Kenneth Clarke’s speech to the Birmingham Law Society and Lord Young’s pronouncements at the weekend remind me that the political risk issues I learnt about at business school are alive, well and threatening further disruption.More than three years ago, Professor Stephen Mayson rightly highlighted that many hundreds of firms names may disappear from the High Street as a result of the changing market for legal services, when he launched the Legal Services Policy Institute.

Clarke appears to be repeating that number – or does he mean a further 3,000?

I would suggest Clarke is wrong when it comes to elements of ‘marketing reach’. Big brand organisations have no secret tricks or magic formulae that allow them to win business by having more money to spend. They use well-funded promotional campaigns to get the benefits of their services across to potential clients (or customers). All the promotional channels and marketing management techniques are available to solicitors who already have the ‘marketing reach’ via their local offices and many years of supplying legal services to satisfied clients.

To compete with the new legal service providers that are already in the market, solicitors need to concentrate on regular communicating the benefits of their services to the people that can use them. And it need not cost too much – using direct mail and other promotional tools to target the people you want as clients can be very effective.

I would suggest Clarke is wrong when it comes to the number of firms on the High Street. As Professor Mayson said, the names may disappear as older firms die off under the weight of current fixed costs, but I understand the number of law firms is increasing. I believe this is the profitable parts of the failed firms setting up to service the local work in more efficient and effective small firms. Their natural home is on or near the High Street, even shopping centres (see previous posts).

and serviced office buildings. That is, being closer to their clients and providing the legal services they need.

While it is certainly possible to deliver personal and commercial legal services via calls centres and websites, the research still indicates people want to meet and talk directly to their solicitor. Whatever the communications methods chosen, it is still the benefits of the advice and guidance that the client wants, and the complexity of most matters means face-to-face contact is needed at least once to reassure the client.

I would suggest Clarke is right to warn lawyers of far-reaching change in the legal services market, for solicitors and barristers. There will continue to be more brands competing for client enquiries and work. Legal services will be packaged up and delivered in non-traditional ways that fit the clients’ needs. Competition (within limits) in any market is always good for the consumer.

But has anyone told the customers yet? Do people want to buy their legal solutions in the new ways being suggested and developed? It’s important that all firms understand the past, current and future changes that will affect their business, but it is the clients that will make the choice of which service to use. While the legal services industry re-organises the way in which it delivers value to clients, I can see no reason why, with the appropriate amount of marketing management and innovations added, a partnership of solicitors will not be a successful future business model if they focus on delivering good value to clients.

This brief response to the points made by Clarke can only touch the surface of the marketing and management issues raised in his speech. What I find disappointing is the apparent lack of understanding by a senior figure of the real issues that will affect firms. Regulatory changes will continue to force firms to adapt to the new market opportunities or close, but in the end it will be the consumers who decide how they want to access legal services.

Related articles