Print This Article

Part 1 of our roundtable discussed law firm branding. This month we continue our discussion with a focus on Client Service.

Part 2: Client Service

Mark Beese: Several recent studies of in-house counsel have revealed that clients are not satisfied with the level of service and responsiveness given by law firms. Some firms are investing heavily in "client service initiatives." Client surveys and top-level visits are becoming more common. What client service initiatives has your firm started, or if you are not with a firm, what initiatives have you seen that are particularly effective?

Bill Feid: This is a very interesting topic. For the past several years we have heard this similar complaint. However, I really believe this is more a perception than reality and we need to separate responsiveness from the quality of services. From our perspective firms have done a superior job in delivering very qualified services. Such services only become scrutinized when the client receives the bill and may have sticker shock. This raises a number of challenges as the client weighs the value proposition after the fact. I believe firms could improve on managing client expectations regarding fees, and the simple use of budgets and timely review of progress will go a long way in improving client relations. There are a number of budgeting tools available that are simple to use and are collaborative with the client.

On the other hand, firms at times can be slow to respond. Often this reflects operational inefficiencies, such as poor document management systems or slow access to necessary information. There are several tools available today that have a significant impact on inefficiency, allowing immediate access to client information and firm knowledge management systems. The ability to shorten the response time has a direct impact on client satisfaction.

Technology, if used wisely, can facilitate closer interaction with your clients. An extranet is an excellent example to keep more frequent contact with your client and allow a controlled exchange of appropriate information, whether work product or knowledge management databases. Increasing the repetition of exposure to your client, I believe, is directly correlated to the strength of the relationship.

From our promotion-of-technology-perspective we have seen a number of firms demonstrate technical competency as a means for efficiency and improved quality of professional services delivered. In one of our customers' examples, our customer has won a significant amount of new business by promoting the use of technology. In fact, this firm increased its billings by over 1,000% as a result, and increased margins by 30%.

From our client perspective, we have yet to receive any client surveys but we have had periodic meetings with some of our law firms to discuss general company overview and solicitation for feedback on the firm's service level. These meetings, while time consuming, are invaluable in developing stronger relations. I think these meetings are excellent and bring back the human touch that sometimes can be forgotten.

Harry Trueheart: Here are some things we have been doing for many years:

1. Client satisfaction surveys--followed by actions to respond to expressed preferences or problems
2. 360 evaluation of our lawyers, including partners, which means direct client input on individual performance
3. Relationship management training
4. Project management training
5. Relationship visits with clients by firm leadership
6. Internal client satisfaction surveys and "quality management" initiatives--we believe that our ability to meet our external client needs is affected by the quality of support services provided by our staff to its internal lawyer clients so we do annual performance surveys and develop improvement plans. Results have been higher satisfaction levels with reduced costs.
7. Communications and connectivity are very important elements in the service equation. Our initiatives include:
   - BlackBerries for nearly all attorneys
   - cell phones for all attorneys
   - widespread deployment of laptops
   - remote access to firm resources
   - client and project specific extranets, etc.

Mark Beese: Professional selling? Relationship Training? Project Management Training? It sounds like Harry believes that we are actually in the people business, not selling hours. I'd gladly trade my national advertising budget for attorneys who can super-please clients, sell, and expand "wallet-share." To shift focus from selling hours to focusing on the clients is really a cultural change. How has your firm instituted such a change? What role does leadership play in change?

Bill Feid: The points that Harry presented are great ideas and I am sure if managed effectively will substantially improve client service. I would add to the communication section that more frequent status reports on projects and fees would be key components of what is communicated. More often than not, our disappointment is the surprise in fees and not knowing progress on activities. For instance, we release several new products and or product versions every quarter. Most of these products are covered by patents, and the timeliness of patent applications is key prior to release of the product. When we need to coordinate marketing plans, sales plans, and product releases, we need to know exactly were we are in the filing process. There have been times where we had to hold release of a product because we had not had our patent applications completed on time.

Laura Owen: I see a significant difference in law firms that conduct customer satisfaction surveys from those who do not. Whether the firms do the survey online or in person, these firms appear to be more closely in touch with their clients and do make changes where needed. I was particularly impressed with one firm that employs a 360-review process for associates up for partner, so I have the chance to give input from the client's perspective.

On another note, which is less exciting than technology but lots of fun, we start new relationships with firms by holding an on-site session that gives them an immersion education into the company as well as letting them introduce the firm in more detail to the business people who will work very closely with outside counsel. The meetings have lasted anywhere from half a day to two full days, but the idea is that we are committed to spending time to educate the law firms to make their life much easier as well. This gets the relationship off on the right foot, then we follow up with quarterly meetings--via phone typically--to discuss issues on both sides. I find that a two-way communication is most effective--I'm not always doing things the way I should despite the adage that the "customer is always right." So mutual feedback again helps solidify the relationship.

