Zeughauser Group's Attack On ACC Value Index Misses The Boat
The ACC Value Index, a new tool for in-house lawyers to rate law firms, has caused endless consternation among law firms. First, it was the marketers, thinking it unfair that the system was closed to the firms. "What if someone says something bad about us?," they worried. "How will we market around that negative ranking?" The firms next moved to more elaborate challenges. "The questions are unfair!" "How dare you condemn an entire firm if one partner screws up!"
Of course, no firm wants to be at the forefront of criticizing the organization that speaks on behalf of clients. So it was hardly surprising that some consulting firm that sells its services to these firms would emerge as a spokesman for the large firms. The Zeughauser Group's November 2009 "Call To Action" contains every criticism firms might have with the Value Index. The criticisms really fall flat.
Criticism No. 1: The law firms can't see the ratings. This is called a "serious flaw." This is a big yawn. If firms were actually working with their clients, trying to better serve their clients' needs, they would not be surprised by any ratings. That that don't know these things is an indictment of the firms, not the Value Index.
Criticism No. 2: The Value Index asks clients to rate matters based on individual offices and practices areas. That is unfair, according to Zeughauser, because firms "'strive to put the best team on the field' for each client matter, staffing matters with lawyers from several practice areas and offices if that is what will deliver the best and most cost-effective service, expertise and result for the client." The language sounds like it was written by a second-rate PR firm. Since when have firms been concerned about "cost-effective service?" But to the point, Zeughauser surely knows that however many offices or practice groups are assigned, there is a primary locale and a primary practice group on virtually every matter. Consider it an evaluation of team leaders.
Criticism No. 3: The Value Index does not "collect specific actionable data that would be helpful to law firms striving to better align the cost and value of legal services." The Value Index is a tool for buyers of services, not sellers. Get over it and go figure out for yourself how to provide more value.
Criticism No. 4: You damn firms instead of lawyers. As one friend said of this criticism, "I think all of this is akin to suggesting that as consumers we should not hold Campbell's soup responsible because we discover rodent parts, when we open one of their soup tins. 'It was really only a small snag within the Ox Tail Soup bottling line, and should not be a reflection on the quality standards of the whole company.'" Firms have spent millions (or more) trying to brand themselves. They do not have standing to say their brand cannot be judged.
Zeughauser's actions are shameful pandering to their customer base. Law firms, in turn, need to stop acting like spoiled babies and grow the hell up. I'm not suggesting the Value Index is perfect, but the reaction of BigLaw to it reminds me of a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum in a public place. But instead of acting like a responsible parent and telling the child to stop and deal constructively with the circumstance, the Zeughauser Group is enabling the problematic behavior.
