Legal Marketing Blog

Although not everyone accepts that the “R” word is actually occurring (of course “they” have six or seven figure incomes with little chance of encountering a foreclosure on their McMansion, nor being troubled by such mundane tasks as putting petroleum into their limousines – but I digress), but for those firms who do feel a bit of a pinch in the old institutional wallet these days, it may just be time to crank up the business development efforts a little.

An article by Les Altenberg of A.L.T. Legal Professionals Marketing Group on the subject, that appears in this week’s Law.com, talks about adjusting the four “P’s” (Product, Place, Promotion, Price) of marketing as one way to develop business in these troubled times. Specifically:

Product – Consider providing a mix of services most in need in such times, such as bankruptcy, loan restructuring, renegotiation of contracts, acquisitions of distressed businesses and, of course, litigation;

Place – whether services are delivered in the law office, clients office, over the telephone or Internet, the important part is to stay close to existing clients (and that in my mind includes visiting key clients in their workplace);

Promotion – a firm should focus its business development dollars on promoting the mix of services needed now, especially those things most likely to raise the firm’s profile relating to those services – speaking, writing, seeking feedback, entertaining and client visits (basically drawing from my Top Ten Marketing Tips list); and

Price – here, as a medium-sized or small firm, I would emphasize your normally lower rates compared to BigLaw, and offer alternative fee arrangements (such as fixed fees). As Les warns, be careful about reducing your fees in these times, as it will be extremely difficult to raise them when things turn around.

Whether you agree or not that the economy is in an actual recession, revisiting your marketing four P's is worth doing.

Bruce Allen has an intriguing post at Marketing Catalyst about restaurants in troubled times, and how one chef comes to the rescue.  We both believe there are valuable lessons in his story for law firms. Although Bruce brings up the tale in the context of a down economy, I believe the lesson is just as applicable whatever the state of the marketplace.

He mentions how Scottish Chef Gordon Ramsey on his TV show Kitchen Nightmares works at turning around failing restaurants. Bruce surmises that the establishments are failing because of “two key issues”:

• There are too many items on the menu, and
• The restaurant is not known as “the best place to go for ____.”

Now think law firm. Think brand.

No law firm is totally a one-stop shop. In fact, in most firms it is best to not even try. Due to the complexities associated with most legal areas today, a law firm – especially a medium to small firm – is better off limiting itself to niche practices. Not only will lawyers become more proficient in these areas of the law, but it’s easier and more efficient to focus the firm’s business development efforts on fewer practice areas.

Accordingly, law firms should consider reducing the size of their menu. It’s a good thing to be known for one or two niche areas, but, better to be recognized as “the best place to go for __________.”

My friend Dan Hull tells us a story on his What About Clients? blog about his childhood friend, who may be just a bit weird – with a sense of humor. His friend claims to have uncovered advice from some lawyer’s writings dated in 1836. I don’t know his friend, but like Dan, I expect he is full of manure as to his "discovery".

The “sage” advice includes:

1. “Be risk-averse at all times. Clients have come to expect this from their lawyers. It's tradition. Honor it.
2. "Tell the client only what it can't do. Business clients are run by business people who take risks. They need to be managed, guided, stopped. Don't encourage them.
3. “Whatever you do, don't take a stand, and don't make a recommendation. (You don't want to be wrong, do you?)
4. “Treat the client as a potential adversary at all times. Keep a distance.
5. “Cover yourself. Write a lot to the client. Craft lots of confirming letters which use clauses like "it is our understanding", "our analysis is limited to..." and "we do not express an opinion as to whether..."
6. “Churn up extra fees with extra letters and memoranda and tasks. Milk the engagement. (If you are going to be a weenie anyway, you might as well be a sneaky weenie.)
7. “As out-house counsel, you are American royalty. Never forget that.”

On the other hand, you may prefer to follow “The Ten Commandments of Good Client Relationships” developed by the Queensland Law Society of Australia instead: 

1. “Clients are the most important people in our practice — in person, by mail or by phone.
2. “Clients are not dependent on us. We are dependent on them.
3. “Clients are not an interruption of our work. They are the purpose of it.
4. “Clients do us a favor when they call. We are not doing them a favor by serving them.
5. “Clients are a part of our business. Do not treat them as outsiders.
6. “Clients are not “statistics.” They are flesh-and-blood human beings with feelings and emotions like our own.
7. “Clients are not people to argue with or match wits. Nobody ever won an argument with a client.
8. “Clients are people who bring us their wants. It is our job to meet those wants.
9. “Clients are the lifeblood of this practice.
10. “Clients are deserving of the most courteous and attentive treatment we can give them.”

