Header graphic for print

In Search of Perfect Client Service

Why lawyers don't seem to get it

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.

Rule 1: Clients get to decide

Posted in Client Service, Commentary

Some things make my blood boil.  Consider these quotes from Part 4 of Pam Woldow’s recent 4-part series, Cutting Corners (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).  The series discusses whether use of Legal Project Management and Legal Process Improvement encourages lawyers to cut corners.  Part 4 includes reader feedback and Pam’s response to certain arguments raised by her readers.

There was a discussion about whether inside lawyers or outside lawyers should be the one responsible for weighing risks against cost.  According to one General Counsel,

We, and only we, should determine acceptable risk because we are the experts on our companies and business strategies.  Our company takes risks every day, and we understand how to evaluate when to dig deeper and when it’s time to move on.  When we don’t want more research or memos or depositions, we have made internal decisions about cost and benefit. 

It is hubris for any outside lawyer to believe anything different, nothing less.  It is the client’s legal problem.  It is the client’s money.  That anyone other than the client should decide how to address the legal problem and spend the money misunderstands the client’s primacy in the lawyer-client relationship.

As Pam reports, outside counsel uncomfortable with the client’s primacy resorted to the well-worn “malpractice risk” argument.  It goes something like this:  “I, the outside lawyer, need to do x, y and z because my malpractice carrier says so or because I will be at risk of being sued for malpractice if I don’t.”  Put aside that few clients ever sue for malpractice. Put aside that clients willing to take risk understand they must accept the risk associated with their decisions.  Put aside that no malpractice carrier ever—ever—said a lawyer must turn over every stone and milk their client for every last dollar.  Put all those things aside.  If a lawyer is uncomfortable with the client’s decisions on risk, then he or she should quit.  They have no obligation to represent a client.

Let me be clear.  Rule number 1 of being a lawyer is that the client gets to decide.  They get to decide scope of work, they get to decide what risks are worth taking.  They get to decide how a matter should be staffed.  It is hubris to suggest that, as an outside lawyer, your views on these matters should govern the client.  Rule number 2, by the way, is that if you don’t like how the client decides these things, you are free to not represent the client.

Quick story:  I was national counsel for a client and we had 50 nearly identical cases in one jurisdiction.  When a motion was filed, it was filed in all 50 cases.  Same motion.  My client’s local counsel would dutifully bill for each case.  “Review motion to substitute attorneys–.2” in all 50 cases.  That meant the lawyer billing 300 minutes—5 hours—for reviewing each motion.  When I told the lawyer to combine all the cases into one matter and review only one motion and simply take on faith that all 50 of such routine motions were identical, he argued his malpractice carrier required him to do it in this manner that caused him to rip-off his client.  I asked for the name of the carrier, which he declined to provide. When I called him back the next day to tell him where to send the files, he professed shock and disappointment and wanted a do-over.  Fat chance, my friend.

Clients get to decide.  It has always been true even though some lawyers may have forgotten.  But it is more true now than ever before, and clients get it.  The clients who may not have understood this now do.  If you don’t like this paradigm, find a new profession.

Bingham’s demise should make everyone wonder about their own situation

Posted in Commentary

Bingham McCutchen is following the Dewey/Howery decline to oblivion.  It seems people are surprised.  They shouldn’t be.  Some number of major firms are the “low end” that create the mediocre industry average numbers that are reported.  But surprised they are, and that always surprises me.  So you can see why this brought a smile to my face:

Embedded image permalink

Hat tip to John L. Davidson (@jdavidsonlawyer).

An Interesting Thought About Resumes

Posted in Commentary

The following is a quote from Mark Horstman, one of the principals of Manager Tools, in his most recent Things I Think I Think. (I am a huge fan of Manager Tools’ podcasts, which I strongly recommend.)

We take grief frequently for recommending one page resumes.  People say they “hear” that longer is what is the standard these days.  (This is wrong, but it is nuanced).

Then people complain as well that recruiters don’t spend any time on resumes.  (The Article on Business Insider I saw said 6 seconds, I think.)

I always think to myself: If you admit recruiters aren’t spending any time on your resume, what makes you think a longer resume is better??

There’s a technology that allows researchers to track your eyes when you look at stuff.  It’s often used with web pages.  It’s also been used on resumes.

Recruiters look at your name, your current title and company, current position start and end dates, and education.

All on the first page of a one page resume.

My own experience reviewing resumes suggests this is fairly accurate.  Which raises the question of why this is so?  My belief?  All resumes look alike, sound alike and there is only so much “blah, blah, blah” that a person can read.  Resumes need to be made unique to stand out from the crowd. Just remember, you can’t make a resume that everyone will like, and if you try, you will end up with a resume that nobody cares about.

