A recent article in The American Lawyer shares research by UK-based research firm Acritas about the main reasons that clients fire outside counsel. Major clients cited cost (21%), bad advice or lack of expertise (18%), project completion (16%), poor service (15%), and loss of a key partner (11%) as primary factors in their decisions. Given the additional complexities of international practice, how do you reduce the chances that any of these will happen to you?
As noted above, high cost was the primary reason that corporate counsel fired outside firms. In the international arena, the Magic Circle and other large global firms are known for charging some of the highest hourly rates around. One way to combat high hourly rates is, of course, to adopt alternative billing structures that focus on value rather than hourly billing. For example, the In-House ACCess blog describes how footwear company Wolverine Worldwide and outside counsel Seyfarth Shaw are negotiating to work out a value-based relationship, and the metrics being proposed by each side. For example, in-house counsel proposed a “Trademark Risk Rate” which included total dollars spent on trademark defense divided by the number of trademarks defended. Outside counsel, however, proposed a different set of metrics including Overall Satisfaction and Timeliness of Communication. As the post notes, the parties are in the midst of working out the metrics. However, their efforts show a willingness to create alternative fee structures up front.
As noted in the first paragraph, poor service is another common reason that in-house counsel fire outside firms. However, sometimes differences in cultural expectations can create an unintended impression of “poor service”. Do you know each client’s cultural expectations–and are you meeting them? For example, what are your client’s expectations about work product timing? Is their sense of time fluid, or do they expect advance warning and justification of any schedule changes? Are your clients willing to work directly with lower-level attorneys or do they expect to interface with senior partners to feel that they are receiving good service? (See also Effective Cross-cultural Lawyering in this blog.)
As the Acritas study notes, clients also leave when a firm lacks the right kind of expertise or delivers bad legal advice. Client-attorney cultural misunderstandings, as well as separation by time zones and distance, increase the chance that clients’ expectations won’t be fully met. So, when dealing with a potential client, spend extra time clarifying what kind of legal expertise they are seeking and honestly assess whether you can match it. If you can’t meet their needs, then refer the matter to another trusted lawyer. It is far better for clients to get the legal expertise that they desire rather than to damage your brand by not meeting expectations.
Finally, plan ahead for transitions. When a client’s project ends or the client’s primary lawyer contact leaves your firm, be ready to maintain and nourish the client relationship. This can take extra effort across the miles, but try to maintain open lines of communication with all former clients. Sending articles of interest with handwritten notes is an easy but personal way to show continued interest. Of course, personal visits anytime that you are in the client’s city help to maintain a warm relationship, too.
Implementing these tips will help decrease the chances that you will get fired, despite distance across the miles and time zones.
For tips on taking your law practice to a global level, please see my recent article on the Texas Bar Journal (July 2012) titled Going Global: Delving into the International Legal Arena. The article shares advice on building relationships with other international lawyers, developing international legal work, handling global legal work, and the like. Happy Global Lawyering!
Many lawyers blog. But what about live blogging while at a conference?
One of the most exciting conferences for interactive (technology) as well as film and music is going on right now in Austin: SXSW . Social Media Today’s Lee Oden, blogging live from SXSW, posted some great tips for effective live blogging while at SXSW.
Lawyers could apply these same tips while blogging and posting live during legal or industry conferences.
For example, Lee suggests checking out the conference schedule in advance, and planning to arrive at key sessions early (so that you’re seated near a plug.) I’d also suggest examining all concurrent sessions and selecting ones that would be particularly interesting your blog readership.
Lee suggests typing the posts in an application like Notepad and then transferring them to your blog. This works well in case you lose your internet connection during a session.
Promoting your posts immediately is also key, Lee notes, via Facebook, LinkedIn and the like. To take advantage of the “real time” nature of your blogging efforts; you want to get the word out fast.
Live blogging has an excitement and sense of “urgency” that blogging after the fact doesn’t (much like live journalistic coverage is more thrilling than recap reporting). Of course, blogging during conferences is also a great way to reach readers across the globe who couldn’t ravel to attend the conference in person; even if they read your posts the next day rather than in real time, the coverage will still be fresher than the summaries printed in post-conference newsletters months later.
By now, many lawyers are using (or considering using) social media sources like Facebook and Twitter. In her helpful article “Social Media 101” for a recent issue of the Texas Bar Journal, lawyer coach Debra Bruce sets forth the pros and cons of various professionally-focused networking sites for specifically for lawyers like Legal OnRamp, Martindale-Hubbell Connected, JD Supra, and LawLink.
But what about lawyers who wants to start networking internationally?
Facebook is a good, general place to begin international social networking expansion, especially with the 2008 launch of Facebook en español (with French and German versions expected next). In South America, Orkut, Sónico, and Fotolog are also very popular, with 54% of Orkut’s users being Portuguese speakers from Brazil. (Americas Quarterly reports that asking a Brazilian for his/her “Orkut name” is as common as requesting a telephone number or email.)
The Google-owned Orkut remains popular in India, although Facebook recently unseated it as the most popular social networking site. Friendster continues to be popular in Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia, although its influence in the region is slipping–coinciding with Facebook’s rollout of sites for Malaysia, the Phillipines and Vietnam. China boasts a number of popular social media sites. According to ReadWriteWeb, while China’s Renren.com may have the most members, but Kaixin001.com claims to have more educated members.
Lawyers wanting to reach European clients should consider joining European social networking sites in addition to Facebook. According to Bas van den Beld, owner of stateofsearch.com, Facebook leads the way in 11 out of 17 European countries, but Skyrock (France), Tuenti (Spain), StudiVZ Group (Germany), Hyves (Netherlands), all have hold in their respective country. The social networking site Xing (founded in Germany) markets to all European professionals.
Creating a social media presence abroad can be an effective and inexpensive way to start relationships globally. Why not extend your social media reach abroad into your prospective clients’ backyards?
Some lawyers are notorious for emphasizing risks and potential downfalls–so much so that they turn off their clients.
So, while sitting in the Frankfurt airport’s business lounge yesterday, I was interested to happen on a story about just that–but in this case, the “negative spin” was caused by a cross-cultural discrepancy. As my Knowing how another culture thinks = Payoff post in my Global Rainmaking blog notes, one culture’s concept of detailing business risks (British, in this case) may discourage potential clients in another culture (Americans, in this case). Again, the potential American clients didn’t like the British proposal because it seemed too negative; this was caused by a basic difference in the the parties’ respective cultural attitudes about disclosing business risks and rewards.
As mentioned, one of the great things about yesterday’s article in the International Herald Tribune is that it shows how increased awareness of such cultural business differences improves the chance of global business success. So, before submitting your next client proposal, you might do a culture check; even if the language is the same, the cultural norms and attitudes might differ.