LPM Momentum: The Dechert Experience

Legal Project Management MomentumIn 2009, Dechert established itself as a committed first-adopter in the burgeoning Legal Project Management (LPM) trend by offering LPM training to every partner in its U.S.and European offices, certainly a major undertaking. I was retained to design and facilitate LPM training that included scores of workshops for hundreds of partners over a 9-month period.  Dechert’s full-immersion initiative sparked a strong wave of me-tooism among other major firms, and its evident business development benefits incited envy in many competitors.  Clearly Dechert had fashioned a powerful lever for attracting clients eager for greater predictability, efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of legal services.

This bold beginning also triggered predictable questions from interested observers, competitors and skeptics: Where will Dechert’s LPM efforts go from here? Will LPM take hold among the firm’s lawyers? Will this be a flash in the pan? How are clients responding?

 Conversations with Ben Barnett, head of Dechert’s Products Liability practice, and Colleen Nihill, Firm Wide Director of Legal Project Management, make it clear that the firm’s LPM efforts are gaining traction, both with clients and within the firm. “Our clients are giving our LPM initiative a warm reception, and many have been surprised and pleased at the extent of our commitment to LPM” Ben said. “This is not just because we showed that we understood their needs, but because – unlike some firms – we have continued to build an effective infrastructure to implement and deliver LPM.”

There has been increasing acceptance of LPM at Dechert, Ben says, and that is largely client driven. “More and more clients are telling our lawyers that they expect more than just outstanding legal services; they want well-managed legal spend, careful oversight of their matters, and regular progress reports that are clear, current and user-friendly.”  Dechert also recognizes that increasing use of fixed-fee or other alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) will create a greater impetus to implement LPM effectively.

Colleen says the firm is keenly aware that LPM cannot just be a matter of introducing  LPM principles or teaching LPM terminology.  “We realize that our clients expect us to deliver on the promises of LPM. Our approach to implementation asks ‘how do we use LPM to deliver even greater value and to further our client relationships?’”  Ben adds that this means producing tangible, objectively-measurable outcomes: “We are showing that we can deliver realistic budgets, track where we are against budget and provide reports that are meaningful to clients.”

 Building Up and Building Out

Since 2009, Dechert has continued to develop a sophisticated internal project management department, headed by Colleen, a former practicing lawyer, that is housed within the firm’s Finance Department. “Because LPM requires lots of financial information and analysis, it was most logical to house it there, and we have assigned a dedicated analyst, Monica Chan, to head matter reporting and pricing functions.  We are building out our infrastructure to permit greater access to LPM-related information by our lawyers and practice groups.”

To achieve the firm’s LPM goal, Dechert’s Knowledge Management department also has created task codes across the practice groups that reflect the type of work Dechert lawyers actually perform. The coding process started with the ABA codes, but these have now been adapted to fit the work done and the type of information needed for budget forecasting.  Lawyers working on these matters now enter their time using the task codes.

“We thought we might get some resistance on this,” Colleen says, “but some of our clients have required codes for quite awhile, so breaking matters into phases and tasks was not new.”  Dechert created a flexible system which reduces the burden on its timekeepers so that they are only using a single set of codes.  Behind the scenes, time can then be matched to client codes and allocated to particular clients.  Colleen says, “we found that resistance diminished when lawyers learned they can get contemporaneous time and billing reporting that helps them manage matters and provide current information to clients.”

LPM Adoption

Interestingly, while LPM has seen significant adoption among some practice groups, such as antitrust, products liability and certain transactional areas, generally Dechert is finding the LPM implementation is progressing more on a lawyer-by-lawyer basis than practice group by practice group. So far, Ben says, few lawyers are trying to implement LPM mid-stream on current matters; instead, they are turning to LPM methods and tools as they take on new engagements.

“The good news is that we’re seeing strong lawyer buy-in at all levels,” says Colleen. “Since our LPM rollout our culture has shifted from understanding LPM principles to active use by an increasing number of our lawyers. Individual lawyers want to use the tools that will enhance matter management.  Partners want the methods that will let them communicate better with clients. Associates, to my surprise, are coming to me and asking how to create Gantt charts.”

