Law firms ‘are their own competitors’
Law firms lose almost half of potential new clients by mishandling telephone enquiries and most show ‘zero’ sensitivity to a client’s needs, a ‘secret-shopping’ exercise has found.
Some 33% of calls to firms were disconnected before they reached a legal adviser and 44% of those which were put through went to the wrong person. Hybrid firms, which include alternative business structures and umbrella-branded firms, performed worst, the report found.
The report is based on 100 ‘secret shopping’ telephone calls made to large regional and hybrid firms enquiring about: a property matter, making a will, a business startup or an employment issue. Callers used a ‘multi-point customer experience assessment’ to rate the quality of each firm’s response.
The study was commissioned by Cxinlaw, a business which helps law firms deliver a better client experience and stands to gain from such findings. However, it received the endorsement of Professor Stephen Mayson, director of the Legal Services Institute, who said: ‘Some will dismiss this report as yet another lawyer-bashing survey. That would be a mistake. It shows the stark reality that too many law firms are their own competitors, turning work away and into the arms of others. It also shows exactly what needs to be worked on - not acquiring expensive resources, but changing attitudes.’
Some 45% of callers concluded that they would not engage law firms because of their ‘below average to poor service’ and would also tell others to avoid them. The allegedly poor service is reflected in the finding that 72% of legal advisers ‘scored zero’ or showed ‘little ability to empathise, build rapport or deal with objections sensitively’.
Comments
I am not surprised by this
I am not surprised by this although I’m not sure how much of it is about losing clients that law firms want, as opposed to getting rid of enquiries that seem on the face of it will not convert into clients.
I personally field all telephone enquiries that come to my firm and I can usually tell within about 2 minutes if the person calling is: a) seeking information about an area of law that we don’t do; b) lacking a claim which would justify paying a lawyer or c) just looking for free advice. However, no matter what the enquiry I will always give them some of my time and help them as much as I can. The response is usually very appreciative and I get told countless times how the person has called around a number of law firms and I’m the first person to actually speak to them. Many times they just get fobbed off and told someone will call them back and they never do.
Even if I gain no work from it I still treat it as a PR exercice.
In my experience, the vast
In my experience, the vast majority of callers want c). That is of course fine - our firm advertises extensively on the premise that we will provide initial advice for free.
But I'm afraid there are certain key "triggers" that will lead to the caller not being put through to a lawyer - we are not a charity, and whether the case is "free" (as in no up-front charge) or not, we expect to be able to profit somewhere along the line.
So when the caller starts to mention that the case concerns a £25 phone they have bought, or a dispute with the Council over not having paid their Council Tax, then they get referred to Citizen's Advice. When they say they want to sue the Law Society, and the Ministry of Justice because there is a big conspiracy and they lost the case, and lost on appeal and the Court of Appeal won't hear them, then we say "fine, you need £1,000 on account of costs". When they then say, as they always do, "can't you do it on Legal Aid / No-Win No-Fee", they get advised that we do not specialise in that area of law.
If you have the time personally to speak to them, that's great!
I don't think it is true to say that they "never get to speak" to anyone, or are "fobbed off" though. Unless they spoke to an entirely automated voice activated system, they did speak to somebody. It's just the somebody wasn't the senior partner who they think should deal with this case.
If I phone up Tesco to ask why they won't sell me beans for 25p instead of 30p, I wouldn't expect to get put through to anybody other than the person who answers the call. Yet in the legal field it is seen as unreasonable for some reason.
With the Bevan Ashford v
With the Bevan Ashford v Padden case in mind, and the myriad of other potential pitfalls that can arise if a client has not had our pre appointment letter confirming things they need to know, there's no chance I will be giving free advice over the phone to anyone who calls on spec. All potential clients who call our office are spoken to politely and warmly by secretarial staff who take initial details, do a conflict check, and book an appointment to see the solicitor for an initial free consultation (urgently if nec), so that we can then write to confirm the appointment and let them know what to expect and what information and docs to bring so that the solicitor can assess then for legal aid and advise on an informed basis. This idea that a new potential client can call any time and get put through to a senior solicitor, who is just sitting and waiting for their call, and get a load of free advice off the cuff is bonkers. You need to process and record new enquiries in a structured way if you want to run a busy practice efficiently and in compliance with regs and code of conduct. It's called risk management. It shouldn't mean that callers feel 'fobbed off' however, if they receive a brief explanation of the firm's policy to schedule appointments with the solicitor. That said, a while ago my firm did our own research on calling local firms to request hourly rates, and it was revealing as several firms said they'd have to call back and failed to do so.
Entirely agree with the point
Entirely agree with the point about people calling and expecting advice.
Why anyone thinks a professional will give off the cuff advice when there is such risk in doing so defeats me. That a body produces "research" which doesn't take that into account simply shows its own ignorance of the profession -which seems par for the coure nowadays.
With regard to your own research-haven't your competitors simply realised you're trying to find out what to undercut them by-and therefore don't respond?
Calls out of the Blue
This is another of the endless dilemmas that face us as professionals, but we’re clever people and it’s manageable.
Absolutely we should be approachable – the profession deserves the reputation it has. We think our Reception staff are a key part of our business, as are secretaries, filtering calls and taking initial information. We acquired one of our best clients because he was surprised (having used our competitors) to be put through to someone who knew what they were talking about after only two calls – it should have been one.
However, that relationship has to be managed. Staff should know what we don’t do, and if possible be able to give appropriate help referring the caller to someone who can, rather than just turning them away empty handed. Fee earners should not be in an advice giving call until a conflict search has been done, even if that means the initial conversation is diagnostic and enquiring, and the caller is told we have to check between we can go further – most recognise this shows we take a professional approach.
It is possible to do that quickly, including CDD and all the SRA requirements. The Bevan Ashford case is a warning but not a bar. The Law Society Guidance is that “free interviews” carry all the regulatory baggage that any other advice does, and should be confirmed in writing.
The first call shouldn’t be advice, it should be assessing whether you should be the person to give advice, from your own financial and risk management requirements, and the (potential) clients cost benefit requirements. If the answer for all those is yes, you get on with it, if it isn’t the client should go away understanding why and thinking that you will be the person they will call if they do have something with which you can help.
Competitor analysis
We didn't let our competitors know we were another firm calling! We used an external contact to undertake research on our behalf by posing as a potential client just making an initial enquiry about an initial consultation / fees.
Can spot them a mile off!
Can spot them a mile off!
Customer experience in law
As one of the researchers and authors of the 'Customer Experience in Law' paper reviewed by John Hyde and a professional working within law for over 10 years, I'm really pleased to see the lively debate taking place among commentators here.
I agree with Neil Howlett that initial calls received by firms needn't be about advice-giving however our research found that solicitors, more often than not, took that approach. There should indeed be an assessment process that takes place on the call and a clear and concise structure to the conversation. This was largely absent in the 100 calls we made to firms and providers. The resulting phone contact tended to be extensive, advice-based and up to 45-50mins in length. This was not driven by our secret shoppers. It was driven by solicitors. A longer call does not mean the prospective client is more likely to engage the firm nor of course does it mean they are just keeping you on the phone for 'free advice'. Don't blame the caller, think about your process on the call.
What it requires is better call management, skills and process by the solicitor and the firm in order to recognise how every call can positively build the reputation of the firm while keenly assessing whether the service offered is right for the prospective client in the way Neil Howlett describes.
Notwithstanding the risks of giving free advice (which as I said needn't be part of a call 'out of the blue'), the fact of the matter is that almost 5 out of every 10 calls made to firms turned our shoppers into detractors - they would not instruct the firm and some would tell others not to too. If you drill down in the report we've produced you will also see that, for example, 7 out of 10 calls made about starting a business left our shoppers more inclined to instruct a firm other than the one just called. A remarkable statistic in a climate where client attraction and winning business is even more important.
Arguably firms should be less concerned with free advice and time being consumed on calls and more concerned with monitoring the calls that come in, dealing with them politely, professionally and in timely way. There are 20 'perception points' that either positively or negatively influence a caller to consider your service (and talk about their experience in favourable terms). Firms cannot afford to neglect any one of them.
The report is available at www.cxinlaw.com
Carl
Law firms own competitors
There is much criticism of communication/media specialists of the way solicitors do or very often do not respond to telephone and other enquiries.
I sent e-mails to two firms specialising in marketing for solicitors yesterday. One has not responded at all. The other sent what was clearly an automated response with a promise of a detailed response shortly. No detailed response has been received and it is now 24 hours later. I was invited to download some marketing suggestions but despite filling in the box twice nothing arrived.
No doubt if a solicitor did this in a survey carried out by media types we would be told that failing to respond quickly is typical of solicitors and why we are a useless lot.. Perhaps some of those purporting to advise solicitors on marketing should instead examine the mote in their own eye!
Even a biased survey can contain revealing findings...
Anon on the 18th suggests the research was not credible and shows 'ignorance'. Several other responses here hide behind the need for compliance before even the remotest engagement with a client.
Possibly many of these commentators here have read the whole CXinLaw report. Maybe some have not. I have. And I am confident that a robust research methodology was probably employed.
And the report makes startling reading. It is also damning - showing a sector of the legal profession characterised by complacency and arrogance. I know and work with firms that have the opposite attitude so there is a very mixed picture out there, undeniably.
Until the LSA 2007 maybe plenty of firms could continue relying on the uneven relationship with consumers (and businesses). In the next 10 years, it will be these firms that will find it the hardest to survive. The consumer will be increasingly empowered and there will be increased competition. A perfect storm is brewing and battoning down the hatches won't surface. A different route needs to be navigated.
This is why many of the ABS's may initially clean up. Their approaches will no doubt still be compliant but will be client-centric. The client may argue they deserve more respect than that shown by some of the commentators here.
Neil Howlett shows that a balance between compliance, status and service can be struck. When a client is possibly going to spend thousands of pounds with a firm, the least the firm can do is treat them better than if they were buying a 30p can of beans?
The reality of the market
Thanks Solicitor Selling for a balanced response. As Professor Stephen Mayson says in the foreword to the paper, it shouldn't be seen as another "lawyer bashing" report. While almost 5 out 10 calls did little to promote the firm in the eyes of the enquirer, just over 3 out of 10 calls led shoppers to actively consider an instruction. Unfortunately we can't get around the fact that the majority of calls left the shoppers undecided and/or more inclined to go elsewhere.
I welcome this debate. We call it 'fronting up'. When invited to do so, we record inbound calls and the gap between a legal providers service aspiration and what is delivered day-to-day on the phone to prospective clients is startling. Whether a call is effectively handled by a firm or not, those providers who focus on getting their front-end service right and who embrace the overall 'customer experience' delivered to clients, will grow their client share.
From our studies we know, for example, that all the new entrants need to do is marginally improve the soft skills and process involved in a well-delivered initial enquiry. When they perfect that, just as with any great high street retailer, their ability to take market share from others will significantly increase. When you combine an increased level of service with a 30p price tag, as consumer, who would you chose? I don't think that's being ignorant, I think that's fronting up to the reality of the market.