Increase
Decrease
Expand
Collapse
Marketing Articles
Management Articles
Technology Articles
Finance Articles
RSS Feed
If you were one of three lawyers, or firms, in a beauty contest would you want to present first, second or last?
This is an increasingly important question. General counsel and executives in bet-the-company situations, and consumers facing the consequences of divorce or catastrophic injury, more often than not are interviewing more than one lawyer. Our surveys and anecdotal information indicate clients no longer base retention simply on reputation or a colleague's referral.
So, we recently asked about 125 attorneys the question about order of presentation, and why they believed their strategy worked best.
The overall answer: 52 percent preferred going third, 48 percent wanted to present first. None wanted to be in the middle. There was a difference, however, in the view of litigators and transactional lawyers.
By a factor of four, the business/transactional lawyers said they preferred going third. The litigators also preferred going third, but the margin was razor-thin-- 51 percent to 49 percent.
The lawyers we quizzed were both litigators and transactional/corporate lawyers. They were lawyers with local practices primarily working with closely-held businesses. Some worked for major banks and real estate companies, on the development side and for the lenders. Several were defense counsel to Fortune 500 companies. Several had traditional high-end personal injury practices. A few also filed business torts on the plaintiff side.
A few who wanted to go first felt they could stem the process and close the deal before others were interviewed. Others reported they had learned to go third the hard way-- by going first when given a choice. Some cited theory, "primacy" and “regency” were mentioned. More than one argued that going first allowed the bar to be set high, and if other presenters did not reach it, “absence” would result in a win. Others felt the potential client learned what they really wanted during the interview process. Going last meant the prospect could be asked what would really make a difference, what had emerged as most important, and the presentation could be modified accordingly to win the engagement.
In the "end", there appears to be no consensus.