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.

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.