Lessons Learned

 In many regards, Dechert’s experience with the pace and scope of LPM implementation mirrors what we’ve been telling any firm undertaking an LPM initiative:

  • LPM requires powerful champions and a highly-visible commitment from firm leadership, both short-term and for the long run.
  • LPM should be defined in terms of the firm’s culture and strategy, and designed with its clients and their priorities firmly in mind.
  • LPM implementation should be keyed to lawyers’ right-now needs – it must deliver immediate practical utility, or else it will not be adopted.
  • LPM training should go short on theory and long on hands-on practice; to accept LPM, lawyers need to see it in action.
  • Training must run in parallel with all other aspects of building tools and infrastructure. One-and-done training, or LPM without adequate technical and staff support, are keys to failure.
  • One size does not fit all: LPM can and should be scaled to the group, team or project in which it will be used (for example, a short-cycle M&A transaction may require few task codes; a long-cycle litigation matter will need more planning, more granular information and more monitoring).

Dechert’s experience demonstrates that LPM implementation is itself a case study in LPM: it is a process that must be diligently scoped, planned, budgeted, monitored and continuously improved as it grows and matures.

No matter how ambitious a firm’s vision for long-term institutionalization, implementation should be approached incrementally. “You should not try to build a perfect system off the bat,” says Ben. “You can’t do everything and anticipate everything at the outset. Don’t bite off more than the firm – and its lawyers – can chew. Build something that works now, recognizing that you will probably be changing and redesigning almost everything as your LPM function matures.”

Asked, in light of its experience, if Dechert should have done anything differently, Ben responds instantly: “Yes. We should have started sooner.”

© 2011, Edge International US, LLC.  All rights reserved.  No part of this post may be copied or reproduced without the express permission from Edge International US, LLC.

Advertisements
Posted in Alternative Fee Arrangements, General Counsel, Law firm practices, Law Firm Profits, Legal Project Management, Legal Project Management tools, Legal Spend | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lawyer Burnout Syndrome: It Blows Your Mind

Lawyer BurnoutYou may have seen – and recoiled – at the recent news item about the 32 year old Skadden associate who died of a heart attack.  Those who knew her put it differently: “she worked herself to death.”  Apparently she was an extreme-case workaholic who remained glued to her desk, billing huge amounts of hours, even as her nerves unwound and her hair began to fall out.  It’ll never happen to you, right?

We all think we know about burnout: you work too long and too hard, so you get tired and a little crabby and impatient, and it’s nothing that can’t be cured short term by a couple of Manhattans or a good night’s sleep, or longer term with a week in Belize (NB: it’s one week vacation now, isn’t it? — not two or three).

As I meet with lawyers in firms and legal departments, they report feeling a little frazzled recently, the flipside of a full-speed, sure-I’ll-do-it practice.   The legal business has gotten increasingly demanding – with 24/7 global clients, tighter budgets, fewer support staff, and increased firm profitability targets.

Most say they can handle it, in phrases like “I’m tough, I can take it.”  “I can always catch up – on my sleep, on my social networking, on business development, on the pyramiding stack of emails clamoring for response.” This reminds me of a partner I met recently to discuss how his team could work more efficiently.  As we talked, he opened a desk drawer jammed with little bottles of 5 Hour Energy Drink, of which he consumed four per day.  When I suggested that more sleep might help, he said he had no time for that.

Edge partner, Doug Richardson, who focuses on things like lawyer motivation, incentives, engagement and battle fatigue, gives this warning: Be careful, the path between occupational stress and flamed-out free-fall can be short indeed.  Doug points out that it is important to distinguish being stressed out from being burned out.  There is a tendency to label every type of fatigue as “burnout,” regardless of cause. This overgeneralization may lead to ineffective approaches to self-restoration.

Stressed Out

Being stressed out comes from having your fight-or-flight button pushed so constantly that your ability to recharge, reload, refresh and reframe gradually corrodes and shorts out.

The fix is to remove oneself from the stressors — whether by sabbatical, vacation, avocational activities, exercise, meditation or yoga.  Or even changing jobs. Of course, throwing oneself back onto the same hot stove after a temporary cool-down period will produce increasingly short periods of relief.  When lasting relief is not available, it may be time to rethink your career priorities.

The best prescription for stress fatigue may not be simply altering external events, but some serious reflection about the way you interpret life and work events.  For some people, introspection, self-help or self-study can improve the ability to reframe stressful events.  In others, the support and perspective of a therapist, counselor or coach is the best way to reset one’s fight-flight or “veg” reflex.