Shame on you NFL, Baltimore Ravens

Posted in Commentary

By now, everyone has heard that Ray Rice has been cut by the Baltimore Ravens and had his laughable two game suspension increased to “indefinite”.  And the increased punishment is being lauded by sports pundits everywhere.  All of this only shows how little the NFL, the Ravens and the sports punditry care about domestic violence regardless of their enormous lip service to the contrary.

We saw video of the coward Rice dragging the unconscious body of his girlfriend from an elevator like a sack of garbage. We know she walked into the elevator on her own.  Unless you are of the belief she slipped on a banana peel and knocked herself unconscious, you knew he hit her. Hard.  And believe me, if she had slipped, he would have demonstrated some degree of concern and not dragged her by her hair.

The new video was released that demonstrated that what we knew was true was true.  So what is new?  The decision to cut Ray Rice had nothing to do with concern about domestic violence. It had everything to do with appeasing fans who are upset that the coward was let off so lightly the first time around.  The same is true for the NFL.  And if the sports pundits actually gave a damn about domestic violence, why are they not expressing outrage over this obvious pretext and what it actually says?

My two boys were given the same bright line rule I was given by my father.  Never strike a woman. Never.  No exceptions.  and the rule was not qualified by saying that the punishment is different as long as you’re not captured on video.

Some things I think I think

Posted in Commentary, General

Do you remember Andy Rooney?  He used to do commentary on 6o MinutesBig, bushy eyebrows.  But the thing I will always remember is when he would ask “Did you ever wonder….?” and then go into some offbeat topic.  My question is when did people stop thinking?

  1. When you are walking in a busy airport, don’t just stop.  Would you just stop your car in the middle of a busy highway?  Of course not. Same at airports—there are other people walking and you inconvenience everybody by simply not moving to the right.
  2. In the same venue, please walk on the right.  I don’t know why we do, but we do that in this country.  Plowing headlong into someone walking against the flow is not how I want to start my day.
  3. When someone is scheduling a meeting and asks 25 people if they are available, think long and hard about whether using “reply to all” is a smart move.  I know I don’t want 24 emails letting me know every meeting people have planned on the days in question.  I would rather wait for one email reporting the results of the inquiry.  Think before hitting send—does everyone really need to know the information I am sending? By the way, the answer is “no” more than 99% of the time.
  4. Don’t tell me what “the client” wants us to do if you never talk to the client.
  5. If you are a vendor and calling me unsolicited, make your first sentence really good because if I am not interested by the end of that sentence, our conversation is over.
  6. If you’re a vendor and ever call my cell phone unsolicited, you don’t even get the first sentence.
  7. I really don’t care how special your product is.  Really.
  8.  When you take a deposition, think about whether the witness’ 23 prior jobs all need to be explored in detail?  Is what they studied in college really important?  I am trying to remember whether any of  these facts have been the subject of testimony in any of the cases I’ve tried or trials I have observed.  Can’t think of any.
  9. There is nothing funnier (on one level) or sadder (on another) than watching a lawyer who has never tried a case trying to follow the instruction to object frequently.
  10. It is hard to understand how you can be in a service business if you don’t like to serve your customers.

Perhaps I will think of more things I think I think sometime soon!

Think twice before asking for “any and all” documents

Posted in Client Service, Commentary, General

Before I get to the topic at hand, allow me a brief rant.  Can anyone explain how the phrase “any and all documents” (typically used in Rule 34 request for documents) covers any document not covered by a a request for “all documents” or “any document”? This is as bad as “true and correct copies.”  Lawyers really need to take a look at what they write.

Rather than bore you with data on the amount of new information created each year by each business, let’s just agree that it is a lot.  When you frame a document request as “any all all documents (which includes ESI) related to blah, blah, blah,” you need to think long and hard about whether you really want “any and all” such information.  Aside from the ambiguity inherent in such requests, lawyers tend to ask these questions without regard to the importance of the issue, the need for documents to prove the point involved or whether it is possible to ask for a smaller subset of the universe of documents to get what is needed.  Why are these things important?

One of two things happen when you get documents in response to your request.  You either review them or you don’t.  If you ask for these documents and do not review them,  you are a blithering idiot. If you review the documents, or even just a subset of them, you are incurring significant cost for your client.  Do you really want to incur that cost without first determining it is important?

Lawyers seem to follow a script reminiscent of the code written for V’ger in the original Star Trek movie–”learn all that is learnable.”  Just like V’ger almost destroyed the earth in pursuit of its directive, lawyers can seriously injure their own client by mindless pursuit of “any and all”.

It is time to take a fresh look at this practice and come up with a better approach.