Legal Management

What Does "Quality" Mean?

Most lawyers claim to pursue high standards of "quality", and see quality as the cornerstone of their strategy. They are right. Achieving quality is the best way to make clients happy, to spread a positive word of mouth and to grow the practice. But what does quality actually mean? I see five dimensions in quality: expertise, relationship, effectiveness, service and style.

Expertise. Quality implies, of course, that the lawyer is a reliable legal expert. She knows the law and how to deal with legal issues. This quality is what lawyers learn and develop at law school (although that's just the beginning). A law firm that claims to have a superior level of quality, or "excellence", because many of its members are law professors and frequently publish articles in legal periodicals, implicitly define quality as legal expertise.

Relationship. But there is more than legal expertise in quality. There is also quality in the relationship between the attorney and the client. The ability to inspire trust, to show empathy and respect, to connect with the client and make the client feel at ease and secure, to listen carefully, to communicate in a clear, concise and simple way, to understand the client's problem and objective, to create a collaborative, mutually beneficial relationship, to manage expectations, to solve possible conflicts or misunderstandings... this are all areas that nothing to do with legal expertise, but that have nevertheless a powerful impact on whether an attorney and a law firm will be perceived as high or law quality. Note that this dimension of quality is not taught at all in law schools.

Effectiveness. Besides expertise and relationships, another pillar of quality is the ability to get results. After all, clients do not go to lawyers for the sake of listening to sophisticate legal reasoning, or for the sake of a warm and feel-good relationship, but because they have problems or objectives and need them solved or achieved. That means, for example, winning the case, closing the deal, improving the client's situation in a negotiation, finding a way forward in a complex situation, obtaining a permit, or providing an advice that is clear, practical and actionable. Wouldn't quality be an empty and vain concept if it didn't include effectiveness?

Service. Finally, service also contributes to quality. This is mostly about speed, availability, reactivity and accessibility. The importance of that dimension could not be overestimated. It is not a nice addition to quality; it is an essential component of it. When asked about their definition of "quality", many clients put speed at the top of the list.

Style. When there are typos in a legal memo, it does not make the advice less effective, but it does not "look" professional. It is not about substance, but about form. It is about avoiding typos, getting impeccable layout; it is about using a quality paper for correspondence; about the quality of the coffee in the meeting room and of the sofa on the waiting room;  about the elegance of voice of the receptionist and about having your shoes polished. It's about looking like a Lexus more than like a Toyota. Some lawyers are extremely sensitive to that aspect of quality. Sometimes, it becomes an obsession, and a matter of identity. Some clients care, some don't: they know what a lavish paper does not make the advice on it better. The contribution of style to quality can be discussed: does a great style actually add value to the client, or is it just a look-good, feel-good device for the lawyers themselves?

Note that combining these five dimensions may sometimes be tricky: service requires to react quickly, but expertise and a zero-typo policy requires to double check everything in order to make sure that the advice is complete and 100% reliable, which takes time (and costs money).

Law firms that focuses on only one dimension of quality (most of the time, legal expertise) might be convinced they are top quality (because, for example, most of their partners are law professors), but their clients might have a very different opinion if these partners, despite their superior legal mind, misbehave in relationships (for example by being arrogant, showing no interest in their client's business, etc.), fail to provide practical, actionable advice, or do not return phone calls or respect deadlines.

Moreover, to many clients, legal expertise is a black box. They don't know, and don't want to know anything about it, just as the buyer of a car may not be interested in the functioning of the engine of his new car. If they have no legal background, they may even be even to understand the legal discussions at stake. In other words, many clients are not in a position to perceive and assess the degree of legal expertise of their attorney. What they can always perceive, on the contrary, is the quality of the relationship and of the service, the effectiveness and the style. Improving these areas may therefore have a stronger impact on the perception of quality by the clients that improving legal expertise.

It does not mean that legal expertise is not important. It is of course a must. It is something that clients expect their lawyers to have, by definition. It's a pre-condition for being in business. But what will shape the client's perception of quality, to a large extent, is unrelated to legal expertise. Lawyers who ignore that do it at their own peril.

We could even go further than this five-leg definition of quality, and go for a post-modern definition of the concept. Quality is whatever the client thinks it is. In my own practice, I often ask to my clients their definition of quality in relation to the assignment they give to me. How will they judge whether my work is top quality? I try to use their answer as my guiding philosophy for working with them. When I suggest to lawyers to ask the same question to their clients, they often look at me as if I just said something really weird, or as if asking that question was a sign of low self-confidence. But I am convinced that to get things right in the area of quality, it is essential to look at it with a fresh eye from the client's perspective. I find the answers from my clients extremely helpful, and none of my clients ever looked negatively surprised by my asking the question, quite the contrary.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

What Is the Value of an Audit?

Many organisations go through audits: for example, a client satisfaction audit, the organisational audit of the law department of a company, a partnership audit where each partner is invited to share his or her perceptions about all the dimensions of the partnership from governance to finance to team spirit, an audit of associates' satisfaction, etc.

These audits always have a certain cost, and that has of course on impact on the decision to launch an audit or not, and to hire one or another provider to do it. But assessing cost only is not sufficient. It's the value/cost ratio that matters, not just the cost. But then, how to assess the value of an audit? And what can you do, as the buyer or the provider of an audit, to improve the value/cost ratio by increasing the value?

Three parameters can have value for the client: the audit process itself, the conclusions, and the changes that follow the audit. 

The process. Some audits can, just by taking place, have a positive impact on the organisation. For example, partners and associates invited to speak up in an organisational audit may feel relieved to have at least an opportunity to explore and express their concerns and ideas. The audit process, irrespective of its results, can energise an organisation, boost team dynamics, relieve tensions, create a new climate of trust and openness, enhance internal communication, strengthen relationships, inspire people to think in a more thorough, structured and creative way about the organisation and their job, etc. 

This does not happen by magic, of course. It requires the audit to be conducted in a certain way. Sometimes, an audit can be perceived as inquisitorial, useless, boring, irrelevant, disruptive, rigid or stupid. In that case, the process as such is not creating any value. On the contrary; it undermines the motivation of the personnel, damages the reputation and credibility of the audit's sponsors, feeds cynicism and distrust, or simply irritates people and makes them waste their time.

So, the first thing to do to increase the value of an audit is to ensure it will be perceived as a positive experience. The process itself, irrespective of the conclusions or follow up, must have a positive, energising impact on the people and on the organisation, instead of a destructive one.

The conclusions. Depending on the content and on the way they are formulated, conclusions can have a high or a low value. High-value conclusions are reliable and simple, clear and concise. They are complete but highlight priorities. They combine in a transparent way data reporting and intelligent analysis and interpretation. And most importantly, they are delivered to and discussed with the right people, in a way that positively engage these people. 

On the contrary, conclusions that are too long, too detailed, or too complex to make sense, reports that focus on ancillary points and fail to highlight the big ones, reports that are either too soft or too hard, or reports that are never heard or never read; all of this reduces or annihilates the value of an audit.

So, improving the quality of the conclusions, of the report that contains them, and of the delivery and presentation of these conclusions is another way to improve the value of an audit.

The changes. Finally, and to a very large extent, the value of an audit depends on the action that will flow from it. Sometimes, the audit can be a perfect process, the conclusions may be clear, important and well communicated, but for some reasons, no decisions are made and nothing is done. Nothing changes. In that case, the overall value of the audit, despite the quality of the process and of the conclusions, can be negative. People will feel, afterwards, that it was a useless exercise and a waste of their time, if not a manoeuvre to manipulate them. The whole thing can blow back and actually destroy value and increase negativity.

So, the third way to improve the value of an audit is to ensure that change actually follows, and the sooner the better.  

 

Antoine Henry de Frahan

 

 

 

 

Looking for a Market Opportunity?

Advice to law firms: I have met two general counsel of major companies this week who are both lacking adequate "legal watch" services. What they want is to be informed about legal developments relevant for their business, both actual and potential (what's in the pipeline). They don't seem to be able to get this from their law firms. 

There are many reasons why law firms are not able or not willing to provide this service:

-    Law firms see legal watch as a non-profitable activity. And indeed, general counsel are not willing to pay fortunes for that service. Tip: if you want to offer that service, think carefully about organization, leverage and efficiency.  

