Inside Experts: How to lose a client in one minute
A few simple words are all it takes to sour a deal.
July 29, 2011 at 05:16 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As general counsel for an Internet company, I handle many legal issues. I often rely on outside counsel to take on certain tasks and assist me with legal questions. When interviewing outside counsel, I take into account qualifications, communication skills, quality of work and, most importantly, an understanding of my client's business. But I'm also looking for a firm that believes in the big picture, not only for my client, but for our relationship.
My company had a few (what I considered) basic legal questions, and I decided it was time to branch out from our usual firms. We consulted with a few attorneys hoping to research one specific issue and start a long-term relationship.
Based on a recommendation, I set a meeting with one firm. The introductory call went well. The attorney seemed qualified to advise on the subject matter, able to understand my client's legal and business needs and communicated with me in a professional manner. In this 20-minute call, the attorney had met all of my requirements for an outside counsel. Just as I was about to hang up the phone, the attorney asked where to send the bill.
I was taken aback. We never discussed rates or a fee agreement. In fact, in my tenure as in house counsel, I had never been billed for an initial consultation. I gave the attorney my e-mail address.
The attorney immediately e-mailed me a follow up. The attorney thanked me for the opportunity to speak with me and said the bill was on its way. I wrote back that in the past, I've contacted many attorneys in an effort to find the best fit for my company's situation. I told the attorney that this is the first time I was expected to pay fees, not previously disclosed, at the conclusion of an initial call. However, I would pay for services rendered.
I hoped that the attorney would reconsider the bill and that I would be able to reconsider my soured impression. I hoped the bill would never come. But about a month later it did. And my company paid it.
For 20 minutes, I was impressed with the attorney with whom I spoke. My company and I were excited about the prospect of starting a new long-term relationship with a law firm that comprehended our goal. In one minute, however, all of that was thrown away. The attorney's short-sighted view of legal fees and, in turn, how to generate business, proved to me that I had to continue my legal search. We are currently working with another firm.
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 AllWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
GCs Jettisoning Zero-Based Budgeting in Quest to Be Nimble, More Efficient
3 minute readFoley & Lardner Litigator Joins Brewers Roster as Legal Chief
Trending Stories
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