Doing nothing is not the cure: the mere passage of time may deaden the immediacy of a stressful event, but it doesn’t eradicate its reverberations.  The stress simply goes underground, planting the seeds for the re-experiencing of stress over and again.

Burned Out

Burnout is “consistently making choices for the benefit of others at the expense of your own needs.”  It is a pervasive, self-imposed guilt trip, exacerbated by everyone reminding you of everything that you owe them.

Burnout will not go away with rest; in fact it will tend to make you feel worse on your vacation (or, these days, “staycation”) as you debate whether you are fundamentally selfish, egocentric, lazy or irresponsible.

Who Gets Burned Out?

“It tends to hit the best employees, those with enthusiasm who accept responsibility readily.”

According to Dr. Herbert J. Freudenberger, who first coined the term “burnout,” victims of burnout are often “dynamic, charismatic, goal-oriented people.”  Burnout, he says, “usually has its roots in the area of your life that seems to hold the most promise.”  For most professionals, that area is work.  Sound familiar, lawyers?

What’s the Cure for Burnout? 

The key is to pursue “an acknowledged state of systematically putting your own interests ahead of others.”  This is not a prescription for selfishness; it is a call for learning to assert one’s right to a healthy dose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Overcoming vulnerability to burnout is usually an extended process that requires mindfulness — that is, active and conscious reframing of the self-imposed forces that wear you down.  Rest, denial and withdrawal will not rewire the underlying circuits to produce relief.  However, if you can learn to focus steadfastly on the causes of your burnout, to your surprise you may find that the results take care of themselves.

Of course, being stressed out and being burned out are not mutually exclusive, and folks with a pronounced calvinistic work ethic or masochistic tendency toward martyrdom may find themselves falling prey to an ever-escalating workaholism.  We all see it happening in others – and we often turn away in denial. The lesson of the associate’s tragic demise is for each of us to pause long enough to see if we ourselves stand at the top of a slippery slope.

© 2011, Edge International US, LLC.  All rights reserved.  No part of this post may be copied or reproduced without the express permission from Edge International US, LLC.

Posted in Law firm practices | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Legal Project Management Tools: Let Rube Goldberg Rest in Peace

Asked how he likes his “next generation” automatic dishwasher, the disgruntled purchaser’s voice drips with disdain: “Totally useless,” he says. “I’ve had it a week now, and it hasn’t even cleared the table yet.”

I’ve heard similar responses from law firms that thought their Legal Project Management (LPM) implementation would be effortless if only they bought or built the right LPM software “tools.” Some delegated their LPM software construction entirely to non-lawyer internal IT experts, who often modeled their software on sophisticated “industrial strength” project management methods, metrics and platforms. The results often were awesome in their sophistication, but dizzyingly complex.

Unsurprisingly, lawyer buy-in and use of these tools was limited largely to gearheads and first-adopters. Some lawyers worried that these “indispensable” components of LPM would usurp too much control, like the HAL 3000 computer in 2001 Space Odyssey. Others worried that the new technology would demand too much time to learn and operate. Those internally-created software tools that survived have evolved through multiple iterations and have invariably become simpler and more user-friendly (and some I’ve seen recently using accessible dashboards, self-populating screens and cross-linked tabs keyed to LPM stages are flat-out fabulous).

Store-bought LPM software “solutions” developed by external vendors often are greeted with similar resistance – sometimes even more, because lawyers may not see “off-the-shelf” products as responsive to or tailored for their firm, practices or work habits. A lot of money has been spent by law firms installing vendor-sourced LPM software that sees little use and generates little enthusiasm among working lawyers.

My objective here is not to denigrate any home-grown or proprietary tool; it is to urge firms to rethink the way they approach tactical software decisions as part of their larger LPM strategy.  Firms implementing LPM planning should keep a few fundamental common-sense considerations top-of-mind:

