The case for conducting client surveys is so compelling that its hard to believe that there are firms that don't do them, let alone that the majority of firms don't do them.

I saw from this post by Dan Hull that his firm does client surveys and that he is thinking about methodology.  I also saw from his post that Jim Hassert at Law Firm Business Development has a series of posts about doing satisfaction surveys.  They are Part I, Part II and Part III.  Jim describes Akin Gump's experience and its manner of doing the surveys.  Interesting.

I have been doing client surveys for a decade.  With that experience, I believe the lawyers involved in serving the client should not be involved in the satisfaction survey.  Familiarity can inhibit candor.  I have always believed that the senior members of firm leadership should do the surveys since their presence underscores the importance of the process.  In December, however, I occasion to attend a breakfast meeting hosted by BTI Consulting Group.  BTI provides data-driven analyses of questions that vex law firm marketers.  The data and analysis relating to client surveys can be purchased here.  The most interesting things for me where its conclusions that outsiders can more effectively get the client's real feelings and that the number one question for determining client satisfaction is not a ranking on any kind of scale, but instead whether the client has referred the firm to someone else.  Referrals are the byproduct of true satisfaction.  For me, these two points were food for thought.

 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

I was reading the latest issue of Law Firm Inc. (one of my "must reads") and stopped at the "On Management" column about client interviews.  I started reading, but had to stop.  The article made too much sense.  Every article about client interviews makes too much sense.

We've been doing client interviews for nearly five years.  They are incredibly significant to the strength of our firm's relationships with our clients.  So why the title of this post?  Its this:  if people haven't picked up on this by now, they never will.  And just like people who refuse to give out their home telephone numbers, it works out much the better for moi.

Seriously, if you wonder, ask your clients if they would like to be interviewed.  Every client with whom we've discussed the matter heartily endorses the process.

 

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

Yesterday, I began a discussion of questions a client could ask a prospective (or current) firm to determine whether the firm is truly committed to providing outstanding client service.  Today, three addition questions.

4.   How many client satisfaction surveys does the firm conduct each year?  If the answer is few or none, how can a firm boast of providing great service.  Not only is it part of great service to ensure a client is pleased, but only by asking and being judged can you determine, from the client's perspective, whether the service your provide is exceptional or not.

5.  What changes have been implemented or adopted as a result of client satisfaction surveys?  No one is perfect, and changes adopted because of a client's suggestion reflect a firm that listens and one that is seeking to improve.  Both are measures of a firm committed to providing outstanding client service.

6.  What happens to a lawyer who is criticized?  There's only one acceptable answer here.  Nothing.  Why is that?  Because if criticism is viewed as anything other than an opportunity to improve, to do something better, to provide better service, no one will want to hear it.  And if there is any hint of penalty (other than perhaps for repeat offenders), its hard to imagine that there will be meaningful commitment to hearing all possible criticism no matter how constructive.

Tomorrow, in Part III of this series, questions a client can ask about fees and what the answers mean in terms of client service.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |