Competition is fierce in today’s marketplace, especially if your firm is in a competitive niche. I’ve been preaching for a long time about how new business can often come from existing clients. So I often challenge my clients by asking them, “Can you build a broader marketplace by offering something more?” Sometimes I receive a resounding affirmative followed by a laundry list of services; but, more often than not, I hear silence followed by the distant sound of crickets chirping.

You may think you are doing a stellar job servicing your client already, and you probably are. But remember, the competition will always offer something more, and so should you. Rainmaking need not start outside. It begins under your own roof.

An example of “something more” could mean providing your clients with information about new legislation that can impact their business, or hosting once-a-year training sessions to your client’s employees, and the list goes on.

Remember, even if you think you’re giving your best, there’s always more.

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

We begin a new series on why most underachieving law firm mergers share one fundamental deficiency. Over the next several columns, I’ll identify a checklist to be used by the negotiating partners and marketing leadership to deal with it.
 
The failure is to work a practicable marketing strategy into the very soul of the merger – before it happens, while it happens and after it happens. Keep in mind that marketing is not just self-promotional activity but the process by which the institution actually defines itself. It is also used by others, such as in recruitment and business development to define the firm externally. Marketing likewise has an immediate impact on internal perceptions.
 
The first of the strategic questions from both firms’ marketing leadership should include:
 
1. Who is going to care about the merger? The answer, of course, is anyone directly affected by it, mainly clients and internal stakeholders. So marketing leadership must provide for direct and well-timed outreach to both constituencies, by phone whenever appropriate.
 
Stay tuned for more.
 
allan

Questions, questions, questions – the more knowledge about a corporate client you reveal, the more useful information you will receive. Polls and surveys of in-house counsel reveal that during the selection process, greater or lesser emphasis may be placed on :
 
– Diversity
– Pro Bono Activity
– Community Service
 
Some companies heavily weight these factors as they apply to competing law firms. Others may believe the activities of individual team members are more important.
 
Some buyers place equal weight on firm reputation and individual practice in selecting outside counsel. Some CEO’s and Boards of Directors demand the best law firm to solve the specific problem without much concern about who the individual lawyer is. From what you can see, are they really looking to protect themselves with a safety buy, a top firm “brand” so that, if the engagement goes south, they can still say they made the reasonably smart move?
 
* Do you know?
* Do you WANT to know?
* Do you know how to fine out?
 
Stay tuned!

We ended the previous article by repeating the marketing bromide “Get to know where they go, who they know, what they read.” So where are they going? Are the clients and prospects more likely to attend ABA meetings or their industry association conferences? Who are the people they trust and consult when looking for references for new or special counsel? Is their reading focused on professional journals, industry newsletters or novels of the Old West?
 
There are two ways to find out; ask or attend a wide range of conferences and workshops. Which do you think is more effective and time-valued? So ask away.
 
And in the next several segments, we’ll be recommending other key questions to ask to make your presentations and marketing calls much more impactful.

A study conducted by DecisionQuest, a jury and trial consulting firm, showed that GC’s expected a 20% turnover in their own top in-house ranks. In light of that instability, how do you build long term relationships that yield future business? Are today’s decision makers going to be there long enough to support your firm, listen to your law firm marketing presentations and take action?
 
Will non-lawyer executives be able to exert greater impact on the decision-making process after attorney business development efforts? If so, which ones in particular? How did they attain this position of influence? What could you have done to get to know them earlier? Contact us for the answers.

Is it any wonder that law firms enter pitch or proposal meetings without being aware of “what keeps ‘em up at night”? I have heard an in-house counsel describe her outside firms as “dumb” and “arrogant”?. Recent surveys offer detailed maps of the minefields in which many law firms get trapped. In January 2005, an INSIDE COUNSEL survey indicated that 59% of responding GC’s would soon be firing at least one of their outside law firms. If your firm is terminated, do you know why? Is it:
 
* Budget pressures?
* Consolidation of companies?
* Tightening of supervision and management of outside support?
* Desire for fresh strategies and new approaches?
* Turnover of counsel, either outside or inside or both?
 
Next time we’ll discuss the turnover rate of in-house counsel and its impact on client relationships.

A major complaint I have often heard from in-house counsel is that their attitudes about outside counsel are unsuspected. And many go on to say that their needs are unexplored by law firms.
 
These are two different concerns, but the same theme pervades. The next few articles will cover what inside-counsel are facing and what you should be doing to be truly “clientcentric.”
 
Issues they confront include:

* GC’s positions have become more tenuous;
* Shareholder pressures on corporate value have increased;
* New product or service development costs have grown;
* Boards of Directors’ expectations of in-house counsel and their
roles in “preventive law” present even greater challenges;
* SOX has created liability for GC’s that many do not want to bear,
or simply can not bear; and
* CEO’s are breathing down their necks.
 
So, when you enter a pitch or proposal meeting, are you really aware of
WHAT KEEPS ‘EM UP AT NIGHT?