Legal practices are forever trying to convince would-be clients that they offer the best legal advice, have the best reputation, or recruit the best people.

This is hardly surprising since their stock-in-trade is expertise.

Given the mounting pressures facing law firms, there is an inexorable force to promise nothing but the best.Faltering economic recovery, heightening client promiscuity, escalating competitive rivalry, increasing fee resistance, encroaching competition from outside the profession, and declining deference toward solicitors have all taken their toll.

Whilst these trends create an understandable desire to profess to be the best, the marketing hype that goes with it begs a fundamental question: who decides what 'the best' means?Since clients are the ones who decide which particular firm to instruct, it is what they think that really matters.

Why then do so few practices make a serious attempt to monitor client satisfaction?There are two reasons for this: first, many firms have a 'hear no evil' mentality, believing that if they do not ask clients what they think, then they will not have to face any awkward responses; secondly, they fail to recognise that what cannot be measured, cannot be managed.Paradoxically, this 'hear no evil' attitude only makes matters worse.

Firms which believe that asking clients what they think stirs up unnecessary trouble amongst previously satisfied customers are deluding themselves.

Clients know whether they are happy with the service on offer without prompting from their legal advisers.Studies of service industries have concluded that dissatisfied clients typically tell seven others about their ordeal.

By failing to recognise the seeds of dissatisfaction early enough, law firms miss an important opportunity to win back disgruntled clients before it is too late.

Not only do they stand to lose one of their existing clients, but they also wreck their chances of converting seven other would-be clients.

Research into the underlying reasons for customer dissatisfaction has revealed that 68% of client losses typically result from 'an attitude of indifference to clients by employees'.

In contrast, less than 14% arise from 'dissatisfaction with the offering' and only 9% occur because clients are 'attr acted to competitors'.These findings should come as no surprise, since building lasting client relationships is little different from building lasting personal relationships.

Re-opening the dialogue presents legal practices with an olive branch to put things right.By giving clients an opportunity to say what they really think, law firms can find out what is wrong with the relationship.

Not only does this give the firm a chance to sort the problems out, it also shows the client that the firms cares.

Fundamentally, client satisfaction is given by the formula 'satisfaction equals perception minus expectation'.

That is, clients are satisfied only if they perceive the level of service provided to meet (or exceed) their prior expectations.

Closing the gap between what was initially promised and what was finally delivered is critical to the success of any service business.A survey in the Harvard Business Review showed that increasing the rate of client retention by just 5% yielded profit increases of at least 25% and, in some cases, as much as 125%.

The implication is clear: client service is no longer a 'nice to have' attribute for growing practices, it is a 'need to have' driver of commercial success.

This argument lies at the heart of the Law Society's practice management standards, drawn up to 'help practices provide services that meet clients' requirements and expectations, thereby encouraging repeat business'.

Many individual firms would agree with this noble sentiment, so what is the problem?The problem is this: although firms preach the virtues of client service, there is often a divergence between what they say and what they do.

According to Chris Argyris, writing in the Harvard Business Review, this is because of an inherent conflict between the principles which we aim to uphold and the actions which we revert to in moments of stress.

This paradox means that best intentions are never enough.

Without a mechanism to monitor the way professionals go about their daily business, an initial flurry of activity will soon degenerate into lip-service once again.Although we can all live with the personal guilt of knowing we are not doing all the things we said we would, we are more likely to act if we expect to be embarrassed by not doing what we promised.

To resolve the paradox, firms must turn solicitors' private guilt (for avoiding 'non-chargeable' client development) into more visible embarrassment (for failing to deliver against their promises).

In this way, individuals can be held accountable for their inactions as well as their actions.

It should be stressed that visible does not mean the same as public.

Although reviewing individual performance is an essential step towards changing people's behaviour, post-mortems could be held behind closed doors to maintain confidentiality.Whatever the approach taken, the overriding objective must be to transform 'client service' from a meaningless statement into the driving force behind practice development, a transition that can only be sustained by introducing a client feedback system with real teeth.

Whilst different methods may be appropriate for different practices, a combination of face-to-face interviews and confidential questionnaires is usually best: the more simple the system and the less administration required, the greater the chances it will get off the ground.

But what would such a feedback system look like? There are three key steps involved.First, get clients to define what really matters to them.

Although solicitors tend to think the quality of professional advice is all that matters, to clients the difference between the merely competent and the truly excellent is often lost in the depths of impenetrable legalese.

A graphic illustration of this occurred at a medium-sized litigation practice which (rightly) prided itself on its specialist knowledge of construction law.

Upon investigating the reasons behind a spate of client losses, it transpired that the clients defected to competitors because the firm had been unwilling to provide detailed cost estimates in advance.

The moral of the story is simple: quality is in the eye of the beholder.

The first step is, therefore, to find out what clients think is important.

The best way of doing this is to hold exploratory discussions with a small cross-section of clients, ideally supplemented by interviews with potential targets and, if possible, ex-clients.Secondly, invite clients to measure the performance of the firm.

To close the gaps between client expectations and perceptions, the firm must first identify the gaps.

This means asking clients themselves to measure the firm's performance.

Whilst individual meetings can be arranged with a few major clients, it is more cost-effective to send out a client service questionnaire, asking them to evaluate the firm against the key service parameters identified in step one.

As long as clients are pre-advised and encouraged to participate in the survey by the solicitor they normally deal with, response rates of between 50% and 70% can realistically be expected.

For example, a small provincial firm received over 750 replies to a postal survey of 1100 clients, dredged up from records going back ten years - given that probate was the mainstay of the practice, partners had expected a significant proportion to have already moved on (either physically or spiritually).Thirdly, identify areas of under-performance and overkill.

To convert anecdotal evidence into actionable conclusions, the questionnaire responses may be shown on a client service matrix (see figure one).

This serves as a powerful tool to pinpoint exactly where the firm is under-performing or over-delivering.

Its key advantage is that it enables complex patterns of service performance to be seen at a glance, highlighting the key areas in need of improvement.

By way of illustration, this framework was successfully employed to resolve a five-year long running battle over office location for a well established provincial practice with two separate offices.

Whilst all of the partners accepted the rationale behind a single office, each camp argued that closing their office would cause major client losses.

Contrary to the partners' beliefs, a postal survey revealed that the vast majority of clients were extremely loyal and would be prepared to travel to either location (placing office location in the top left-hand corner of the matrix).

Since partners at both sites were guilty of overkill, the results of the survey quickly resolved the dispute, enabling them to find suitable premises within six months.In summary, the primary aim of any feedback system is to change behaviour, not to measure performance per se.

To that end, the five-point implementation plan below provides some useful guidelines to make client service happen in practice.1.

Communicate the need for client service measures.

Explain to all staff that competitive conditions demand improved client service.

Since satisfaction is determined by what clients think, objective measurement must be the starting point.2.

Involve staff in designing the feedback system.

Firms do not deliver client service, people do.

Any feedback system will only be as good as the level of commitment it engenders.

As a result, senior professionals should be involved in the planning phase and made responsible for encouraging their clients to participate.3.

Ensure client complaints are followed up with actions.

Raising expectations only to frustrate them simply makes matters worse.

Sending questionnaires back to the managing partner (or practice manager) - not the client partner - provides a powerful mechanism for monitoring individual performance, particularly if linked to annual appraisals.4.

Celebrate success stories and reward accordingly.

Amidst the inevitable upheavals of change, the actions, not words, of respected professionals showing visible signs of genuine commitment will galvanise the efforts of others.

Success stories should be quickly broadcast throughout the practice, praising those involved to reinforce the message that individual actions can make a difference.5.

Keep the momentum going with regular client feedback.

Regular client meetings not only provide an important opportunity to put things right 'on the job', but also signal to clients that the exercise is not just a flash in the pan.Regular client meetings not only provide an important opportunity to put things right 'on the job', but also signal to clients that the exercise is not just a flash in the pan.Some method of keeping scores is imperative if the day to day behaviour of professional solicitors is to change for the good.

After all, 'if it can't be measured, it can't be managed'.