23. How to Lose the Case and Keep the Client
Have you ever lost a case, or seen a transaction crash, and kept the client? If so, why? This is a critically important question for law firms, because client retention is the key to consistent profitability and sustained growth. Given the importance of the question, it's remarkable how many law firms get the wrong answer.
May 06, 2022 at 08:02 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
The previous lesson started the mini-series on the attorney client experience by asking if clients care about the "attorney journey." We saw that clients care deeply about how law firms enable their lawyers to deliver the service, and how clients see the benefits of this type of "working wellness." Now we swap standpoints, and ask if attorneys care about their clients' experience?
A law firm might assume that if the bill got paid then everything was OK, and if the client gave them another job, then the service must have been great. But that's caring about themselves, not the client. To get a better handle on this, let's look at when things go wrong. If you're a trial lawyer, have you ever lost a case? Sure you have. What if you're a transactional lawyer, have you ever had a project abort? Again, of course. OK so now, let's put the client into the equation. Have you ever lost a case, or seen a transaction crash, and kept the client? If so, why? This is a critically important question for law firms, because client retention is the key to consistent profitability and sustained growth.
Given the importance of the question, it is remarkable how many law firms get the wrong answer. The most common responses we get are "sometimes but not always," "it depends on the client," or "some clients are more understanding than others." This analysis reflects one of the most common misconceptions among law firms. The key to keeping the client, even when things go wrong, is almost nothing to do with the client, and almost everything to do with the client's experience. The easiest way to prove this is to reverse the proposition. Have you ever won a case or successfully completed a transaction and still lost the client? The cruelest compliment a client can pay to a law firm is "they were OK but we won't use them again." This "one and done" phenomenon only exists because law firms don't pay enough attention to how clients experience the service.
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 AllWhat Went Wrong With Adeel Mangi's Long, Strange Trip Through the Judicial Nomination Process?
6 minute readBCLP Exploring Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
4 minute readProtecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
- 2NY High Court Returns Fired Priest's Discrimination Claim to State Agency
- 3Digging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
- 4Reminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
- 5Consumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
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