[OLD - Removed per HelpSpot request #12674] Client Service for Law Firms : Client Satisfaction, Surveys. Repeat Business Drivers & Criteria

There are some steps to bear in mind before even starting on a client service initiative. While not exhaustive, these provide some major steps to consider:

1. Assess the firm's commitment to seeing the process through to completion. If you're not completely committed, save yourself the time and money and stop right here.

2. Determine what the goals and scope of this project should be. Different goals are perfectly acceptable, but make sure the following actions move you towards whatever your goal is.

3. Determine who should do this. Should it be done internally or hired out to a consultant. If the latter make sure you're hiring somebody familiar with the legal industry and qualified. Those tempted to allocate this work based on the buddy system will sink like a chain gang in Morecambe Bay.

4. Conduct the research. Start small, sort of like testing a small patch of fabric in an inconspicuous place for colorfastness before spraying the entire suit.

5. Analyze the data you've received. Here's where an outside consultant is a great idea. They're less likely to distort the data.

6. If you've made it this far, you are committed to acting on the data. Actually, you were committed at the fourth step. Whether you like what it told you or not. To not act on it leaves you in worse shape than when you started, because your clients gave you input expecting it to be put to use.

Personally, I recommend not starting with this kind of a program, but rather starting simple: Ask your clients what things are most important to them. (Know up front that rule #6 still applies.) Two reasons for my recommendation:
1. You're not likely to pass a test if you don't know what you're being graded on.
2. It doesn't require a lengthy, possibly expensive research program.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

David Maister has a post about what a consultant should do in a particular situation and is asking for alternate opinions. Sweet!! I'm going to offer mine. Here's a brief synopsis as I read it:

A consultant is hired to do a project. There's a CEO who railroads the process and is making it difficult or impossible to complete it. The consultant wants to know if he should try to step in and help with the group dynamic (i.e. reign in the CEO) to get the project done successfully. Maister's advice is no, that's not what you were hired to do.

I'm in total agreement. However, I would add that the consultant should walk away from the gig. It appears highly likely the project is doomed to failure. You're just not serving your clients by sticking around. (From my reading of him, my guess is Maister would agree.)

Client service means doing what's best for the client. Always. One can only hope the short-term financial loss is more than compensated down the road by an impeccable reputation and a long list of successful projects.

Stay tuned for my upcoming book, Everything I Needed to Know About Dealing with Frustration I Learned from my CEO, complete with pretty pictures and one of those spongy ball-thingeys.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

David Maister has an interesting post called Client Focus and the Halo Effect, especially for us philosophy majors. In it he addresses a book by Phil Rosenzweig about faulty deductions from dubious cause-and-effect relationships. Here's the short of Maister's response:

"He [Rosenzweig] doesn’t actually question the conclusion (or belief) that customer focus causes financial performance; he challenges the validity, rigor and logic of the various studies that purport to have proven the link."

Here's my thinking. Virtually all of life's useful arguments are in fact inductive (translation: the conclusion that flows from the premises is only probable), and lack a "Cartesian certainty." The fact is you can't really deductively prove anything interesting, besides some of the following gems:

* All unmarried men are bachelors
* 2 + 2 = 4
* If it's a square it has 4 equal sides

Properly speaking, Rosenzweig is correct. But if the rooster crows enough times when the sun comes up, I can either assume the sun causes it, or I can argue that it may have some other cause. Maybe the rooster swallowed a seasonally adjusted, battery powered clock radio that goes off at sunrise, thereby creating a mild shock which causes the rooster to crow. He probably also swallowed my missing sock out of the dryer.

I haven't read Rosenzweig's book. I'm not knocking it, because his points are legitimate. I've blogged before about strange thinking in business (here, for example). However, if there are enough companies out there that can tie in a customer focus with strong financial performance, I'm going to bet heavily that whatever other factors may actually be involved, client service excellence will probably be one of them. It's hardly a leap into the unknown.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Taken from a post by Patrick J. Lamb is an excerpt of an excerpt of a speech Mark Chandler gave:

"Put most bluntly, the most fundamental misalignment of interests is between clients who are driven to manage expenses, and law firms which are compensated by the hour.....those who can differentiate themselves by providing the top notch of customized services, where that is needed, will also win.... My bet is that despite the consolidation trend we’re seeing today, top quality boutiques will thrive while the cost structures of larger centralized firms will put them at risk."

Can I get an "amen" from the choir? Regardless of firm size, I think good service (whatever it's shape or size) should be rewarded, and bad service should be given a red card!

My wife and I just moved. One sales rep, in the process of getting estimates, whined about not being able to move her time up because she had to mow a yard. No kidding, and during working hours!! I think we had her come out anyway. After much angst we decided to go with a different moving company, even though she probably has some beautiful landscaping.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There's an article in Fast Company magazine about the average tenure of chief marketing officers. It's not good news for client service.

