Law Practice Management
In Brave New Post-Boom World, Corporate Clients Now Want Value
Posted Sep 30, 2008 1:29 PM CST
By Martha Neil
Updated: The party obviously is over for a number of law firms recently flush with profits from formerly booming financial institutions, but a brave new world may await attorneys able and willing to adjust to the new regime.
In a word, it's now all about value, writes Paul Lippe, the CEO of Legal OnRamp, in an American Lawyer article reprinted in New York Lawyer (reg. req.).
However, to provide the cost-effective services clients are seeking, lawyers also must listen to what they want, he notes.
"All the other elements of 'strategy' that so many firms have embraced over the last ten to 15 years—increase concentration on the financial services industry, raise prices, grow for growth's sake, increase leverage by hiring more associates, make fewer partners, and de-equitize existing partners—have been about the firm and not about the clients," he writes. "They made sense only in the context of a financial services-driven boom."
He's far from the only one making such points. On Friday, the Association of Corporate Counsel unveiled its ACC Value Challenge, writes Patrick Lamb on In Search of Perfect Client Service.
As ACC explains the issue on its own site, traditional law firm business models aren't in accord with corporate clients' need for "value-driven, high-quality legal services that deliver solutions for a reasonable cost and develop lawyers as counselors (not just content-providers), advocates (not just process-doers) and professional partners."
Through its new program, ACC seeks to promote a national dialogue between corporate counsel, law firms and law schools about how best to "reconnect value to costs" and, more specifically, focus on solving client problems, reduce "bickering" about legal costs and increase the sense of pride and satisfaction that both inside and outside corporate counsel take in their work.
Selling legal skills to clients, based on the value of the services to be provided, isn't easy for many attorneys, notes consultant Robert Potter in his 2003 book Winning in the Invisible Market: A Guide to Selling Professional Services in Turbulent Times.
Yet, at the point in the process when legal services are most easily sold--that is to say, before a potential client realizes legal services are needed and starts shopping around for counsel--"most of the professionals I work with initially find it difficult to articulate their service value," he writes. "They can describe what they do, who they do it for and even why it works, but why is it valuable? Well, that's a bit more challenging."
An example from his own life shows how lawyers can win a client with value marketing:
Motivated by the death of a friend, Potter was ready to put his own estate plan in order and protect his family. But in a chance meeting with a lawyer soon after the friend's death, the attorney focused on his own expertise and overwhelmed Potter with too much information, slowing down his initial impetus to hire a lawyer and get the matter resolved.
Then Potter happened to meet another attorney and asked her a question about irrevocable trusts. Instead of answering directly, she asked him questions, to figure out what he wanted to do, and listened to his answers. Then she explained, in simple terms, the process that could be followed to accomplish his desired estate plan.
"Two weeks later it was done," he writes.
Related coverage:
Fulton County Daily Report: "Remembering When Being Corporate Counsel Wasn't Cool"
Updated at 6:45 p.m. to include information from Robert Potter book.

Comments
Inhouse Lawyer
Oct 1, 2008 12:53 PM CST
Is it really news that clients want value? Good grief! I have had to take firms off of projects because they could not provide cost-effective service, but it has been rare. One example involved a firm that was obviously going to overrun a projected litigation budget before the close of the first fiscal quarter. When I asked them to prepare a budget revision so that could arrange additional spending authority before their bills went unpaid in Q2, they simply divided year-to-date costs by year-to-date months and extrapolated—not a very convincing tool to justify quadrupling the anticipated fees. Under the circumstances, I would not consider using them again. Maybe I am unusual, but it has always been obvious to me that the only way I can justify external legal spend (or internal legal spend for that matter!) is by connecting dollars to value added service. Duh!
associate
Oct 1, 2008 1:49 PM CST
“value-driven, high-quality legal services that deliver solutions for a reasonable cost and develop lawyers as counselors (not just content-providers), advocates (not just process-doers) and professional partners.”
Not possible. You either get “process doers” and “content-providers”, or you get billed for a skilled attorney’s time. What they’re hoping for is that a skilled attorney will bill like a process doer which might be the case IF the counsel is going to give any litigtion to that attorney. However, without that guarantee, you charge what you have to in order to make a living for you and your assistant.
See, when Inhouse demands the lowest rates for ongoing legal work, that’s fine. However, when that same Inhouse then goes out and hires the most expesive firm available for related litigation, who really thinks that the first firm will ever give that Inhouse a low (i.e., below market) rate on any ongoing work ever again? This is a business, not a charity.
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.