Header graphic for print

In Search of Perfect Client Service

Why lawyers don't seem to get it

Effective torture does not make torture acceptable

Posted in General

Note: This post is a deviation from my normal topic and expresses a personal political view.  I appreciate your indulgence.

I can no longer remain silent.  I hope that others abandon their silence and speak loudly on this issue, particularly during this season of renewal.

I have been watching the discussions about the Senate Intelligence Committee with a sense of profound disappointment as the discussions devolved into a debate about whether torture was effective.  The premise of the argument is that if torture is effective, it is an acceptable thing to do.  As much as I hate the bad guys and despise what they have done and continue to do to my country, I reject the embrace of torture with every ounce of my being.

Torture is antithetical to the United States of America. There is no principled line to be drawn between what our government did and what every single one of us would decry as inhumane torture.  If the acts our government performed were performed on American servicemen, many would seek violent retribution against the offenders.  If those same acts were committed against American servicewomen, the offense and outcry would be even greater.  If another government rationalized the same acts if committed on civilians from our country, still more would be angered to point of demanding war as a response.  We all know—everyone one of us—that torture is damnedably wrong when committed against our families or our fellow Americans.

But look at other challenges to the unprincipled nature of the torture performed by our government.  Would we feel it was “okay” if the acts were committed on women instead of men who look evil?  What about children?  Could we torture children if someone believed doing so would save American lives?  There is no line to the drawn in the argument the torturer’s use to justify their behavior: whatever it takes to avoid another attack. We can only pray that as a country we have not sunk so low that any means can be justified because some politician self-righteously proclaims that the heinous acts “save American lives.”  Those claims are almost always impossible to prove true, but even assuming their truth should never justify the means to that end.

There are arguments that use of torture places Americans at risk in the future, servicemen and servicewomen, contractors and civilians alike.  There are arguments that America’s stature in the world has been irreparably damaged by its disgraceful conduct.  Those arguments are likely true, but to me, they are irrelevant.  Torture is wrong regardless of the outcome and ramifications.  It does not become right or wrong because of how other countries respond.

Perhaps not surprisingly, former Vice President Dick Cheney has emerged as the chief supporter of torture as a tactic, arguing that “what 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters did to  3,000 Americans on 9/11” was worse. As if that is the benchmark for judging right and wrong.  As if being able to claim the high ground in comparison to terrorists is good enough for the United States of America. It is not a standard the America I believe in would use to judge itself.  I feel only sadness for amoral world that Cheney has created for himself.

The United States of America is a moral and righteous country.  At least we used to be. I hope we aspire to be so again.  It is not easy to be moral and righteous: it never has been and it never will be.  We have built a country where we do not give in to our basest instincts.  We fought a war to say no to slavery because there can never be a time when it is right to own another. We want to stifle the sound of speakers whose speech makes our blood boil. Instead, we embrace the First Amendment. We want to make others believe in the same God we do. Instead, we trust in the wisdom of the free practice of all religions.

The Bible teaches us to turn the other cheek.  My father taught me to never throw the first punch and to be first to protect those who cannot protect themselves.  I am pretty sure most fathers teach that same lesson to their kids.  I never heard of any father teaching their kids to torture the neighborhood bully just to avoid the possibility of a fight. These simple lessons helped guide the country before. Maybe we need to be reminded of them again, that there is a difference between right and wrong. Integrity is not easy. Honor is not easy. Right is not easy. Leading the world is not easy.  We do not aspire to these things because they easy.  We aspire to them because the world needs a beacon it can count on to decide between right and wrong and not be pulled to one side or the other because of convenience.

I do not consider myself naïve or foolish. In setting a moral and righteous standard, we will be hit and we will suffer.  But our principles must demand that we not let this risk of temporary suffering justify the alternative that might makes right, that the ends of protection justify any means, no matter how cruel, deviant or inhumane.  Being moral and principled may make us even more of a target, but if that is so, it is a price we have paid before and should be proud to pay again.  Our principles will not, indeed cannot, be so easily weakened or defeated. If we were to abandon our principles and morals simply because we are attacked, then we had neither morals nor principles to begin with.

My father’s generation, what Tom Brokaw called “the Greatest Generation,” had its moment.  It stood up to Adolf Hitler.  A later generation fought for civil rights, a battle that continues. But if it is true that every generation faces a moment where people have to stand up and be counted, to say “this is the line that we cannot cross”, perhaps this is our moment, or maybe it is just mine.  My line is America does not torture people. Ever.