"For the past three years, an annual survey conducted by executive-search firm SpencerStuart has shown that the tenure for CMOs at the top-100 consumer-branded companies has averaged a scant 23 months. (By contrast, CEOs hang on to their jobs for 54 months.) Some sector averages are particularly grim: If you're in telecommunications, you're looking at 15 months; in the food industry, you've got about a year."

My understanding is law firm CMOs last, on average, only 19 months. Really bad news, and not just for the person out looking for a new job. Client service initiatives are, in my mind, longer-term ventures. They reap fabulous rewards, but I doubt they'll reap them immediately.

Worse, client service initiatives can unearth some pain points, something most new CMO's aren't real eager about doing. The last thing I'd want to do is go to some partner and tell him/her that their clients aren't real pleased with our customer focus. It isn't exactly Christmas in June-type news.

If my tenure's likely somewhere between 18-24 months, I'm focusing my efforts on something that makes others feel warm and fuzzy. At the minimum, I'm likely to focus any client service initiatives on the "low hanging fruit" (translation: clients I'm sure will repay my efforts with positive scores and make us look good--after all, that looks great on my resume). I'm certainly not going to try and drag my reticent children up a tree with no fruit at the top!!

Yet another problem with short tenures is that client service initiatives are not a one-and-done venture. They require ongoing monitoring. That's difficult to maintain when there are sporadic leadership changes.

Maybe that's why there appears to be more talk than action in most law firms. By the way, thanks to a good friend of mine, Don Short, for the photo.  It's fresh from his backyard!!

.

• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I like the caption on the top of Anna Farmery's blog posts:

"People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."

I think there's a tremendous amount of truth in that.

Although one minor correction. Can you identify who "invented the internet"?  Uh huh. Yet another reason to keep my blog posts short!!

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I just have to relay a story from my own life. I've on numerous occasions given out my mortgage guy's name as a great person to do business with (his name is Scott Creighton of Seattle Mortgage). He's handled several of our real estate transactions and those of friends. We don't price shop him; we go straight to him and stay there.

As I've alluded to before on my blog, we are in the process of buying another house. My wife, having worked in real estate, knows that the best laid plans can go awry. And they did yesterday, on the day we were supposed to sign documents.

Scott stepped up to the plate, and never once sought to figure out where the problem occurred (translation: place blame). He just quietly solved the problem. We signed as planned, because the problem was resolved. He probably was not to blame. We have no idea; no effort was made to figure it out.

All that matters is he solved the problem.

Two questions for you law firm folks:

1. Do your clients brag about you and actively try to send business your way?
2. Do your clients view you as being completely trustworthy?

If the answer to both isn't "yes" then something is wrong. With your firm, not with your client.

My wife just called. I asked, "What's the news?"  She replied back, "What news?"  Perfect!  Love you. Oh, and you, too, sweetie!!  :-)

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Larry Bodine has an outstanding post on his blog where he reports from a conference he was at. They are really saying the same things I've said before (not tooting my own horn, by the way--these things should be obvious to all). Check this post out at Tales from the Front: Getting Business from Corporate Clients.

Are you ready for a brief synopsis of the article? Here goes:

*Know their business--trends, key players, etc.
*Pick up the phone and call for their input
*Read news stories about them & their industry
*Be responsive
*Establish and maintain trust

In a word, practice the Golden Rule. These are all things you expect of people coming into your office, correct? If they don't know them you probably scratch your head and think to yourself, "They obviously didn't care much about our business. Why did they waste my time?"

Might your clients be thinking the same thing?

I know when I didn't practice the above items I embarrassed myself.  Good luck to my boys this weekend at their tournament games, and hopefully they've done their preparations!!

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While I certainly have reservations about some of what he recommends, there are some great ideas posted on Jim Hassett's blog containing suggestions for improving client service.

I highly recommend checking it out, but let me add my disclaimer. I especially have concerns about #11 (Deepen and broaden contacts at your top clients). Sounds great on the surface, and you're almost sure to get a 4.0 grade from your Sales101 professor. But personally I wouldn't do this unless you are delivering great service already. Or at least good service. If not, you may end up spreading more ill will. It's sort of like when you have a cold. If you sneeze on one person, it's bad, but if you sneeze on a bunch of people you may have a mob riot on your hands.

I have one other concern. Once you go to the client with any of these suggestions, you are on the hook to deliver. Please DON'T ask if you lack the will power or the resources to carry out their suggestions.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Patrick J. Lamb has a great post on a recent "flash survey" by Altman Weil. The short story is that there's a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction by GC's regarding the latest round of salary increases for starting associates. No surprise there, but the report goes further in stating GC's are going to start looking at pulling work back from their primary law firms and look more seriously at second-tier firms.

I'm skeptical.

