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
© 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 AllLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readGeorgia Law Firm's Longtime Office Manager Charged With Theft of IOLTA Funds
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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