Getting it . . . or not

I remain puzzled as to why some people who should know better don't seem to get how client relationship works.

I was recently told about a senior partner in a law firm, who was asked if he was free to meet a new client - a client whom the firm in question had been assiduously courting over a long period. The client had eventually been landed, and work was starting to flow. The partner had not been involved in the process but his department had been.

The partner's response was, "Do I have to? Now we've got the client, and the work, is it really necessary?"

You may be thinking that I have made this story up. Sadly not. 

I wonder how long that client will stay.

Don't assume you know the answer, ask the question!

Client feedback is always interesting. Well, it should be, and if you are naturally curious, and allow the client time, it almost certainly will be. But be prepared for there to be resistance: the lawyer closest to the client may fear a loss of control; the client may think this is simply another box its lawyers want to tick; lawyers generally, as I have said before, rarely like questions being asked where they don't know the answers.

And it always seems easier to make assumptions about how things are going. After all, surely if the client is continuing to give you instructions, and is paying you, and if she hasn't complained, all must be well? 

Perhaps - but then again, perhaps not.

Earlier in the autumn I called a client about setting up a client feedback interview. Her immediate response: "I don't really do satisfaction surveys". We talked some more. I explained that it wasn't just about satisfaction (or dissatisfaction), but was an opportunity to talk about what really mattered to her in the relationship with her lawyers. And that we would likely be done in an hour. Two weeks later, the hour stretched to nearly two, and the insights she gave about the law firm I was asking about, and her group's approach to how they engaged with lawyers, and what they were really looking for, were useful, and are thought provoking. And they helped me make sense of some of the research I had done before I went to see the client.  

How the firm uses that knowledge is now for them to decide - but they have asked the questions.

And if you want to talk about how a client feedback programme might work for you, and what is involved, give me a call or drop me a line.

The hall of mirrors

As a child, one of my favourite fairground attractions was the Hall of Mirrors (for those of you too young to have found yourselves in this distorted reality, Apple's Photo Booth app is similar). Why I so enjoyed the Hall of Mirrors, and why my children like Photo Booth, is that it allows us to play with our image, to make and remake ourselves. The everyday looking glass is subverted but we remain in control. 

In our daily lives, the looking glass is how we see ourselves, and we invariably assume that what we are seeing (albeit with a mirror image) is how others see us. But, and this is sometimes a problem, our perception of who we are and what we look like may not always be the same as other people's.

The same is true of law firms.

All too often how law firms and their partners see (and therefore want to present) themselves, and how their clients, their prospects, their suppliers, their influencers, and their employees see them, are different. This disconnect in perception is a real challenge for law firms - for how can you properly engage without an understanding of those perceptions.

So where should law firms start to gain that understanding? The answer is surprisingly simple: ask the question.

My experience is that lawyers are often professionally reluctant to ask questions to which they don't know the answer (at least in part). They need to put that reluctance aside. They also, like many of us, believe they know the answer without first asking the question. They need to be open to the possibility of being wrong. As part of a rebranding, I approached an influencer to invite him to take part in a survey on perceptions. "You are very brave, " he remarked. "I don't know many law firms who are prepared to do this. What if you get the wrong answers?" My reply was that there are no wrong answers. The problem is simply failing to listen to or act on those answers, however unwelcome they may be.

So if you want to ask the question, call me to discuss the how, the what, and the where.

Where it starts

In case you may be thinking that these conversations are a little one way, and that I am somewhat critical of lawyers, this post looks at it from a somewhat different perspective.

When I was a lawyer, I always tried to understand, so far as I was able, what it was that my clients did. It wasn't necessarily that easy. In the latter part of the 1980s I had two very demanding clients. The first was a large book manufacturer. Understanding their processes and business wasn't that difficult, although I still puzzle my children when I refer to books being case bound. The other was a software house, writing bespoke programs for main frames. This was much more of a challenge. I had learnt some coding in the late 1960s (don't ask), but that had long left me and I struggled to make sense of what exactly they did. They remained a client, but not mine. 

Understanding what a client does, how their business operates, what their challenges and their opportunities are - essentially what makes them tick - is for most lawyers an integral part of acting for that client. And if it isn't, it should be.

And so it must be for marketers acting for or employed in law firms. For without that understanding, how can you market the firm and its services? 

And yet I have come across people in marketing and communications, both working inside and outside law firms, who don't have this understanding, and who remain incurious about the firm - they will learn about the service offering but leave it at that.

I don't think that that is enough. One of the reasons for starting my consultancy is to help lawyers and marketers understand each other - and the place to start from is what makes them tick.

And I couldn't resist this photo. One of my daughters is Marketing Lead at a large London hospital - and here she is, in scrubs, getting to understand what makes cardiac surgeons tick.

Trophy client or white elephant?

Every lawyer wants one of these, or at least thinks it would be good to have one. After all, so the thinking goes, trophy clients confer prestige on both lawyer and law firm, and there is the promise (more accurately, hope) of regular and abundant fees.

But are they really worth the trouble? I am not entirely convinced.

All too often it is the "trophy" aspect that drives the decision, rather than the business case. There may, of course, be advantages from a marketing angle in being able to say, "We are acting for XXXX", or to use a quote from a household name, but weigh that against the time and resource expended in securing them, the costs and resource involved in servicing them, and (dare I say it) the reputational risk of losing them. 

Pitching for (and winning) a high profile client in a sector or area of expertise in which you already have an established reputation is a different matter. Here the business case will (or should) be clear. But should you be pursuing a prospect primarily because of who or what that prospect is, rather than how they will fit into what you do? Building a new area of practice on the back of a trophy client is not always sensible - I have seen it done, and seen it done successfully, but there is always a cost.

And by their very nature trophy clients tend to be high maintenance: demanding of time and attention, on all matters. Again, this may not matter but there is the risk that this will skew the practice and that other clients will suffer.

So before commissioning the research, preparing the pitch, honing the presentation, telling all your partners, and getting the date in the diary, take a step back. Be sure that the advantages are real - and the potential disadvantages manageable.