The Vietnam Peace Talks and the Idiocy of Lawyers

Posted in Commentary, General

The talks to settle the war in Vietnam were stalled for five months while the participants negotiated the shape of the table at which talks would occur.  Five months!! I wonder how many mothers lost their sons during that five month period.  On the list of things are beyond idiotic, this example must certainly be near the top.

I was thinking about this because of a comment I saw in an interview of renowned consultant Jim Hassett by Bloomberg. (Corporate Counsel Weekly, December 10, 2014.  In the article, Jim quoted the remarks of a “senior executive”:

We were just at a board meeting last week where we were talking about whether we should do formalized project management training. My answer to that question is obviously yes, we absolutely should.  But first we need to agree on the shape of the peace talk table what legal project management is.

I had a number of reactions to this statement.  In no particular order of significance:

1.  What in the world have you been waiting for?  Good god, man, its 2014! What have you been doing for the last half decade?

2.  Committees (which is what a law firm board is) is where good ideas go to die.

3.  How long will it take to decide the shape of the table what legal project management is.

4.  This is a great example of letting good be the enemy of better.

5.  Tom Peters’ favorite comment is “Ready, fire, aim.”  Lather, rinse, repeat.

6.  How many client dollars will be wasted while the firm tries to figure out something simple like this?

7.   WTF is a decision like this doing at the Board level?  Does the Board consider paperclip purchases as well?

8.  Do your clients know that this is how you decide “no-brainers”?

9.  The odds are the best project management training/approach will vary from department to department.  Are you going to figure out the best approach for each department?  Starting with the smallest?

10.   Is this how you decide on your technology investments too?  How are those 386 computers working out?

Sorry, I had to vent.  I hope this is a firm where great lawyers overcome bad management.

For Law Departments’ consideration: Self Help is an investment in a solution

Posted in Client Service, Commentary, Selection of counsel

Ronald Reagan once famously said the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”  His quote tapped into our natural fear of both the government and unsolicited offers to help.  When someone offers help, most believe the person is really offering to help themselves.

This fear should be juxtaposed with the admiration we sometimes have for those who engage in self-help. Our lexicon contains many phrases in which a person improves his or her position by self-help.  Many of those phrases contain an implicit sense of admiration.

So self-help is neither good nor bad.  It is the context that matters most.  When someone willingly offers help to another with the intended result of helping both parties, good things can happen.  Consider this point one.

My next proposition is it is better to proactively invest in solutions rather than hope somebody brings you a solution.  Some in need sometime wait for a solution to be proposed, while others make suggestions to those who can help solve the problem, hoping the suggestions will be heard, pursued and implemented.  I believe success comes to those who confront problems directly and design their own solutions or work closely with others to accomplish that end.  Not suggestions or wishful thinking, but a shared commitment to design a solution and work together to implement it. Consider this point two.

Consider this formula in the context of law departments: Point 1 + Point 2 = ?

Let me spitball a possible answer here.  Step 1: Law Department defines its objectives.  An example might be “we want a 25% reduction in spend locked in at the beginning of the next budget period, with no degradation in service, quality or output.”  Step 2: Law Department picks a willing law firm or a few such law firms.  Step 3: The parties meet and discussions ensue.  “What do you need from us to accomplish the objective?”  What resources can we provide to help you meet the objective?  How do you propose to meet the objective?  Why should we confident quality will be maintained?

And so forth.

This is just one idea.  Clients tend to be extremely smart and great collaborators.  But they need to act more like their business-side colleagues in addressing law department challenges. Own the problem. Design the solution.  Don’t wait for someone to suggest something that might help.  See what you want, and then in the immortal words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, “make it so.”

One last point to consider.  When law firms design solutions, they are typically designed for more than just you.  So if “off the shelf” works or is good enough, fantastic.  But if you want a custom solution that meets your specific needs, off the shelf is not the way to go.

How not to ask about your client service

Posted in Client Service, Commentary

Valorem’s Director of Operations just received a letter from a firm vendor that very carefully explained Net Promoter Scores and the importance of the company of receiving a 9 or 10 (on a 10 pt scale).  The letter went on to explain that account reps were compensated on the basis of this score.

This vendor has been our vendor since we started, almost 7 years ago.  None of us can recall any prior inquiry about the quality of their service.  So the message we are taking from this letter is that the vendor cares about client service when great client service matters to them, but not when it matters to their customers.

Asking for a high score is shameless.  Consider this an example of exactly the wrong way to ask your client how you’re doing serving them.

Emails: How much time can we waste?

Posted in Commentary

I just received an email.  It said:

“Please review the attached notice.”

So then I had to click open the notice, which contained information I could not find less interesting.  Why did I have to waste the time to click through and wait for the “attachment” to open?

This happens all the time. People prepare a formal letter and then send it by email in a way that fails to disclose the relevance of the attachment?  Why have the attachment at all?  Countless people waste time opening an email and then opening an attachment that contains information that could easily been included in the body of the email.  That time might belong to somebody who cares about it.  That time might belong to somebody who decides whether to hire you on the next matter. Do you want to waste her time?

If you have something to say, just say it.

It is the season for miracles!

Posted in Commentary, Hourly Rates and Alternatives

It is that season again, just as it is every year.  Everywhere around us, miracles will be occurring.  All we have to do is open our eyes to see.

You probably think this has something to do with Christmas.  Nope.  I’m talking about the season where law firms raise their rates, and, with their associates, raise them twice.  Everyone knows that in December, law firms send a letter to their clients announcing higher rates for the new year.  But it’s not just the annual 5% hike (or whatever percentage is applied this year), it is the unspoken “advancement” hike that kills clients.

What’s the advancement hike?  It occurs when a first year associate becomes a second year associate, second becomes third and so forth.  So firms raise the rate for each class and advance people a class.  So if a first year lawyer is billing $250 per hour, a second year lawyer is billing $275 and a third year lawyer $300, the class rates may be increased by roughly 4% to $260, $285 and $310.  But the first year billing $250 is now billed at the higher second year rate of $285, which for that lawyer is a 14% hike.  For the second year lawyer who moves from $275 to $310, the hike is 13%.  The lawyers are not providing any greater value the day after the price increase than they were before.  The “class creep” hike somehow justifies these staggering percentage increases. It’s a miracle.  No other explanation works.

Clients used to grumble about this, but then they paid.  These days, some clients are actually rejecting higher rates.  Imagine that. If I were a client and somehow got roped into paying by the hour, I would insist that rates on a case not move during the duration of the case.  Otherwise, the overall effective rate increase is far higher than the small, single-digit number the law firms mention in their annual “happy holidays” price hike letter.


Still thinking: More things I think I think

Posted in Commentary, General

The wheels in my brain are still slowly moving, so here’s more of what’s on my mind.

  1. I hate it when lawyers or firms “publish” “articles” that refer to “reports” without identifying them or linking to them.  These “articles” are then referenced in places like LinkedIn, and those stories are picked up by JD Supra or other vehicles.  Soon the “article” which has no real support takes on a life of its own.
  2. I love listening to podcasts in my car.  Makes drive time so much more enjoyable. Manager Tools and Under the Influence.  Lots of great lessons, especially for lawyers.
  3. As an employer, I hate rules.  Rules usually are created because somebody is behaving unreasonably.  Better to coach the person to behave reasonably.
  4. My partner Nicole is very conscious of the pulse of our firm.  Always.  And it is important to her.  We’re damned lucky to have her.
  5. An idea without execution may be interesting, but it won’t be significant.
  6. Some talk but don’t do. Some do. Some share their ideas and do.
  7. I wonder how many emails my clients get each day. And how much time they spend figuring out which emails are important and time sensitive, and which are merely informational, when require their immediate attention and which don’t.  I wonder how much time I make them waste because I don’t put an appropriate re line in my emails.
  8. When the size of a problem seems daunting, I try to think of small incremental gains and believe in the value of aggregating marginal gains.
  9. I love the Daily Stat from Harvard Business Review. Some very useful info from time to time.
  10. The more experience I get working with good checklists, the more value I see in them. Atul Gawande’s The Checklist Manifesto is a must-read for those looking to combine efficiency with creativity, to use process to facilitate (not hinder) outcomes.