Thanks to Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips Blog for bringing the commandments to my attention some time back.

Last week I had the privilege of presenting at a North Carolina 80-lawyer firm retreat. Normally, when I am hired by a firm to aid in the marketing effort, my challenge is to convince the firm of what they need to do to be successful at legal marketing and business development. That was not what happened in this case.

 I feel a little guilty charging the firm of Ward and Smith, P.A. for my services. The firm is so incredibly with it, that I’m still not sure why they felt they needed me in the first place. Let me explain.

The firm over the last couple of years had already undertaken SWOT analysis, followed by planning and implementation of their strategies (without the benefit of an outside consultant). Additionally, they have focused heavily on clients and relationship building in general. Finally, they have created a family atmosphere (reinforced by spouses and significant others who attended the retreat).

Not only does the firm hold a retreat each year at a resort with the better half attending, but spouses and others are invited to all substantive sessions, if they wish to attend. Other family functions are held during the year. Good internal marketing!

What struck me the most about what the firm is already doing includes:

Planning:

• All lawyers meet quarterly to thrash out and build on efforts initiated at the annual retreats;
• The firm has practice groups responsible for administrative, CLE, practice development purposes, and interdisciplinary client or industry teams for marketing and client development purposes; and
• Client teams meet monthly and report in writing on business development progress.

Client Relationships:

• A full-time, dedicated marketing partner who visits with clients seeking feedback and business development opportunities;
• Teams visit with clients off the clock; and
• Invite clients to “lunch and learn” or after hours cookouts, either at a firm location or at a clients' (even towing their own BBQ equipment along), and responding to questions from clients free of charge.

Considering how much I hear (and write) about what clients want from their outside lawyers (and aren’t getting), I know of only a few that begin to match what Ward and Smith is doing. I haven’t had a chance to meet any of their clients, but I’ll bet you $10 to a donut that they have a ton of satisfied clients who believe that their law firm really “gets it.”

Naturally, one might think every lawyer is responsible, or maybe the managing partner if it has to be brought down to a single individual. My initial reaction was the former, but after reading the article “The Power of One” by Marcie Borgal in The Complete Lawyer, I’ve come up with a different take on the issue. Marcie is a senior strategic analyst with The BTI Consulting Group in Wellesley, MA.

Her article starts with:

“A research study recently conducted (by BTI) … revealed a startling fact. Having a single individual accountable for firm-wide client service boosts per attorney profits by up to 41.2%”

I must admit I was startled by that myself. Marcie refers to these individuals as “client service executives.” Their job responsibilities include:

• “providing client-focused tools and programs,
• generating strategies to improve client service performance,
• delineating gaps between performance and client expectations, and
• regularly tracking and monitoring client satisfaction.”

Additionally, these individuals may conduct “annual interviews with key clients” to ascertain client service issues, as well as “clients’ goals and needs.”

Law firms “typically draw client service executives from the ranks of their most well-respected attorneys,” according to Marcie.  In most cases, I presume in most firms that person is likely to be the managing partner.   But, that may not always be the case.

For instance, Philadelphia’s Ballard Spahr has hired a full time in-house “Client Interviewer” and Seattle’s Stanislaw Ashbaugh has a Chief Results Officer on staff (with a prominent link from the firm’s home page).

It looks like some law firms are really taking client service issues – and, more importantly client satisfaction – seriously. As Marcie says, “[C]lients translate these approaches as an expression of interest and investment in them, their priorities and their concerns.” I think it is just smart legal marketing!

I certainly doesn’t hurt if, in addition to “happy-camper clients,” the firm’s profits increase by more than 40% in the bargain.

Thanks to Arnie Herz for the tip that led me to Marcie’s article.

Mid-sized and small law firms that specialize in “banking and finance litigation” have significant opportunities to pick up work that would normally go to large law firms. The reason is that BigLaw may be conflicted out of these cases according to an article in the New York Lawyer pointing out that “BigLaw Conflicts Give Smaller Firms Big Role in Market Crisis.” (free subscription required). The article also appears in Law.com's Small Firm Business.