We've heard similar song and dances before from the GC's about pulling work. Many talk about it, but at the end of the day it appears they all wait for somebody else to do it. That's a shame. If those threatening action would actually take it, and if it results in firms starting to take a harder look at their client service approaches it could ultimately be a good thing.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm borrowing this post, lock, stock & barrel, with a few of my own comments, from Gerry Riskin's blog post by the same name.  Here's a small excerpt:

"The story is that a portfolio comprised of “companies at the top 20% of the the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)... greatly outperformed the stock market, generating a 40% return."

Lawyers being what they are, I suppose they needed some emperical "proof" to validate that claim. For what it's worth, this philosophy major was apparently more gullible. Busted logic or not, here's my reasoning: Happy customers are likelier to buy again. And be less concerned about price. And tell their friends to buy from you, too. It's the same idea behind a blog: let others do your marketing for you.

Conversely, companies that have lousy customer service are far likelier to irretrievably lose customers. The customers they do keep will view price as the driver, which means lower profits. And I'm not likely to brag about you. If you're a monopoly, and I have to do business with you, I still won't buy all that I could. Right now I could really use my own voice mail box, but I'm scared stiff to call Qwest and make a change. They're an absolute nightmare, and everything they touch turns to mold.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

JD Hull has a nice (old) post about the idea of constantly marketing that relates to client service. It goes as follows:

"Rule Six: When You Work, You Are Marketing."

So true. Client service is an attitude that shapes all our dealings, not a single act. Let me add one very important caveat:

You are ALWAYS at work. Even when you're not at work. So, whether you're working at work, or not working at work, or working at not working, you're working.

I live in a small town (roughly 50,000). If you have kids in sports, as I do, I probably know you or have seen you around. If you're an attorney by day and a coach by night, just know I'm watching you. If you're a positive influence, I'll rush to your doors. If you're a jerk, I'll go pro se before I'll call you.

Remember that the next time you're tempted to harrass your server, complain to the umpire, abuse your kids, leave your dog's droppings on the sidewalk, or just generally be a pain. For those who like this kind of stuff, let's follow the hypothetical syllogism through to its logical conclusion.

Premise 1: If you are alive you are working.
Premise 2: If you are working you are always marketing.
Conclusion: If you are alive you are always marketing.

Somebody please tell me I didn't commit a logical fallacy.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I just read an article about Gisele Bundchen speaking out against the Roman Catholic church's  position on condoms and abortion. Okay, what gives? I read her biography on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell she has no credentials whatsoever to speak out on matters medical or sociological. It's no different from other entertainers who blab about their political and economic philosophies. Can anyone tell me why I should heed the advice of a person who makes their living in a make-believe world? I can only imagine Plato is turning in his grave.

Because of my education, I can speak with some degree of authority on things philosophical or things theological. But if I'm giving a finance or economics lecture, caveat emptor.

You'll often hear lawyers say they know what their client wants. Really? It is worth asking how they know this. Have they asked their client? Has anybody at the firm asked? Be careful of transferring their legal expertise into client service expertise. It's sometimes a nice way of saying, "Don't touch my clients." But if you want to solidify the fact that they are your clients, some proactive measures should be taken.

In all my conversations with in house counsel very few said they had ever been asked what they wanted with client service. Maybe I talked with the wrong people. Maybe not.

By the way, I'm not really sure what the big deal about Gisele is, other than the fact she's worth about $150 million, which is roughly $150 million more than I am.

(Postscript: I know what you're thinking: The picture doesn't really look like Gisele. Give it a few years, except maybe the beard).

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Seth Godin has a fabulous post in his blog about price. So good that I'm, in fact, going to quote it in full (at the grave risk of violating some copyright law).  On price he says:

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I ran across a post on client service and exceeding expectations. Here's what the post says in part:

"But what about over delivering? It sounds great in principle. Your client or customer is wowed....And then you realise, with a sudden sinking feeling that you’ve raised the bar. The client’s expectations are higher. Your idea of outstanding excellence has just become the norm.... And guess what, you can’t go back."

I'm going to disagree. Trust is built up over time. Proof of your client service excellence is also built up over time, and not in a single act. Continue delivering on your promises, and I'll rate you as excellent.

The bar doesn't have to be raised. I'm not even sure I want to keep raising it. Just don't try to lower it on me.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

My oldest son's soccer team is now in the process of their biggest tournament of the year, the so-called League Placement Tournament.  It determines for the entire year what level of play they're placed at.  They lost their first two games, in identical fashion.  They both ended in penalty kicks after two scoreless halves and two scoreless overtimes periods.  A shot over the crossbar here, a header wide there, another opportunity to feed a teammate for an open shot missed, and no goals the result.

They should've won these games.  Instead, they are now 0-2 and in danger of dropping out of their anticipated division.

On the other hand, my youngest son is in his year-end baseball tournament.  After a dismal performance Friday night, they were in a win-or-go-home situation.  Some adjustments were made, and they have won 4 straight to stay alive (convincingly, I might add). Along the way they have ripped through the top two seeds.  The team tonight will play a winner-takes-all game for the championship.

The client service analogies are hard to miss.  I count 10 different ones, conservatively. 

I love sport.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks