1. Provide Value Before and After the Work
It is entirely within the power of law firms to understand the needs of the client and be able to add consistent, additional value throughout the relationship.
April 16, 2021 at 07:05 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
The guidance in this lesson distils decades of experience and, crucially the guidance that dozens of GCs and inhouse counsel have given us to share with you. This will help you deliver Value in entirely meaningful ways for every engagement.
The idea of "Value" has been a buzzword in the legal industry for several years. And it typically meant encouraging firms to move beyond the billable hour to innovative fee packaging, lean staffing and other efficiencies. However, clients want more than that. Value has developed to mean anticipating needs and providing value-added content and educational add-ons. Value-adds mean going beyond the obvious and providing non-legal business advice and support. Law firms should remember that their clients want to think of them as an extension of the company. And it is entirely within the power of law firms to understand the needs of the client and to add consistent, additional value throughout the relationship.
Introduction
What is Value?
Value is an amorphous term that can mean many different things to different people. We will look at it in two ways. The first is the Value that you bring to the relationship. This is not tied to a specific engagement, it is the creation of the context around the relationship. It is how you are perceived and how you become a go-to firm for many issues, not just those specific to the matter at hand.
The second way we will look at it is the approach you bring to a specific engagement.
Providing Value Outside of the Specific Engagement — Making Value Infuse the Day-to-Day Relationship
In order to be known as a lawyer who provides Value, you will need to deliver thoughtful contextualized guidance before, during, and in-between specific engagements. If this is your aspiration, and it should be, you will need to put together a plan for providing some or all of the following Value components. Having sketched out the plan, don't guess which components the client will actually want, pick the phone up and ask.
Monthly personal email update with information relevant to the client with additional context about the potential implications for the client's business. Often your firm will have the information, you just need to contextualise it for the client.
For example, you can use Law.com Radar to follow your client as well as its industry, and summarize relevant federal litigation and deals. Obviously if it's significant, don't wait for the monthly update.
Of course, don't bill for this outreach.
- Targeted educational programs. As you've been watching key developments in your client's industry, and increasing your understanding of the client's business priorities and potential areas of risk, you can use your growing specialization in the client's affairs to organize targeted educational programs. These can be delivered at the convenience of the legal department and other stakeholders. The programs must be bespoke. So for example:
- if the client is losing talent, they might value a session on protecting intellectual property when employees leave.
- if there are recent or upcoming regulatory changes affecting the client industry, they might value a 'just in time' and 'just what you need to know' review of regulations and implications;
- if there is a spate of cases recently filed around areas of interest, such as product liability, then maybe offer a roundup and context-based analysis. Again, most firms tend not to charge for these programs.
- Issue Audit: Another way to demonstrate Value is to perform an Issue Audit. Again, this is related to what you've learned about the client, but potential topics are:
- document retention policies
- social media policies
- crisis management planning
- diversity & inclusion policies
- whistle-blower policies
- business interruption planning
- corporate governance
- designing in regulatory compliance.
Issue audits can be billable, often at a fixed fee. They can prove highly valuable if, for example, the GC is concerned about various departments not complying but hasn't been able to focus on the issue.
In conclusion, the consistent theme from the GCs and inhouse counsel who have shared insights, is that they openly express their desire for this type of proactive value add activity by outside counsel, and they will readily tell you where they need help and what would be appreciated.
Obviously, you will be working with the GC to determine if this is an area in which he or she does want help, but we have certainly heard clients openly express their desire for this type of proactive recommendation and support by outside counsel.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllLongtime AOC Director Glenn Grant to Step Down, Assignment Judge to Take Over
4 minute readHours After Trump Takes Office, Democratic AGs Target Birthright Citizenship Order
4 minute readHicks Johnson Promotes Lori Arakaki and Daniel Scime to Firm Partnership
2 minute readIAG Forensics & Valuation is excited to announce promotions at our firm effective 1/1/2025.
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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