Posted in General, People, Places and Blawgs


I have the great privilege of presenting with Nancy Jessen, Managing Director of Huron Consulting, in a webinar on November 10, 2014.  The program is Disrupt Law: Keys to Employ ‘Disruptive’ Legal Service Strategies that Lock In Clients, and  Increase Partner Profits, and the topics to be covered include:

  • How some firms are using commoditization as a real tool for change
  • Methods to improve the technological proficiency (fewer people getting more work done) and e-mindedness  of your lawyers
  • How unbundling (breaking down) of services is changing the legal landscape
  • Lessons your firm can learn from startups on the importance of founder (partner) vesting
  • How innovative firms are reducing the costs of services and delivering consistent client value
  • How to deliver true price transparency
  • How start-up and boutique firms are successfully rethinking old lawyering habits, and challenging conventional industry paradigms
  • Real-life examples of efficiency drivers and how to employ them at your firm
  • Much More…

Nancy brings a wealth of client experience and her insights will be worth the price of admission.

Registration is at the link provided above.  Use promo code FAC100 to receive a $100 discount.

Still Thinking: More Things I think I think.

Posted in Commentary, General

Random thoughts from over the past weekend.

  1. People like recently-fired PGA President Ted Bishop, who was fired for referring to professional golfer Ian Poulter as “a little girl, “make me long for a return to the days of  Mark Twain (“I did not attend his funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.”) and Oscar Wilde (“Some cause happiness wherever they go: others whenever they go.”).   There was a time when name-calling had a certain amount of savoir faire.
  2. I’ve watched with amusement and sadness as one law firm’s sign along the highway went from advertising for mesothelioma cases, to mesothelioma and lung cancer, and now to just any type of cancer.  Apparently causation and wrongful conduct no longer matter.
  3. Those who dismiss concepts like Lean and Six Sigma would do well to remember those words on the operational foundation for many of their clients.
  4. It used to be that plush offices and expensive artwork in law firms made the firm’s clients feel good.  Now it makes them reach for their wallet.
  5. I am overwhelmed by the idiocy of the Chicago Bears’ Lamarr Houston, who tore his ACL (and is now out for the year) celebrating a late game sack of rookie quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo while the Bears were losing by 25 points. You would think the shame of getting whipped so badly so many times in the prior plays would temper the desire to celebrate doing your job.
  6. Rereading Larry Bossidy’s book, Execution. A must read.
  7. I cannot wait for the election to be over. The advertising we are forced to endure is mind-numbing, and I mean that in the worst way possible.
  8. I understand the fear of Ebola. I lived through my kids’ fear of the boogey-man.  But the risk of contracting it is so miniscule that letting the fear drive policy and expenditure of our treasury the way it has is sad.
  9. Lawyers billing to multiple files for reviewing the same document should be grounds for being disbarred. Instead, some lawyers argue they are ethically obligated to do so.
  10. It should be mandatory for litigators to pass a proficiency test showing mastery of basic procedural rules.  Really.

More things I think I think

Posted in Commentary, General, Leadership and Management

Several readers offered very nice comments on my original Some Things I Think I Think post, so I’ve decided to continue thinking.  Well, at least sharing things I think I think.

  1. A recent Wall Street Journal article Lawyers, Judges Modify the View That Adverbs Are Mostly Bad, reminded me of how much I hate pronouns and adjectives. Pronouns defeat clarity. Adjectives are a lazy way to communicate. One of my favorite quotes is from Anton Chekhov (google him), who said “Don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.”  Not directly about adjectives, but the point could not be better said.
  2. I don’t know how law firms can say they are client service focused when they don’t talk to their clients.
  3. If you (lawyers) are not actively working on methods to improve your efficiency (more outputs, less time), you are falling behind.  Way behind.
  4. I wonder if any managing partner can succeed if he or she is not his or her own worst critic and, more importantly, their firm’s harshest judge.  The ability to see weakness is key to being able to improve.
  5. As a leader, failure to communicate a clear vision is not good.
  6. It cracks me up when people talk or write about flaws with the billable hour as if it is news.  Dude, welcome to the party.
  7. I love the calls from headhunters asking if Valorem wants to merge with a mega-firm, or even just a vanilla large firm.  Ask someone paroled from prison how much they want to go back.
  8.   Saw a post on Adam Smith, Esq. Partners behaving Badly where a partner became upset because the Managing Partner of the firm was talking to the client CEO. I was disappointed Bruce MacEwen said “firm first and firm always.”  The real answer is client first and client always. If your clients are happy, the firm will be fine.
  9. So much is written about data-driven decisions.  Nice when you have the data in useable form, but you’d be surprised how often the data is not in usable form. Then you have to plan and execute in a lean way.
  10. Jeff Carr turned me on to the concept of Poka Yoke. Check it out.

I’m sure I’ll think I think things again.