  1. What is the firm’s approach to LPM going to be?  A sweeping firm wide full immersion rollout? A series of pilots to see where and how LPM will provide the greatest benefit?  Confined to a few practice areas where clients demand it? Incremental implementation to build an increasing groundswell of LPM acceptance and use? If implementation will take place selectively and over time, it’s unwise to initially invest heavily in software with a lot of bells and whistles.  Don’t buy an elephant gun to shoot a squirrel.
  1. Has the firm examined the capabilities of its existing time-and-billing and analytics software? I’ll bet most firms use less than 20% of the capabilities of their existing software. Yet many either rush out to buy more, or work to reinvent the wheel just because it has the “LPM” phrase embossed on the sidewall. Most time and billing systems, for example, have phase and task code capabilities, and many also have enhanced budgeting capabilities. Many of a firm’s present systems can readily be adapted to provide workable and cost-effective budgeting, analytics, actual-to-budget comparisons, and management support for lawyers handling service delivery and client relations.
  1. You must involve lawyers in the design and configuration of tools that will be used by lawyers. If they find “their” tool to be cumbersome or daunting, they simply will not use it. If they feel it is being imposed upon them, especially by non-lawyers, they will buck and kick.  Remember always that LPM really is a common-sense way of practicing law – and any tools employed to that end must be wielded by the people actually practicing the law.
  1. Start simple. Remember the philosophical principle known as “Occam’s Razor” which holds that, all other factors being equal, the simplest solution is usually the best.  In practice, a hammer is likely to be a better tool than a 50-blade Swiss Army Knife. Develop your tools in collaboration with practice groups that want or need LPM so that the lawyer-IT staff interface is streamlined, and feedback on user-friendliness is immediate.
  1. Grow your tools as your firm’s LPM capabilities mature and don’t box yourself in with tools that may soon be obsolete. Just as LPM best practices continue to evolve, their attendant tools will undergo constant improvement. Let your tools develop in light of your lawyers’ actual experience. Software doesn’t practice law; it should be used to support human beings practicing law.  Moreover, anything that threatens too large or too fast a transformation will trigger intense resistance from your firm’s lawyers.

You may remember Rube Goldberg, the cartoonist who invented elaborate, whimsical contraptions (often incorporating springs, fans, cannons and cats chasing mice on treadmills) to accomplish the simplest tasks.  Your approach to sourcing, developing and implementing LPM software should not resemble a Rube Goldberg machine. Rube’s goal was to make us laugh. Your goal should be to focus on tools that really work, wherever, whenever and however used.

© 2011, Edge International US, LLC.  All rights reserved.  No part of this post may be copied or reproduced without the express permission from Edge International US, LLC.

Posted in Law firm practices, Legal Project Management, Legal Project Management tools | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bye Bye, Miss American Pie! Susan Hackett Moves to New Role.

What a bombshell!  It’s true: after 22 years, Susan Hackett, gloriously outspoken, brilliant, and forward-thinking general counsel has announced that she is leaving the Association of Corporate Counsel.  What a loss for ACC…but what a boon for whatever organization next benefits from her enormous talents.

For many of us in the legal marketplace, our entire careers have been influenced by her advocacy for in-house counsel that was equal parts passion and savvy.  Even before the Great Recession, Susan and the ACC — in a particularly prescient move — developed the Value Challenge to guide in-house counsel in using resources more wisely, and to obtain the best “value” for their dollars.  In the last few years, she has tirelessly criss-crossed the country speaking, teaching, presenting and creating extraordinarily practical workshops on the value topic.

Susan’s influence and reach was not restricted to U.S. venues.  She helped expand the ACC’s reputation and spur its growth to more than 26,000 members in over 10,000 companies in 75 countries.

When I was a General Counsel, my own thinking and approach to managing a law department and outside counsel often was informed by her intellectual rigor, her insight, her compassion for the increasingly daunting challenges of the in-house role, and her never-ending optimism and energy about the potential for positive change.

Since entering consulting, I also have had the privilege of working with Susan in various settings, and I always came away amazed at how much I learned in those encounters.  The ACC has benefitted from two decades with Susan on board, and no doubt there will be lots of sad souls as she makes her exit.  But, like Oprah after 4,600 shows, it’s important to know when to go so you can grow in new ways.

So, bye, bye Miss American Pioneer.  We’ll watch your continuing adventures with interest and anticipation.

Posted in General Counsel, Legal Spend, Outside Counsel | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Is Legal Project Management Really Different than Project Management?

In recent weeks, several bloggers have waged a spirited debate about whether Legal Project Management (LPM) is really just plain, old Project Management in a law firm setting.  As you might expect, there are advocates on every side plus plenty of folks asking, who cares?  Here’s my take, as posted at 3 Geeks and a Law Blog:

legal project management different than project managementAs a lawyer who has used LPM in her own legal practice, and in the last four years has taught it to thousands of lawyers in law firms and corporate legal departments, LPM is a significant and independent variant of standard PM due to the legal environment in which lawyers operate.  Equating the two would be like saying that since a horse has four legs and a dog has four legs, a dog is a horse. 

