In business blog

Do solicitors value their reputation as a marketing tool?
Jon Hepburn
Tuesday, 9 March 2010

The following statement was made to me by a solicitor: ‘Clients often do not fully understand what they are buying, hence any client review is meaningless.’ I take the opposite view...

The following statement was made to me by a solicitor: ‘Clients often do not fully understand what they are buying, hence any client review is meaningless.’ I take the opposite view – it is because clients don’t know exactly what they’re buying that they rely on reviews from others.

A few observations to shape the discussion: people will ‘buy’ on reputation, but many law firms don’t seem to want to ‘sell’ themselves on that basis.

Is this part of that strange paradox where, collectively, solicitors seem sometimes not particularly highly ‘thought of’; but individually, between the client and the solicitor, the trust is absolute.

The bigger picture must be ‘how to leverage the role of the trusted adviser?’; to engage more regularly with clients and potential clients by providing services that clients would be happy to purchase from their legal advisers.

Competing on price makes no sense at all and client’s perceptions of value are certainly not just about the cost of legal advice.

7 Comments
Add comment
Making the most of web enquiry sources
Alastair Moyes, Marketlaw
Wednesday, 3 March 2010

As an independent business working on marketing with solicitors around the country, we have to be careful to remain independent. This independence allows us to assess marketing and promotional opportunities for each firm, given their aims, objectives and resources available, choosing only those that will provide a return on the investment.

Having got my mitigation in first, I want to highlight the problem of web referral businesses attempting to sell either legal service listings or enquiries to solicitors. I’m not going to name any, but I think it is useful to share the collective experience of Marketlaw. There are some good services and some that are not so good. As part of the seminars Marketlaw delivers, we have a projector slide that is covered in website brands that present contacts for legal services to the public on the web. A solicitor that saw our presentation, contacted many of them and had a go with a few. Her experience backs up our usual view that often it’s not worth it. That’s not to say ‘don’t do it’ just be aware that you may not get the results you anticipated.

The problem is you can’t tell if they are any good unless you pay to have a go, which costs money. Even then you may get a few ‘pearlers’ in the first few weeks, then not much after that. It’s not much different from buying advertising space in print publications. Tracking the enquiries becomes important and is often a problem with firms that don’t do it rigorously enough to tell if the firm made any profit.

As an alternative I would suggest a much safer bet. Use the money to write to your existing and past clients, explaining the benefits of the services your firm offers. Then, every time you are contacted by another web enquiry service, use that as a prompt to write to your current and past clients again with another set of benefits. It does mean you have to do the work but it’ll be worth it.

11 Comments
Add comment
Time to embrace back-office outsourcing
Rasik Kotecha
Monday, 1 March 2010

The term ‘outsourcing’ is hardly new to the legal world: there has been much discussion over several years about legal process outsourcing (LPO) to lower cost locations. However, it has taken the profession a while to feel reassured that outsourcing is not a swear word, but in fact representative of a sensible and innovative approach to a firm’s business structure. So, what of the new kid on the block: back-office outsourcing (BOO)?

By this I specifically mean the outsourcing of back-office functions such as the switchboard – a service increasingly used by firms large enough to have a separate switchboard and front of house, or smaller firms in need of an ‘overflow’ system to decrease the number of calls missed because of lack of resources. Sometimes alternatively referred to as a ‘virtual’ or ‘remote’ reception or switchboard. In our experience this is not a brand new development – in fact, for a number of years, CallCare has been handling out-of-hours calls for firms wishing to avoid a situation where the security guard picks up that all-important call from a client. Over more recent times, this picture has been evolving and a number of firms, having had the opportunity to ‘test drive’ outsourced call handling outside of core business hours, now outsource all call answering and see it as a financially attractive option that is aligned to the objective that is to become more strategic and forward-thinking in the approach to business structure.

Despite this, BOO is still something that happens behind closed doors: even law firms with which we work are keen to avoid clients being aware calls are answered off-site by an external provider, as if this is an admission of some ‘weakness’. Far from wanting to ‘out’ CallCare’s clients, rather what I find interesting is the contradiction that exists here. The key question is: why are firms comfortable with talking about the outsourcing of legal processes – which sits at the heart of the service they offer to clients – yet are reluctant to make noise about the outsourcing of a basic function such as call handling? Call handling by an onshore outside organization offers the benefit of high-quality service delivered cost-effectively – of course I’m not without bias, but this seems to make good business sense to me.

I appreciate it has taken a number of years for attitudes towards LPO to change, one would hope that the profession would learn from past experience and embrace BOO in the interests of cost efficiency and quality – benefits that can be passed on to firms’ clients.

People have talked about the fact that LPO is all about improving processes. The same principle can be applied to back-office outsourcing: handing over your switchboard function is about putting the onus of improving the efficiency and quality of that function on to someone else’s shoulders: someone who is an expert in that particular field, leaving the firm’s management to focus on the business of providing legal services.

In today’s global village, a law firm’s client base is increasingly widespread and, where necessary, firms are well practised in gearing up legal teams to handle work of an international nature. Yet apply that principle to other law firm departments and the same cannot be said. For example, hiring multilingual staff to fill a switchboard role can be difficult and expensive. Procuring an external provider who can supply a translation service for any international call that comes into the firm is one good solution. Similarly, for smaller firms a ‘virtual reception’ provides a hassle-free option – perhaps preferable to training and managing temporary staff.

It’s clear that law firm clients want lower costs. While firms seem to be paying more and more attention to this, and well and truly embracing legal process outsourcing, it is important they do not overlook the option of outsourcing non-core elements of the business such as call handling. There was much negative press about LPO a number of years ago, now a firm is considered behind the times if they haven’t turned their attention to it. I feel confident that we will see the same change in attitudes towards back-office outsourcing, but I strongly suggest the profession as a whole makes it a priority call.

Rasik Kotecha, is founder and managing director of CallCare

3 Comments
Add comment
Change is happening quicker than you think
Martin Langan
Thursday, 18 February 2010

Outside of the personal injury claims world (and within it in many quarters) a highly significant change in legal practice is slipping in almost unnoticed. From 6 April this year, all personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents, where the value of the claim is between £1,000 and £10,000, will have to be submitted and processed via a web portal funded and managed by the Association of British Insurers.

Strict time limits for responding to the claim, making offers of settlement and agreeing the same, or for submission to a district judge for assessment of quantum (which can be on the papers only) will be applied and fixed costs for each of the three stages of the process will be paid as each stage is completed. This is a gross over simplification of the process, but I want to give you the flavour.

Practitioners have been given scandalously short time to gear up for the structural and IT changes needed to be ready for the new system, not least because the regulations have not yet been published. This is very reminiscent of the lead up to the Woolf reforms, with regulations finalised only weeks before the implementation date, but at least on this occasion no one has had the temerity to choose April Fool’s Day again for the start date.

Leaving this gripe aside, the introduction of this process is, in my view, the biggest step yet in harnessing technology in shaping legal practice as predicted consistently by Professor Richard Susskind.

Although practitioners will be able to enter data manually on the portal, an interface will be available to enable case management databases held by firms to talk directly to the portal. Claims have to be formulated in a set way, with even medical reports required to comply with a template of required data.

Turnover of cases completed within this process will be much shorter than the current average and, although claimant solicitors will be paid less for their work, the entire process lends itself to delegation away from highly qualified staff for those parts of the job that do not warrant it, and computerisation where human input is unnecessary – that is if the claimant firm wants to make a profit.

The Ministry of Justice has not ruled out a future introduction of a computerised tool for assessing general damages, so not only will there be litigation conducted by one case management application talking to another, but the outcome itself could at some point be decided by computer.

It does not take a latter day Nostradamus to predict that this new process will pave the way for more cases to fall within its scope. Expect all road traffic fast-track claims to be embraced and for the regime to include claims arising from accidents at work and public liability claims. It is but a short step too to move into other areas of dispute resolution not involving personal injury claims.

Stop scanning the horizon to see what the future will bring. It is here. Now.

3 Comments
Add comment
Websites – to retain or gain clients?
Alastair Moyes
Tuesday, 16 February 2010

The Gazette’s LinkedIn group is having a useful discussion centred around the launch of Shoosmiths Access Legal website. The responses mainly look at whether or how other solicitors should emulate Shoosmiths’ approach. What’s occasionally difficult to pick out is the real value clients will receive from websites and web-based services. While we see the website and the offers it makes, what we don’t see is the other side of promotions.

Although I haven’t spoken to Shoosmiths, from Marketlaw’s experience, I would suggest there is a lot of other activity that we are not seeing. While preparing a new website one of the first questions to consider is, who is it aimed at and how do we want them to use it? That helps design the site, but there is still one essential activity still to do. Telling the people you designed the website for that it’s there and the benefits to them of using it. And in a suitable manner, keep reminding them that it’s there to help them, 24 hours a day.

Websites and online services raise many questions and issues for solicitors. One point firms need to decide is if their website is primarily to retain or gain clients. For many firms it’s a mixture of the two, but the emphasis is important in deciding how the website is then promoted.

To gain clients requires effort and expenses that includes fighting for position on search engine rankings, competing against the many websites already out there and setting up your firm to take the incoming enquiry volumes (should they materialise).

To retain clients means looking at how you can help the people you already know by reinforcing their view that your firm is ‘their solicitor’; promoting the benefits of and how easy it is for the clients to get immediate help via the website.

Both approaches are there to capture client enquiries. The question to ask is not how good the website looks or what is does, but how good the promotion of it is to the people that you want to use it. Ask the person responsible for your website how the promotion is going and to which groups of potential clients.

9 Comments
Add comment
Solicitors must diversify and cross-sell to boost profits
Sue Bramall
Friday, 12 February 2010

In the next few weeks some friends of ours, who are farmers, will be opening a new marina and farm shop on the Trent and Mersey Canal. Having survived the foot and mouth crisis and BSE, it was clear that dairy farming, as they knew it, had changed, and they needed to rethink how they took their business forward.

In the same way that the farming sector has had to embrace the concept of diversification, are solicitors considering how else they can service their client base or better utilise their assets profitably?

In November last year, I attended the Law Society/SIFA conference, where a number of speakers highlighted practical opportunities for offering financial advisory services directly to their clients. Across all practice areas, do you know how much work you are passing to IFAs regularly and its approximate value?

In a previous life, when marketing a firm of chartered accountants, a merger with a practice that already incorporated an IFA opened the door to huge growth through the provision of financial advice. Given that the lawyer/accountant often generates a need for financial advice, it makes good sense to exploit that business opportunity, rather than send it elsewhere.

In the last two weeks, I have also met and spoken to two firms which have opened their own estate agencies, each creating another income stream and their own profitable referral source for conveyancing work and other related services.

From the client perspective, integrating your service portfolio means that you can develop the one-stop-shop concept and provide a really seamless service.

The obvious appeal of vertical integration to the law firm is the scope for cross-selling of additional services. However, how many law firms would consider themselves real experts at cross-selling?

In what other ways are law firms diversifying? Should there be more events exploring opportunities for diversification as a way of meeting competitive challenges in the market?

7 Comments
Add comment
Consumer research – make it work for you
Wednesday, 10 February 2010

The recent YouGov survey of over 2,000 individuals commissioned by the Legal Services Board contains some useful information. But can you use it to help clients, reduce costs and increase profits?

Research always has to be taken cautiously. Henry Ford is supposed to have commented, apropos developing cars, that if he’d have asked the public what they wanted, they’d have asked for a faster horse. The LSB research shows some confusion among the public about legal services. Most respondents (75%) chose their solicitor by some form of recommendation; a similar percentage (77%) didn’t bother to ‘shop around’. And while 5% used internet search and 3% the Yellow Pages, when asked what they’d like, 42% of consumers wanted ‘online price comparison sites’ and 28% ‘more online legal services’.

Other things they wanted are, I suggest, already there and available to use. ‘Something like NHS Direct, but for legal services’ was requested by 52%. Solicitors’ firms have had telephones for many years, why don’t you call and ask for help? Although not a 24-hour service, most legal problems can wait till the morning.

Half the people wanted ‘more drop-in legal centres in my local community’. I’d be surprised if the majority of the urban population did not live within three or four miles of a solicitors’ office. Drop in indeed – lawyers are not that scary!

One conclusion to draw from all this is that solicitors are not telling the public how to easily contact or visit them and how open they are (or should be) to enquiries of all types. Clients appear concerned it will cost them money to walk through the door; or that somehow they’ll get a bill for more than the cost of a telephone call.

What to do? Make some minor changes, like having a solicitor or solicitors ready to take calls up to 6pm or even 7pm - or open the switchboard at 8am. Give every client a business card or a letter to reassure them that they can call or pop-in ‘just for a chat if something’s bothering them’. Most firms already do this type of thing for their commercial clients.

Also, look at the language you use in your leaflets and on your website. Change it to encourage calls, visits and emails. You may have to review how you handle enquiries, and note the number and type of incoming calls.

As the competition from branded legal services increases, using research like this to make changes is worth the effort. If you don’t, your competitors will – or will have done so already.

1 Comments
Add comment
Commuting – a cold comfort
Martin Langan
Friday, 5 February 2010

I work from home most of the time, but when I call my lawyer clients they are almost invariably in the office. All that changed during the recent cold snap, when heavy snowfalls made travelling very hazardous. Suddenly, lawyers up and down the country were logging onto their networks from home studies, dining tables and garden sheds.

A common theme emerged when I talked to these stranded souls. Making allowances for being caught out by the speed at which winter descended, most of my colleagues enthused about how productive they were compared with their usual routines. No distractions, travel time replaced by remunerative activity, no office politics, all contributed to improvements in quality and quantity of output, greater energy and a general feeling of well being.

No need to talk about how technology makes this possible. We know that web-accessed servers and applications, email, conference calls, videoconferencing and so on are available. These thoughts are more to do with why we take advantage of these facilities only when we have to.