Darryl Cross: One thing that firms are sometimes are guilty of is benchmarking tunnel vision. For some firms, conducting simple firm satisfaction surveys is akin to asking which airline offers the best in-flight meal service! Firms are starting to go out into the marketplace and interview CXOs/GCs about how they would build the ideal law firm from scratch. Subjects like communication protocols, methods of billing, service expectations, and other key areas should be discussed. Since these potential clients are experts in building successful customer-oriented enterprises, who better to gain insights on best practices from? In most cases, I imagine that it would be the first time any firm had ever asked THEM what they thought about building a better mousetrap. While many firms try to gauge satisfaction as compared to other firms, it is a better idea to evaluate how the industry operates as a whole--and how it could be improved (I would cite Southwest Airlines as a great champion of this).

In addition, new client surveys can be a form of proactive retention. One of the most dangerous times in a client relationship is the time between the signing of the engagement letter and the arrival of the first bill. Firms could reduce client dissatisfaction from Day One by managing expectations and getting the new relationship started on the right foot.

Finally, there is also a great deal of emphasis on "kicking the bricks" visits to the client's place of business. By doing so, lawyers are better able to understand the operations and pressures of their client's business as well as proactively identify other areas of expertise of the firm that could be deployed to help them grow and succeed.

Linda O’Connell: Client service is only as effective as the value proposition the client sees. Firms need to act like businesses and provide efficient responses to legal issues and to responding to clients. Effective traditional tactics include competitive intelligence (in addition to Norm's suggestions, I'd add OneSource, which provides current business data as well as a clipping service to keep lawyers aware of what's happening in their client companies), surveys (we gain insight from these and I am also astounded how highly most corporations rank their outside law firms...no more lawyer jokes!), marketing training, and firm wide consensus over operating like a business instead of a group of solo practitioners.

However, the real service factor seems to be "partnering." Firms can establish efficiencies to better serve the expressed business goals of the client. Find ways to manage costs. Share risk and reward. Partnering works through improved communication and creation of efficiencies. Barriers to clarity are removed. In-house counsel find outside lawyers who understand their goals and seek to make them "look good" to management. Yes, a thorough examination of the law occurs, but there's more. In-house and outside lawyers can assess the risk level associated with their concerns on an ongoing basis and determine, together, the way to proceed. In return, firms secure a base volume of work coupled with the opportunity to grow that base as a reward for delivering good services. The relationship rows on a more meaningful level since everyone works more seamlessly as a team to service the company's objectives. For the firm, faster payment of invoices and other beneficial payment arrangements result, including bonus payments for achieving certain results that the client truly values. And, in the end, everyone gains a more rewarding result.

Bill Feid: I would be completely satisfied with the partner on the account handling the relationship visit and recognize the difficulty for firm leadership to meet all the firm clients.

Ed Poll: Most people I listen to about client surveys are talking about after the service is delivered. Seems to me that that may be too late.

One of my clients, who deals with individuals, sends out a client survey with the first billing statement. He'll get a sense of the client's reaction right away, when he can do something about it.

Another of my clients had some serious billing write-offs. My assignment was to seek ways to avoid this in the future. What I found was that there was little client contact, except on the specific technical issues involved, during the course of the engagement. Thus, when the billing came, there were surprises. We developed a budgeting process for all litigation over a threshold level, which required the sign-off by the client at each stage. Thus, the client could no longer claim surprise ... and, if the client wanted to accept a business risk that was contrary to the law firm's advice, the client could do so. This incorporated the client's thinking into the process ... there was little or no argument about fees in those cases where this process was followed.

We developed a whole system for this, got the entire litigation department involved, and now our written work product will be published for others to see by the beginning of next year.

Mark Beese: What a great idea to seek feedback during the process, not at the end.

Harry Trueheart: This approach is part of standard expectations in client relationship management and on major matters, a piece of what I referred to earlier as 'project management'--the simplest elements of which are defining deliverables; timetable; division of responsibilities; pricing and payment expectations on both sides, together with milestones for project performance and assessment.

Bill Feid: I truly believe those firms who place emphasis on improving their individual firm's client service or satisfaction will have a positive impact on client retention, improved billing recovery (less write-offs), and additional work. Our company's experience has been centered on firms meeting about once a year for a general update and overview of the relationship. This typically has helped establish budget expectations and priority of assignments. More frequent meetings I believe would be beneficial. Regarding surveys, we have yet to receive one. Surveys, if used effectively, can provide valuable feedback. In our business we survey our customers all the time, and just as important, factor this feedback into our future product development releases and use the content for our customer advisory board meetings. I am sure the same positive results would benefit law firms.

Ed Poll: The more people you have connected with the client, the better off you are. Though there is one relationship partner, there should be others who deal with the client company at different levels.

Seems to me that there is a problem when the relationship partner hordes the relationship ... and doesn't allow others into the mix ... When that happens, the firm suffers. Seems to me that the firm leadership must take a stand and insist that there be more than one partner involved with each major client. That then gives the client an opportunity to communicate at different levels and the firm an opportunity to hear important issues that need to be addressed as and when they arise, not after the client has selected another firm for its legal work.

Darryl Cross: As for client surveys, like it or not, everyone already does them.

Your current clients are either happy or one just moment away from getting rid of you. When they switch firms, you now know for sure. It is a pretty foolproof system of finding out satisfaction levels, but a bit on the risky side.