One of the primary goals of PM is to reduce variation.  That’s perfect for turning out car fenders on an assembly line.  PM is also aimed at collaborative efforts to achieve goals set forth in a Project Charter.  So, it is excellent for planning linear processes, like software or systems development, where a team is working toward a singular goal.

For those of us who have practiced law, those PM goals don’t work in real-world legal trenches.  Law is inherently different from manufacturing and IT.  In litigation, for example, you have an opposing counsel whose efforts, intellect and time are spent trying to frustrate, defeat, and unseat all your efforts.  There is no single team all working to create a fender or a software installation.  Instead, you have clashing, opposing forces that are paid (handsomely!) to think of and effect ways to undo the gains of the other side.  In a software installation, for example, this would be like having someone erase programming code and toss the computers out the window every night after a day’s work. 

And, transactional work has the same tensions.  In mergers and acquisition deals, there are fleets of brainy folks trying to move the price point in favor of their client.  All the while, business folks, shareholders, the press and others are bringing unique pressures to bear on the chess pieces that the lawyers are moving on the board.

Moreover, the players – the lawyers – have very specific personality traits that have been tested and written about many times.  They tend to be extraordinarily autonomous and non-collaborative – markedly more so than the general population and other professionals.

Lawyers work very independently.  In fact, we’re trained to do so from law school onward, and the compensation structures in law firms intensify and reinforce that tendency.  So, in law firms you have a boatload of autonomous, intelligent folks engaged in ritual warfare on behalf of clients who pay them to achieve certain goals.  This is not an environment where standard PM is going to play well.

That said, there are processes that can be improved and made more efficient.  There are patterns in matters or parts of matters that can be flow-charted and for which some parts of traditional PM approaches make sense.  The push towards sharing information and collaborating that LPM supports absolutely enhances the efficacy of strategizing, staffing and managing legal matters.  But, a dog is NOT a horse.

Posted in Law firm practices, Legal Project Management, Legal Spend, Outside Counsel | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Room at the Waterhole: Midsize Firms Making the Most of the Middle

Midsize law firmsMany pundits would have us believe that sweeping changes in the legal profession will crunch medium size firms between the “we-can-do-everything-for-everybody” Goliaths and the new generation of super-lean virtual firms and narrow-niche boutiques.  However, a number of midsize firms I’ve spoken with claim, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that reports of their imminent demise are greatly exaggerated.

Quite the contrary, they say.  Midsize firms are perfectly situated to offer clients several compelling differentiators.  Edge International partner Ed Wesemann confirms that cost-conscious clients are feeding the migration of more legal work to smaller regional firms. “It’s a notable trend that is escalating as satisfied clients compare notes,” he says.

Bang for the Buck

According to Jeff Lutsky, Managing Partner of Stradley Ronon, “the last few years have finally laid to rest the outdated notion that bigger is better, and that size and geographical reach are necessary to achieve competitive profits.  Clients want excellent legal services at a fair price and are finding those qualities more and more in sophisticated midsize law firms.”

The idea that midsize firms can rival larger competitors in sophistication and service quality is echoed by David Antzis, Managing Partner of Saul Ewing: “Midsize firms are uniquely positioned to compete both for clients and talent.  Because of our regional footprint, we bear comparatively lower overhead than national or global firms, enabling us to offer greater value.”  Ametek’s General Counsel, Robert Feit, affirmed Saul Ewing’s value proposition when explaining his company’s decision to throw more work to the midsize firm.

Like Ametek, Georgia Pacific Corp. has sent significant new business to a midsize firm. Houston-based 100-lawyer Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin now handles commercial litigation for Georgia Pacific that formerly would have gone to big firms.

Attracting and Energizing Top Talent

 Many midsize firms are gleefully welcoming high-profile, highly-skilled defectors from big firms whose global strategic plans mandated hourly rates that priced many practitioners out of their local markets.

Says Antzis, “[Our regional footprint] is also a draw for lateral candidates who want to continue doing interesting, sophisticated work but are feeling the constant fee pressure from clients.” 