A few of those smaller firms and who they represent include:

• Kobre & Kim (19 lawyers) – representing Deutsche Bank A.G., Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd (Brazilian cane exporter), Telinor Telefonia (Mexican telecom utility);
• Rich & Intelisano (4-lawyer plaintiffs’ firm) – claims related to Bear Stearns, and claims against Merrill Lynch & Co. and Morgan Stanley being arbitrated before FIRA; and
• Girard Gibbs (15 lawyers) - representing some German and French banks.

If your firm does some of this work, you might want to crank up your legal marketing efforts in that direction.

Too few business owners religiously track their financial numbers as a means of monitoring the health of their businesses, according to a post by Drew McLellan on the Small Business Branding blog. Although Drew brings this up in the context of management issues, the importance for marketing should not be overlooked.

And, so it should be for law firms. For instance, a client admitted recently that he doesn’t look enough at his firm’s numbers as a tool of marketing. He’s not alone. The fact is that a law firm’s financials provide a wealth of information that can save time in focusing a firm’s business development efforts.

By delving into the firm’s financials, a firm can uncover the strength of its practices. Further, by discovering which clients are the most profitable, and the industries they represent, the firm provides grist for its marketing focus. It just makes sense for a law firm to concentrate its primary lawyer marketing efforts on those type of clients and practices where the firm is already strong.  The numbers will tell you where your strengths are.

You can learn a lot either way. Thanks to Barbara Walters Price at Marketing U, I remembered a very important lesson I learned about business development competitions. Whether you win or lose, it is wise to conduct a post mortem to determine why. Barbara’s post led me to a post by Ford Harding on preparing for a sales presentation.  Stay with me now. 

Ford’s point was that it is “insane” to spend a lot of time working on a “leave-behind” rather than focusing on who will say what at the presentation itself.  He considers the leave-behind a waste of time. I would agree, but how he arrived at that conclusion leads me to my point.

He conducted a series of post mortems (learning that potential clients didn’t even remember what was left behind). It reminded me of how important follow up after a competition really is. Not only when you lose, but when you win as well. The latter because you may get a false idea of why you were successful. (I remember a time I found out that the competitor had done a better proposal, but sent the wrong person to the oral presentation. So, we won, but not because of our proposal. Learned a valuable lesson on that one.)   

Of course, the main reason for a post mortem is to learn what the competition did right and what your firm could do better in the future, no matter the outcome.

At the Legal Marketing Association annual meeting last month in LA, the chairperson and the general counsel of the Association of Corporate Counsel, along with two other members on their panel, let law firm marketers know how they felt about the increasing rates and associated legal costs of outside counsel.

According to a post by Mark Beese on his Leadership for Lawyers blog entitled “We’re Not Going to Take It,” the ACC reps laid out the realities in-house counsel are facing, specifically:

• Pressure to contain and predict legal costs,
• Frustration with double-digit rate increases,
• Off-the-scale associate salaries (and corresponding hourly rates); and
• Perceived unwillingness by law firms:
  • to discuss alternative fee arrangements, and
  • create lower cost methods for commodity work.

So, what's my point? Talk to the in-house counsel you know about your fee structures, and willingness to discuss alternatives to the traditional hourly rate. There’s a lot of work out there for medium-sized and smaller law firms because of their lower fee structure and flexibility. 

If large firms aren’t yet fearful as to how serious corporate counsel are about finding solutions to these pressure points, they will be soon enough. And just think how you can help them along by picking up more of their corporate work in the meantime.

Since I started interviewing law firm clients in 1990 (even used a film crew to capture five of them on a VHS tape – I’ll bet you remember what those are), I have never waivered from the belief that it is one of the most important things a firm can do to retain clients. And developing and enhancing client relationships is what marketing is all about. It is one of the reasons I put client feedback as No. 3 on my Top Ten Marketing Tips list.

Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia has made a major commitment to institutionalize its client feedback process. As reported on several blogs (Mark Beese on his Leadership by Lawyers, Larry Bodine’s Law Marketing Blog and Peter Darling's Business Development) over the past week, Ballard has hired a full time “client interviewer.” It is reported that the person has more than 30 years of experience as a journalist, so she should be conducting some serious interviews. I agree with Peter that it is a brilliant move.

Your firm may not be in a position to justify the cost of a full time in-house client interviewer (Ballard has 500 lawyers after all), but there is absolutely no reason why your managing partner, or an experienced outside third party, shouldn’t be doing client interviews for your firm. The purpose is to determine how the firm is doing in the relationship, inviting honest feedback on any problems, and to learn what the firm could do better.

It is better to find out if there are problems, that can be corrected, before your key clients decide to try another law firm for their next matter. There is no time to waste.