5. Use Smart Collaboration to Make Better Client Relationships
Most of us in private practice understand what collaboration is, and how keen clients are for us to engage in it. Most of us also recognize that clients give us opportunities to collaborate in several ways.
October 08, 2021 at 12:59 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
If you've been in private practice more than a month, you've seen the disconnect between the voice of the firm and that of the client. Law firms set targets for chargeable hours, billings and collection, which they monitor closely. Meanwhile clients want more for less and they believe, correctly, that one of the best ways to achieve this is by smart collaboration with firms, and indeed among them. How can you square this circle? How can you succeed if the client asks you to collaborate on a project and you know this will yield less chargeable hours, billings and collections, when those are precisely the key stats for which you're under pressure at work? This disconnect can be resolved, and to do it we need to re-examine collaboration.
Most of us in private practice understand what collaboration is, and how keen clients are for us to engage in it. Most of us also recognize that clients give us opportunities to collaborate in several ways. The most palatable variety is internal collaboration within the firm. This is sometimes misunderstood by firms as an invitation to leverage, much to the annoyance of clients. Then come three more varieties of collaboration which often seem less appetizing: 1) collaboration with the client's inhouse team, which is often misunderstood as upselling; 2) collaboration with technology providers, which is often viewed skeptically; and 3) collaboration with other firms and ALSPs, which is like garlic to a vampire. All these concerns arise because firms fear that collaboration means part of the assignment will get performed in house, another part by technology providers, and another part by rival firms and ALSPs. The remainder is less work, and collaboration often means even that will be subject to a fixed fee. It's no wonder that some law firms react adversely to the proposition.
So, what is the true effect of collaboration? Some firms believe it is a way to make money, and others believe it is a way to lose money. In either case, the belief will often be self-fulfilling. Firms who take the closed-minded view will lose assignments, money and clients. Firms who see it as a way of making money are on the right track. But the better view is that collaboration isn't so much a way to make money, as a way to make relationships, by gaining a deeper understanding of the client, and becoming a part of a long-term solution. Lawyers and firms who go about collaboration the right way, and take a long-term view, focused on the client's interest, will find they become trusted go-to counsel. Look at it this way, in a saturated market where raw demand is falling, and collaboration is resisted, a great way to stand out is to be responsive to client opportunities to collaborate. Better still, be innovative and make the suggestion your own.
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 AllBig Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace for Changes Under Trump
4 minute readLaw Firm Real Estate Strategy: Attorney Offices Are Out, Conference Rooms Are In
Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 2Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 3Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 4Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
- 5'Big Law Had Become Too Woke': Why Bill Barr Moved On
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