For example, IP litigator Angela Agrusa left Baker Hostetler after 16 years and joined 50-lawyer Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor.  She saw the opportunity to pursue mid-market regional clients who would not pay BigLaw rates. “I did not have the flexibility to do contingency fee work,” she says, but at Liner Grode “if you make a business justification for interesting and complex work, you can do it.”

Midsize firms also engage lawyers’ interest and inspire a sense of ingenuity and adventure. These firms can be ideal platforms for forays into new or marginal industries that large firms won’t touch but that may evolve into healthy clients or profitable niche practice areas.  Amanda Robert recently reported in The Chicago Lawyer that midsize firms can enable development of unique practices in such diverse areas as luxury goods, sports, and even fire and explosions – practices far too esoteric for larger mainstream firms.

Firm Be Nimble, Firm Be Quick

Midsize firms also can tout the benefits of lean decision-making structures and greater responsiveness. “Our flexible, entrepreneurial approach to the delivery of legal services allows us to respond quickly to the demands of the marketplace,” says David Moran, Managing Partner of Jackson Walker’s Dallas office.  “For example, a pricing issue or AFA can be decided internally by a phone call to one partner, and that often allows a decision in literally minutes, rather than the cumbersome or top-down inflexible approach imposed by ‘management’ in some larger firms.”

The Punchline

The current competitive posture of midsize firms is that they can match the service quality of large firms, or close enough, and far more cost effectively. To be sure, big firms are not going to roll over and play dead, at least in their attempts to reclaim major clients from smaller firms.  However, while larger firms are actively taking their own steps to address clients’ budgetary concerns, midsize firms can still boast of the collaborative, more responsive relationships that benefit from a less cumbersome and costly infrastructure.

[For readers interested in this topic, I commend the article by my Edge Partner, Ed Wesemann, What is the optimum size for a law firm?]

© 2011, Edge International US, LLC.  All rights reserved.  No part of this post may be copied or reproduced without the express permission from Edge International US, LLC.

Posted in Intersection, Law firm practices, Legal Spend, Midsize firms, Outside Counsel | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

5 Key Takeaways from General Counsel Outside the US

General Counsel want predictabilityMore than 60 in-house General Counsel and Chief Legal Officers met in Sao Paulo last month to participate in the Latin American Corporate Counsel Association (LACCA) annual meeting. They haled from companies based throughout Latin America, as well as international companies with major offices in Latin America.

A sampling of the companies included Dow Corning, MasterCard, Gafisa, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Sara Lee, Unilever Brasil, Ford Credit, Sanofi-Aventis, Syngenta, and Wal-Mart Brasil.

Because cost and budget control are global issues for corporate General Counsel, LACCA asked me to present on Legal Project Management for In-House Legal Departments.  We surveyed participants to better understand their current budget pressures and concerns with outside counsel.  The survey results yielded five key points.

  1. For 2011, most law department budgets are negative or neutral.  70% of legal department budgets either decreased or were required to hold to 2010 levels.
  1. Outside counsel are still not tuned in to client objectives.  Only 7% of outside counsel were found to fully understand all of the legal departments’ priorities and goals.   This means that 93% of the firms only “got it” most or some of the time.
  1. Better not blow the budget.  Interestingly, when firms exceeded matter budgets, 30% of in-house counsel said they would not use the firms again in the future, and another 40% stated they would refuse to pay the budget overrun.  There were a few, 15%, (perhaps those with budget increases) who said they might pay the extra fees.
  1. Admittedly, we are not great managers.  In-house counsel also were hard on themselves; 65% said they were only “fair” at managing outside legal spend and 31% admitted that they need to improve in that area.
  1. They are mad as hell and are not taking it anymore.  And they vote with their feet when dissatisfied.  A whopping 62% said that they had fired a firm or greatly reduced the amount of work sent to a firm in the last 24 months.

Do you really know what your clients need?  Do you understand their fiscal pressures?  Do you know how to set and manage to budget?

For savvy firms, these findings can create opportunities to better address client needs and priorities, resulting in increased business and market share.  For other firms, well, just open the window and listen to Howard Beale General Counsel rant.

© 2011, Edge International US, LLC.  All rights reserved.  No part of this post may be copied or reproduced without the express permission from Edge International US, LLC.

Posted in General Counsel, Law firm practices, Legal Project Management, Legal Spend, Outside Counsel, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments