Leadership for Lawyers

GC Surveys

After this post, you will have no excuse for saying you don't know what clients want.  Here are several recent surveys of in-house clients and law firm leaders on everything from budget planning to client service expectations

Corporate Legal Times:   Here's another survey of in-house counsel, conducted by Corporate Legal Times (now renamed, Inside Counsel).

ACCA:  The 2005 CLO Survey can be found on ACC's web site which lists all of their polls and surveys.  There is also a link to the Serengeti survey (fee).  The CLO survey explains how outside counsel can improve their relationship and get additional work from inside counsel. 

BTI:  BTI Consulting Report's on inside counsel are costly.  You can order them through BTI (click on the order page and you can download a pdf of the table of contents and index).  Here are a few articles on the BTI survey that gives an insight into their findings. "Closed Club", published in Corporate Counsel Magazine.  BTI's research shows that Fortune 1000 clients will increase spending by 16%

American Lawyer Media:  American Lawyer just published their annual Law Firm Leaders Survey.  While it focuses on the opinions and crystal-gazing of managing partners, it still provides insights into the short term future of client service, rates, and work flow.    American Lawyer also gives a summary of four recent surveys of GC's in the December 2005 issue.  A summary of the findings are here. Aric Press gives his commentary on the survey results, saying "hug an associate" today.

Fulbright:  A Fulbright and Jaworski survey shows that 90% of US Corporations are in litigation and the 'average' $1 Billion corporation are involved in 147 cases at one time.  Read the survey.

The Fulton County Daily Report summaries a great exchange between a GC panel and the chairman of McKenna Long & Aldridge. 

A 2004 survey of CLO's was reviewed by Altman Weil

For more CI resources, see an article I wrote on Competitive Intelligence on the Law Marketing Portal.

Serengeti GC Survey

Serengeti came out with their annual survey of in-house counsel at the ACCA meeting last month.   Here are a few highlights:

• -  76% of in-house counsel require budgets for some of their work, up dramatically from previous years.

-  Referrals from other in-house counsel, approved company lists and trusted outside counsel is still the number one way GC's select new counsel.

-  16% of in-house counsel use web-based applications (extranets) to manage outside work.  31% say they plan on using such systems in the future.

-  50% of in-house counsel fired outside counsel last year for the following reasons:  lack of responsiveness, too high fees/costs, and poor quality work/results.

-  On fees, the study said, "However, outside counsel costs are less of an issue now than they were in previous years. For the first time, “reducing outside legal costs” was not named as the most pressing issue for in-house counsel (even though it still ranks as the second greatest concern). The top issue of concern for in-house counsel in 2004 was “keeping apprised of company activities that may have legal implications”—in other words, compliance. This may be in part because of the increased oversight necessary as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley and other statutes, as well as recent high-profile litigation relating to compliance issues. "

The Press Release  can be found on the Serengeti web site.  Another good post on what in-house counsel is looking for can be found on Amy Campbell's blog.

Added Value

Ed Poll (http://www.lawbizblog.com/) has a good article on providing basic client service and value to clients on the Law Practice Today site.  How can you provide more value for your fee (or cost) next year?  How can you increase your service, responsiveness, and value to your clients next year? 

LPM Blogs

Law Practice Today lists about 20 law practice management blogs with topics ranging from client service to leadership to increasing partner income.  A new blog by veteran law firm marketer Silvia Coulter (www.legalcompass.typepad.com) is among the list, as well as Patrick Lamb's In Search of Perfect Client Service.  Check them all out here.

Tag (Line)!

Carolyn Elefant takes a shot at law firm tag lines in her blog My Shingle.com.  She comments on the list of really bad tag lines on Patrick McEvoy's site, Rainmaker Best Practices.com.   Both Elefant and McEvoy rightfully poke fun at the outrageously stupid tag lines adopted by some law firms.   Carolyn suggests that some firms used Magnetic Poetry to develop their tag lines.  I commented that Ross' Fishman's Automatic Tag Line Generator was the tool to use.

I have a love/hate relationship with tag lines.  Tag lines can be a great way to summarize what your firm/company is all about, such as HP's INVENT.  In a single word, HP communicates that it is innovative, creative, and on the edge.  Taglines can help an entity define it's brand and you can change it easier than a firm name.  Kodak's tag line:  "Keep it Digital.  Keep it Kodak" and "Keep it Forever.  Keep it Kodak" used to be "Share a Moment, Share a Life" and earlier, "Any Schoolboy or Girl can Make Good Pictures with the Brownie".   Each line captured Kodak's position and message at the time.

Businessweek has a good article on what makes a good tag line here.  "Got Milk?"  "Don't leave home without it" and "Just Do It." led their list of great tag lines.   

Most law firms, however, struggle to differentiate from their competitors, both in substance, and in marketing.  Of the Amlaw 200, most could honestly choose the tag line, "Big, Old and Good."  Instead, most design their tag line by committee, ending up with bland, do-nothing tags.  A tag should help differentiate, not make you look the same.  Unfortunately, most firms want to be everything to everybody, so they can't (or won't) claim a single differentiating point, such as, "All we do is IP".   If you claim to focus in one area or specialty, you alienate everyone else, so you end up with tag lines like "Trust.  Commitment. Integrity." or "Local Bla Bla, Global bla bla."  You're better off without a tag line.

The Businessweek article defines a good tag line as,

"A good tagline is not just a motto or a proverb or a saying or a long-winded mission statement. It's got to be fairly succinct -- usually seven or fewer words.

And it should reflect how your company is positioning itself vs. your competitors. It's taking the brand that you know really well and communicating its value to the world. A great tagline is like the exclamation point at the end of a 30-second elevator pitch."

I've found that law firm marketers only get consensus from partners on lousy tag lines.  They are the tag lines that say the least and are palatable to the most.  The edgy, meaty, meaningful lines that really help a firm be both memorable and different cause the most grief and rarely get approved.  You know you got a good one when 51%  of the partners like it.  You are better off without one that gets 90% approval. 

What really matters to buyers of legal services?  Do tag lines make a difference? 

In-house counsel want value.  Good legal work (Great isn't always needed), reliability, great service, and reasonable and predictable fees are important.  They want lawyers that care, and are cost-effective. 

I've always wanted to see a law firm differentiate on client service and claim a tag line like, "Lawyers that really give a sh**."   How about, "Great service or your money back."

Most buyers of legal services cannot name more than a few law firm tag lines, even though they may work with tens, or hundreds, of law firms.  If you use a tag line, make it great or forget it.