Separated at birth? Or maybe the son of Rogers? You be the judge. Seriously, Dan is much better looking (and younger too!). But Dan disclaims any relationship, including personality-wise. And in the context of client service, that’s a good lead-in to a terrific analysis of client selection.
Marrying substantive skills to the Art of Client Service is the way to get and keep good and great clients. Not all clients. We at WAC? believe we know what that is: it’s thinking about and acting on the obvious client service aspects presented by everything you do for those clients in your services firm (but no one else thinks about), and disciplining everyone around you in your firm to do it with you. You build a service culture from the ground up from which all else flows, right down to that last opinion letter or Rule 12(b)(6) motion your firm wrote. Everyone around you must buy into it–or leave.
But Dan goes on to discuss the importance of client selection, that is, working with sophisticated businesses who are savvy consumers of legal services. I don’t share Dan’s sentiments in their entirety. Individuals and small business owners can have great cases and be great people. Those of us who try cases make money judgments all the time on who stays on jury panels and who doesn’t, who goes on the stand and who doesn’t, and so on. I believe we need to employ those same skills in selecting clients, regardless of size and sophistication. But the point is not really lockstep agreement, is it? The point is to develop a set of criteria that guides the choices you make in deciding to represent someone.
A most provocative post. Thanks Dan.