-    Law firms tend to delegate legal watch to junior professionals without experience in the relevant sector. That may result in a very basic type of legal watch, totally useless to the in-house lawyers. What general counsel expect is more than that: insights, analysis, prospective, opinion about what's happening and what's coming up. TIP: get senior attorneys involved to benefit from their insights and analysis.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

Don't Have Meetings!

One of my favourite pages ever on meetings. I love it! The meeting is so simple: meetings are toxic. Don't have meetings. Period. Check it out! 

Antoine Henry de Frahan 

How Much Can You Take?

Clients sometimes ask their advisors the question, "What value can you deliver to us?". This is of course a very relevant question. However, I increasingly feel that when it comes to "value creation", it takes two to tango. A consultant may be able to deliver a lot of value (in the form of management insights, market information, strategic recommendations, benchmarks, creative ideas, energy level, etc.), but this potential value will only be transformed into actual value for the client if and to the extent the client is able to accept and internalise the advisor's contribution. To the question, "What value can you deliver to us?", the right answer is often another question back to the client, "How much value are you able and willing to take from me?".

Let's take a practical example: A client is in the middle of reviewing his organisation's strategy and hires a consultant (me, actually) to challenge him, to give him new ideas and suggestions, to help him think in innovative ways, etc. To what extent, however, will the client be really listening? How open is he to ideas that are indeed challenging his beliefs and thinking patterns? If the client does not listen, does not ask questions, interrputs me as soon as I start talking, and disqualifies my ideas as soon as I express them... Was there a lot of value delivered? No, or hardly. Does it mean that I have no value to deliver? Neither.

Another typical example is change management. Clients hire consultants because they want to change something: their strategy, their organisation, their communication, their visibility, whatever. But at the same time they don't want to change. That's the typical double-bind message "Change me but don't change me" that all professionals with their hands in change management are certainly familiar with. "Change our strategy, but don't change our organisation"; "Improve our governance, but don't make anyone upset"; "Make our organisation more efficient, but don't impose anything to anyone"; "Let's change the way we do things, but let's keep the status quo"; "Challenge me, but don't say anything I don't agree with".

Does that sound familiar? How do you deal with this situation?

Antoine Henry de Frahan

If Your Lawyers Claim They Are Service-Minded, Fire Them!

The idea that lawyers should be “service oriented” is now widely accepted. The “service culture” is where today’s lawyers find inspiration when it comes to setting professional best practices. The idea is: it’s not enough to be an expert in legal matters, you also need to provide excellent service to your client. Service orientation is presented and perceived as the right mind-set for the ultimate professional. Today’s firms are rushing to mention “commitment to excellent client service” everywhere: in mission statements, in firm brochures, and in training programs. Service has become the new battleground where firms compete to create a competitive advantage.

Well, I disagree. I believe the obsession with the service mind-set is detrimental to both lawyers and their clients, in other words that it is both unprofitable and unethical. I believe that promoting service orientation is a big mistake, because it misses the point.

Of course, lawyers should return phone calls and respond to emails promptly, show up on time at meetings and meet deadlines, be reasonably available, put chocolates in the meeting room, etc. But this has nothing to do with service. You probably do the same with your friends: you return their calls, show up at time for lunch appointments, smile when you see them, call them by their name, and don’t forget their birthdays. It does not mean that you are “service-oriented” towards them. It simply means that you are well organised and that you care. Obviously, lawyers should be well organised and should also genuinely care for their clients. But this has nothing to do with service.

Service means a relationship where one party gives instructions, and the other obediently executes. Service is what you expect from a waiter, a groom, or the pizza delivery guy. They do not question you on your motives, they do not challenge your opinions and your judgements, there are just there to please you how and when you want them to. The service relationship is not a relationship among equals: there is a master who expects to be served, and there is a compliant servant, and the more client-compliant the servant is, the better it is for the master. That’s definitely not my vision of the ideal client-lawyer relationship. Self-organisation, responsiveness, and care? Yes, of course, these are obvious prerequisites. Service? No way.

The service-obsessed lawyer who places short-term satisfaction (or even delight) of his client above all, has abdicated not only the dignity but also the usefulness of his profession: he has lost his independence. He is submitted to the client. He has entered into a power game, and he is on the losing side. His clients’ wishes and desires have become his ultimate benchmark.

