Cracking the Code to Client Value Management in a Post-Disruption Industry
A look at how firms need to respond to the change in what clients value.
October 26, 2017 at 03:03 PM
6 minute read
The question isn't “when” will disruption hit the legal industry as per the headline of a recent American Lawyer article. Disruption already is in the rearview mirror. It happened. Let's stop accelerating our wheels on the ice in wonderment that we aren't moving forward.
We know the nature of the disruption that's already taken place. Buyers (i.e. clients) have changed what they value. Firms now need to respond to this change in value.
Of course, there are a few obstacles to firms' timely response. Partners haven't necessarily felt the pressure of price erosion on profitability…yet (see article). For the past decade, firms have trimmed enough fat and shuffled enough non-equity partner changes to stave off the hit to profitability per partner (PPP). These tactics are finite, and soon—if not now—another wave will hit and firms will be forced to show their cards.
What was previously valued by buyers was simply the delivery of quality matters. Now clients value the delivery of quality matters—at the expected price. The insertion of price expectations and budgets has upended the business model of an entire industry. This is the case for several reasons, but primarily this fundamental one: firms never actually had to know the true cost of delivery for their services, thus now complicating the transition to delivering work to budget.
To some extent, then, law firms will need to re-engineer their business models, taking a data first approach to understanding costs; this, in turn, can drive a more integrated approach to sales and delivery as well as an ability to leverage expertise and measure results. They'll need to pull together and better integrate their silos of information, integrate business processes and put in place enterprise controls to ensure matters are priced and delivered within the firm's expectation for profitability – regardless of fee arrangement type. It means ensuring the firm is selling, delivering, leveraging results, and measuring performance in an constant continuum of interlinked processes. This, in essence, is client value management.
A Mature Solution
About a decade ago, after the first major shift in the market, firms devised ad-hoc processes and manual steps. These initial changes were targeted at departments that either built or purchased some siloed technology to empower and improve its own processes. The thinking hadn't yet matured to understanding the interconnected nature of a law firm's data and the value of leveraging it together. Unsurprisingly, over time, these first and even second-generation solutions revealed their flaws as they proved an impediment to making the best use of the firm information and created inefficiencies in firm operations.
The market has matured; we now understand we're in a post-disruption world. It's clear that firms can achieve far greater benefit by aggregating data and integrating processes. A modern solution would bring synergy from integrating the core business processes. Client demands have become widespread and pervasive. Firms today are seeking a better solution for client value management, something capable of unifying these now interdependent business processes which will help them meet client expectations.
Defining “Sell, Deliver, Leverage, Measure”
In essence, the re-engineered law firm's core business processes fit into four primary categories: sell, deliver, leverage, and measure. It's from these four core business processes that new subsets of processes flow. The integration of these four core processes and their subsets ensures the firm can deliver matters at a reasonable profit and to the budget agreed by the client. Here's what's captured within each of the four core components:
- The “Sell” piece of this model combines opportunity management, scoping, pricing, building relationships, pitching, and risk management. Processes will differ for new clients, renewing relationships with existing clients, bringing on new matters or an ongoing matter into a particular practice area, and cross-selling to a different practice area.
- “Deliver” is the actual provision of legal services. This encompasses the traditional concerns of staffing, locating knowledge resources, monitoring for scope and inefficiency, and billing. What's new is the importance of monitoring that provision of service – and the expanded detail and access to relevant data that facilitate it. This is where partners can expand their skill sets.
- “Leverage” describes a firm's ability to efficiently and successfully turn prior experience, expertise, and knowledge into a selling point. The current competitive market means firms must capture and quantify their experience as each matter reaches an outcome to make selling more effective, increase predictive abilities, and expand understanding of ongoing and new matters.
- “Measure” ties this continuous process together and assesses detailed criteria for success.
The goal for law firms, as with any business, is to deliver services at a profit; thus, the year-end figure will retain its importance. However, firms that successfully implement the “Sell-Deliver-Leverage & Measure” process model vastly expand the range of measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) by which to evaluate the contribution – or lack thereof – that a matter makes to their profits.
One of the more forward-thinking benefits of sell-deliver-leverage-measure is that it creates an opportunity to build a more appropriate compensation system – one that better measures partner performance against finding new clients, retaining existing clients, cross-selling or proliferating work from existing clients across departments, delivering improved matter profitability, and being an effective worker. This is the holy grail of process reengineering.
Keith Lipman is the CEO and co-Founder of Prosperoware, a known thought leader regarding the transformation of the practice of law, and frequent speaker and author on this topic. Keith is one of the founding board members of the Standards Advancement of the Legal Industry (SALI) and has served in a number of professional capacities including paralegal, lawyer, IT director and technology consultant to law firms. Keith earned his BA, JD, and MBA from Temple University.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllStrategic Pricing: Setting the Billable Hour at the Intersection of Psychology, Feedback and Growth
New Year, New Am Law 100: Challenges Await These Newly Merged Law Firms
7 minute readZuckerman Spaeder Gets Ready to Move Offices in DC, Deploy AI Tools in 2025
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Treasury GC Returns to Davis Polk to Co-Chair White-Collar Defense and Investigations Practice
- 2Decision of the Day: JFK to Paris Stowaway's Bail Revocation Explained
- 3Doug Emhoff, Husband of Former VP Harris, Lands at Willkie
- 4LexisNexis Announces Public Availability of Personalized AI Assistant Protégé
- 5Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
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