I really enjoy working with both my in-house and law firm clients. By having my foot in both camps, so to speak, I am better able to understand and relate to both sides and I am able to stay continually up to date.
With all the recent panels, presentations and discussions about alternative fees and changing law firms, not to mention articles being written about legal department “draconian measures” to save money, I began wondering if there have been any significant changes in the factors that decision makers focus on in determining which law firms will get additional legal work. I’ve recently been asking this question as I meet with many of the General Counsel’s in town that I am lucky enough to count among my friends. It’s probably not a surprise at all that the first criteria mentioned is always that the law firm had done a good job. But since I take that as a given, here are some of the less tangible aspects that came up in my lunch discussions.
- The “like and trust” factor remains of utmost importance. One of the marketing “secrets” that I teach when I coach is that people will buy from people they like and trust. If you were to pick up any book on selling or marketing, you would find some variation of this statement. This remains a key indicator of client satisfaction and additional business as well. In other words, strong relationships remain a key indicator of which law firm gets additional business. This also goes along with hearing that “I hire the the lawyer, and not the firm”, which was another recurring theme in my lunch conversations. Which always makes me wonder why some firms are willing to invest large sums of money in firm advertising but are less willing to invest in business development coaching for attorneys (but that is for another discussion).
- As a subcategory of the “like and trust” factor, my conversations revealed that having a relationship that was personal and not “just about the case” was relevant in the decision process. Also, having multiple relationships with a firm, and the firm having multiple relationships within the legal department, seemed to be helpful. This was not a surprise to me, and actually ties in with the standard marketing advice that knowing five individuals at different levels at a client company is a key goal for continued business. It also reinforces the fact that non-decision makers can still be important contacts. They may have more input into decisions than you think, so it’s wise not to give them short shrift.
- Firms that were viewed as going “above and beyond” had a definite leg up in the decision process. The “above and beyond” might be because of additional effort on the relationship front, or something that was viewed to be value added, or simply being viewed as more of a strategic partner who understood client needs in depth.
- Though it was never said in so many words, it seemed to me that being made to feel like an important client made a big difference . Law firms tended to be better at doing that in the beginning of the relationship than as the relationship progressed, and this was often phrased in terms of not being taken for granted after the law firm got the business and/or in terms of firm responsiveness.
- Delivering on promises made was critical to a decision to give more business to a firm. Boy, did I hear some good stories on this one that I will definitely have fun using in my business development coaching program! But here’s a sneak peek at one of them: if you promise your client that you have interoffice teams that will operate seamlessly together in your client pitch, you better be sure that your client is not the one who introduces you to each other as the case gets underway!
- And finally, willingness to negotiate discounts or discuss alternative fees seemed to come into play – but was definitely not at the top of the decision process. In fact, I generally had to specifically ask about this. From the often casual responses to the question, it may well be that the GC’s were taking discounted fees as a given in an ongoing relationship with a firm. With respect to flat fees and alternative fees, while I keep reading about it, and while I do know of several legal departments that are compiling information in order to move forward with the concept, I have not yet heard of many new alternative fee billing arrangements.
It’s been a fascinating series of many lunches over the past 2 to 3 months exploring this – I’ll continue to watch this in 2010. It will definitely be interesting to see how continuing changes in the legal market impact which law firms get more business – and which don’t.