The eagerness to please the client no matter what, which is the trademark of the service philosophy, is a lose-lose game: it is a disservice for the client (and therefore unethical), because the professional will not stand up to prevent his clients from engaging into meaningless or counterproductive directions. “As long as the client is happy…” It is also counterproductive for the lawyer, because you will never deserve nor get respect, trust, loyalty (and high fees that come with it) if you just “comply”. You will be paid what servants are paid, and be treated the way they are. And rightly so.

The sad thing is, because lawyers are convinced that service is the ultimate value these days, they have educated their clients in the same way, and now clients have converted to the service religion: they believe that the best their lawyers have to offer is excellent service. How do lawyers educate their clients this way? Satisfaction surveys, for example: you will find lots of questions on whether the client is happy with the service (returned phone calls, availability, friendliness, etc.), just like the forms you find in hotels on check-out day. But isn’t there a difference between hotels and law firms? Is is really those things that distinguish great lawyers and law firms from the others? Of course not.

If the client-lawyer relationship is not to be based on service, what should it be based on? My answer is: value for the client. The questions in the survey should not (only) be about returned phone calls and the like; they should be about the value that is being created by the firm for the benefit of the client. Value is an improvement in the client’s condition. You don’t measure a lawyer’s excellence by the fact that there are no typos in his memos. You measure it by the improved client’s condition that the lawyer has contributed to create. It is not the excellence of your work that matters (lawyer-centred perspective), it is the value created for, and perceived by your client (client-centred perspective).

Just try this: ask yourself “How can I improve service to my clients?” and note your ideas (they may include things like “put new paintings in the meeting rooms” or “teach the receptionist to smile on the phone”). Then do the same with the question “How can I create more value for my clients?”. Believe me, you will come up with very different answers.

If the client “orders” something that, in the lawyer’s opinion will not improve the client’s condition, the service-oriented professional will nevertheless comply, obey, and proceed promptly, because “the client is king” and the game is about making the client happy. On the contrary, the value-oriented lawyer, under the same circumstances, will question the client’s request, challenge it, and if necessary, refuse to proceed or propose an alternative. The value-oriented lawyer will not compromise on the purpose of creating long-term value for the client. A clear commitment to create value for the client (not to be at the client’s service) is the basis for effective client-lawyer partnerships, based on integrity and trust, not compliance with the client’s directions or ego.

The commitment should not be to service. It should be to value. Don’t miss the opportunity. Be ambitious. Focus on what really matters to your clients, which by the way is also what could really be profitable to you: creating value for your client. That goes beyond brand chocolates in the meeting rooms.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

Don't Import Your Clients' Problems

I recently met with an old friend of mine who runs his own consulting practice. We exchanged about our experiences, and he gave me this advice: don't import your clients' problems. As a financial consultant, he works with a lot of companies in the midst of financial troubles, including cash flow shortages. Before starting an assignment, he now demands a substantial down payment. He didn' always do that, and the result was late payment by clients, or no payment at all, putting his own financial situation at risk. He was indeed importing his clients' problems. He now holds himself to a very strict line: "My clients' problem may not become my problems."

It reminds me of a client of ours who was not subject to VAT, and therefore could not deduct the VAT we were legally forced to add to our bills. He wanted us to reduce our hourly rate accordingly. Basically, he wanted us to pay VAT for him.

That pattern happens in a lot of areas, not only in financial matters: "urgent requests" from clients are not always the genuine result from unexpected circumstances, but simply from the lack of organisation and planning on the client's side. I was once talking about a time management course in a law firm. A partner told me abruptly: "Time management is dead." He felt he had no control over his own time. All he was doing was trying to respond to urgent calls from clients. Further down that road, many professionals have a messed up personal life because responding as soon as possible to any clients' requests has become a religion they do not question and to which they are entirely submitted. To what extent should we accomodate the client's "needs"? At what point do we stop being flexible and responsive and do we begin importing our cients' problems?

When conventional wisdom in professional services is all about client-centeredness and adjusting to client's needs and expectations, it is healthy, I believe, at some point to draw the line, to set boundaries, and to think back about the real meaning of client care. Being contaminated by the "client's diseases" has nothing to do with effective client service.

