9. Client Goals vs. Client Outcomes
An essential step is analyzing the client's goals carefully and then calibrating them against risk, in light of all the uncertainties.
April 16, 2021 at 06:11 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
"For successful partnership, clarity of communication is vital. You can only collaborate successfully when you both know what the end goals are and how you both are going to achieve it." — Priti Shetty, General Counsel, ICICI Bank UK
There is a simple but important distinction between 'goals' and 'outcomes.' Goals are what the client wants. Outcomes are what the client gets. That's obvious when you think about it, but still crucial. Why? Because clients have ambitions while lawyers have responsibilities. One of the tenets of being a 'Lean' lawyer is taking responsibility and being accountable.
Goals are the client's ambition, but outcomes are the lawyer's responsibility.
That simple but uncontroversial analysis explains why every legal project should start with planning, and why planning should start with defining outcomes carefully, meticulously, and always in concert with the client.
With that sobering thought, we can lay out a four-point proposition for all lawyers, commencing all projects, everywhere.
- It is imperative to understand the client's goals fully; and yet
- Express a client's goal as a 'desired outcome' and depict it within a range wherever possible;
- Arrival at the desired range of outcomes can't always be guaranteed, but some level of probability analysis can usually be offered to the client; and so
- It is essential for the lawyer and client to agree these parameters before the lawyer launches into the project.
These seemingly obvious steps are overlooked at the lawyer's peril.
RELATED TOOLS:
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Narrow Path Back From Disbarment: 'You Have to Really Want to Be a Lawyer Again'
5 minute readNew Jersey Law Journal Names Mike Zogby Office Managing Partner of the Year
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250