Do we fill roads, trains and buses twice a day, five days a week, because we want to work that way, or just because it’s conventional? The 20th century invented the office as we know it and that environment once made a lot of sense. It created and maintained the infrastructure needed to enable people to work together for a common purpose. This rationale is less compelling these days, as we prove when the snow falls.

The weather’s now warmed up again (slightly) and the big commute is back on. Will it take a new Ice Age for that to change for good?

1 Comments
Add comment
Coping with bad publicity
Alastair Moyes
Tuesday, 2 February 2010

The ongoing debate about complaints and dissatisfied clients raises the issue of bad publicity and how to deal with it. Given that there are a number of websites that collect complaints and achieve Google rankings, is there anything a firm can do?

From the point of view of marketing management and websites, the answer is: not much. Trying to get the offending material removed will cost money and often amounts to a pyrrhic victory – if it can be achieved at all.

Taken in a wider context, the internet is only providing a convenient place for people’s grievances to be aired. Those people who are dissatisfied, whether they voice their feelings online or not, will tell others anyway and there’s no way to stop word of mouth. Or is there? Isn’t that what PR is for?

While considering the implications of complaint websites and the wider PR issue of how to deal with bad news affecting a firm, I called a friend who is a public relations specialist in brand protection and media, Rob Shimmin.

Several ideas emerged from our discussion. If your firm is suddenly the focus of high-profile media attention, get professional help immediately. Crisis PR, like legal work, is worth every penny if you get help early.

In a less pressing situation that nevertheless demands a response, think through what your firm actually stands for, the benefits of the services it provides and (where possible) two or three examples of satisfied clients. Work towards having more positive messages about your firm than negative ones.

Also bear in mind that information also needs to be disseminated within the firm when such issues arise. It’s worth providing an internal memo that informs everyone of the position and the firm’s response. That way everyone knows what to say if they’re asked.

If you find your firm listed on a complaints website, it’s only a disaster if that’s the only message out there about your firm.

3 Comments
Add comment
Don’t stereotype your support staff
Masked IT Man
Monday, 25 January 2010

Tube journeys in London are a wonderfully varied experience. One minute you are chatting to a friendly tourist about where Harrods is, the next you are wondering if the enormous person who has parked themselves next to you has bought two tickets, to cater for the fact that they are taking most of your seat space, along with their own. When I am not wrestling with those variables, I like to see what gadgets people are using. Yesterday a shabby-looking chap whisked out a strange device – a laptop keyboard with a tiny monochrome screen. Turns out it was a portable typewriter, and in the time it took to travel about eight stops, he had written a huge chunk of material.

It struck me that sometimes simple really does work best. Not only was the device much quicker to use than a laptop, the absence of a foldout screen made it more rugged and more portable. Perfect if you have an idea for a blog or report and want to type instantly.

Typing, of course, is a large variable in any law firm. Even with the advent of better dictation and transcription technology, as well as automated routines and document systems that have enabled them to produce typed output much more quickly, law firms still employ vast numbers of secretarial staff. I am not sure what percentage of a secretary’s time is taken up with typing, but it must amount to a substantial sum once you multiply it by the number of them in an organisation.

Digital dictation was really spawned by speech recognition. Or to put it another way, speech recognition back in the late 1990s was appalling, so some bright spark decided that using the bits from it to make dictation more streamlined was the answer. Nowadays most law firms use this technology. As the market gets more saturated, the vendors look to other avenues for additional revenue, and – lo and behold – the spectre of speech recognition has made a return. Digital dictation software can now be linked to speech recognition engines. This means that the person dictating can send the output to a speech recognition engine rather than a secretary, thus reducing the time taken to type. The neat bit of these set-ups is that the secretary can then review and correct the output. The corrections get relayed to the speech recognition engine, which means it will be more accurate for the user next time round.

Other than the cost of installation, I can’t think of a downside to this approach. Most secretaries I speak to think they have too much to do, so moving their role slightly from typist to reviewer not only eases the burden, but also allows them to concentrate on more important elements of their work. Some may argue that it is a step down the slippery slope to the removal of secretaries altogether, but I don’t see that. Most, if not all, legal people need administrative support, and the current atmosphere of cost reduction should point firms in the direction of making better use of their support staff. Surely reviewing work is quicker than typing it, as well as being more interesting.

There are of course other benefits. Travelling lawyers can get material transcribed any time of the day or night, and those fee-earners who do prefer to produce their own output get to produce documents faster.

If there are efficiency gains to be made in terms of secretarial staffing, I would expect the natural attrition rates for these posts to allow this to happen seamlessly. A switched on HR department should be able to provide data on this. What’s not to like?

5 Comments
Add comment