However, drawing the line, saying "no", is not an easy call, for reasons good and bad. The good reason: professionals want to please the client, to deliver not only expert advice but also excellent service, and to meet or event exceed clients' expectations. The bad reason: behind the cult of client service and the reluctance to say no, there is a fear: "If I set boundaries, if I refuse to import the client's problem, I could lose the client..."

Personal growth for professionals requires at some point to come to overcome the fear of losing clients, i.e. to actually lose clients (for good reasons) and feel OK about it. Professionals should indeed build enough self-esteem and confidence to accept losing clients from time to time. Client loyalty that is based on the professional importing the client's problem is not client loyalty. It's what addiction experts call co-dependence. It is something to be cured.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

Assessing the CLO-CEO Relationship

As a chief legal officer, you probably spend a significant amount of your time managing relationships: with the lawyers in your team of course, with your external advisors, with your internal clients (business units, line managers, corporate officers), with the heads of other departments (finance, tax, IT, HR, purchase, etc.), and, last but not least, with the top management. Developing and maintaining a special relationship with the CEO’s office is a top priority for most CLOs. Here is a checklist to assess how you perform in this area. If your answer to all questions is “yes”, wow! If you have many “no’s”, it’s time to think about it…

 Does the CEO involve you in the overall strategic decision-making process for the organisation?

 Are you able to discuss management and strategic issues beyond the strict legal perspective?

 Do you have the guts and the skills to challenge the CEO in a constructive but assertive manner?

 Does the CEO listen to you when you challenge him?

 Is there a clear (written) understanding between the CEO and you as to the mission and key responsibilities of the law department?

 Does the CEO take legal risk management seriously?

 Does the CEO show interest and actively support the projects and programs of the law department that affect the organisation, such as compliance programs, training programs on legal issues, and contract management policies?

 Does the agenda of the legal department reflect the strategic priorities of the organisation? Is it in line with the strategic agenda of the CEO?

 Do you regularly report to the CEO on main legal issues?

 Do you get the budget you need to conduct the programs you want to?

Antoine Henry de Frahan

Marktonderzoek en client feedback: in de voetsporen van een Bedrijfsnar

Ik heb nog een jurist ontdekt met een passie voor marketing. En uiteraard heeft hij het allemaal niet goed begrepen. Of net wel?

Frank Wouters presenteert zichzelf als ‘Bedrijfsnar’. Hij trekt ten strijde tegen de traditionele visie op marketing en de hedendaagse marketingpraktijk. Zijn stokpaardje is marktonderzoek. De volgende uitspraken vatten zijn visie samen: “Marktonderzoek heeft dezelfde waarde als astrologie.” “Er bestaat geen enkele relatie tussen marktonderzoek en het eventuele succes van het product.”

Een beetje ongenuanceerd wellicht, maar ik kan hem een heel eind volgen, in het bijzonder wanneer het gaat om het bepalen van een visie en een strategie: marktonderzoek kan een strategie voeden maar mag ze niet bepalen. Een lange termijn visie of strategie baseer je niet op een grootste-gemene-deler-opinie: niet die van cliënten, niet die van medewerkers, en in grotere associaties, zelfs niet die van alle vennoten.

Een strategie impliceert keuzes. Het gevaar om de strategie te steunen op breed marktonderzoek en ‘gemiddelde meningen’ is dat de keuzes verwateren en verworden tot compromissen. Compromissen en strategie gaan niet samen. Een visie moet voorsprong nemen op de toekomst. De mediaan die naar boven komt in marktonderzoek is de opinie over het nu, gevormd door het verleden. De meeste cliënten hebben de handen vol met hun eigen onzekere toekomst. Ze weten wat ze vandaag verwachten van advocaten maar hebben daarom nog geen visie op de toekomst.

Toch gaan steeds meer advocatenkantoren over tot marktonderzoek en steken tijd en energie in ‘client feedback systems’. Weggegooid geld? Zeer zeker niet, zolang men de juiste doelstellingen voor ogen houdt en weet wat men van marktonderzoek wel en niet kan verwachten.

Men kan het onderscheid maken tussen twee soorten marktonderzoek of ‘client feedback’: kwalitatief onderzoek en kwantitatief onderzoek.

Het best gekend is kwantitatief onderzoek. Iedereen kent de massa-enquêtes via de telefoon of via vragenlijsten. Kwantitatief onderzoek baseert zich op representativiteit: aan de hand van het oordeel van een deel van de markt, cliënten en/of potentiële cliënten, tracht men conclusies te trekken voor de gehele markt.

Ik deel in niet geringe mate de scepsis van de Bedrijfsnar over dit soort onderzoek. Met cijfers kan je alles aantonen en de ‘regels van de statistische kunst’ worden al te vaak over boord gegooid om kosten te besparen of andere opportunistische overwegingen.

Goed uitgevoerd, kan kwantitatief onderzoek m.i. wel geschikt zijn om te ontdekken waar het kantoor steken laat vallen en als basis voor actie om de situatie te verbeteren Bij voorbeeld de tevredenheid van cliënten over specifieke aspecten van de dienstverlening of de naambekendheid van een kantoor. Maar kwantitatief onderzoek werpt geen blik in de toekomst. Het is niet geschikt voor strategische kwesties of zelfs onderzoek naar nieuwe producten of diensten.

Bij kwalitatief onderzoek gaat men niet voor representativiteit. Men zoekt in het cliëntenbestand of in de markt, naar ‘opinion leaders’: mensen met een uitgesproken mening die wegen op de markt. In plaats van een representatief staal samen te stellen, beperkt men zich tot een kransje insiders met een visie. Geen vragenlijsten voor deze sleutelfiguren (dit is trouwens de categorie mensen die niet antwoorden op enquêtes), maar een diepgaand gesprek, met een duidelijke doelstelling maar een vrij verloop.

Ook dit onderzoek levert geen kant en klare visie op de toekomst. Het kan wel helpen om de visie te voeden, om de essentie uit te filteren en om de eigen organisatie vanuit een andere bril te bekijken. Het is ook een uitstekend instrument om de advocaten een spiegel voor te houden. Gemiddelden, percentages, statistieken…maken weinig los bij advocaten. Ze zetten zelden aan tot reflectie over de eigen werking. De onverbloemde mening van identificeerbare cliënten daarentegen, cliënten ‘met een naam en een gezicht’ die dossiers aanbrengen en erelonen betalen, spreekt veel meer tot de verbeelding. Een rake quote van één gerespecteerde cliënt doet veel meer dan de gezichtsloze tevredenheidscores van 100 anonieme cliënten. Kwalitatief onderzoek is een krachtige begeleider van veranderingsprocessen.

Mijn persoonlijke top drie voor client feedback systemen:

1. Client Relationship Management (CRM) programma’s. Client feedback is een van de hoofdobjectieven van dergelijke programma’s.
2. Transaction debriefings. Na de afloop van belangrijke transacties of intensieve dossier, samen met de cliënt het verloop en het resultaat van de samenwerking evalueren.
3. Diepte-interviews met sleutelfiguren. Uitgevoerd door één van de vennoten, door de marketing manager of door externen met kennis van de markt (tip: bij voorkeur niet door de vennoot die ook diens dossiers behartigt).

Barend Blondé

Amerikaanse General Counsels zijn het beu.

Een 'must-read' artikel gepubliceerd op www.law.com:  GCs Vent Their Frustrations About Outside Counsel.

BTI Consulting Group peilde bij meer dan 1.000 Amerikaanse bedrijfsjuristen uit grote ondernemingen hoe tevreden ze waren met de diensten van hun voornaamste advocaten.

Opvallend resultaat: slechts 30 % (tegen 43,5 % verleden jaar) was te spreken over hun advocaten.

Drie oorzaken:

1. De dienstverlening is niet aangepast aan de gewijzigde behoeften van General Counsel;

2. De advocaten slagen er niet in om de meerwaarde van hun diensten aan te tonen;

3. Gebrekkige communicatie.

De tien remedies die verder in het artikel aangedragen worden, behoeven verder geen commentaar: nagel op de kop en heerlijk in hun eenvoud.

“Dat is Amerika, in Europa is het anders.”, hoor ik menigeen onder u denken. Ik durf inderdaad de tevredenheidcijfers niet zomaar extrapoleren naar Europa of België. Maar voor die tien remedies steek ik mijn hand in het vuur.

 

Barend Blondé