Most City partners say clients appreciate value-added services but just under half of those surveyed claim clients are unrealistic about the effort put into making such services available. Jeremy Hodges reports

Leading City partners believe that many clients do not have a realistic view of the time and cost of providing value-added services such as secondments, despite holding the services in high regard.

The latest Legal Week Big Question survey found that while more than 90% of respondents believe clients hold additional services in high regard, more than two-thirds (67%) of partners believe clients have an unrealistic view of the time and cost that law firms spend on value-added offerings.

Twenty-three percent believe clients take the bolt-ons for granted, while only 3.8% said clients have a realistic view of the expense both financially and in terms of time, with a further 29.1% saying they "pretty much" understand.

The overwhelming majority of respondents believe that it is expensive for law firms to provide these non-chargeable services to clients. More than two-thirds (68%) said the services were fairly expensive to provide, with a further 15% claiming them to be very expensive.

As one partner said: "These services can be taken very much for granted and clients often do not give a moment's thought to the time and cost implications."

The findings come as growing numbers of corporate and financial services clients seek additional services from those law firms to have won spots on their panels, with secondees and training among the most in-demand services.

Linklaters corporate partner and head of client services Richard Godden commented: "Clients expect a relationship with a law firm – not extras. The key to so-called value-added services is providing what they need, not what you think they need.

"If you are not doing that, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the relationship."

Secondments are the value-added service that partners think clients have the highest regard for, gaining more than half (53%) of the vote.

This was followed by bespoke training, with 30% of the vote, with corporate hospitality, seminars and legal updates each gaining less than 8%.

In particular clients want law firms to offer them different services depending on their needs, rather than simply churning out the same training and briefing offers.

Herbert Smith M&A partner Malcolm Lombers said: "Value-added services are always tailored to each client's needs. We put a lot of emphasis on understanding which value-added services are needed by each of our clients and providing them is a core part of the relationship."

The idea of unbundling value-added services and potentially offering a more basic service at a lower price divided partners.

Almost two-thirds said it may work, but the remainder (38%) said it would not make sense at all.

By the same token, firms were divided over whether the services could be offered for a fee. Just over half said it may work, with a further 25% more receptive to the idea. However, 23% argued firms should not consider charging.

James Dakin, a finance partner at Nabarro, commented: "The idea of charging separately for value-added services is misguided, with the possible exception of secondments. The main aim of such services is to build the relationship to secure fee-paying work. In other words, it is business development.

"Unbundling would be self-defeating: you would find it harder to win the work in the first place and harder to keep it if you did win it."

More than half of partners said the recession has increased the amount of value-added services law firms are offering major clients by either "a little" or "a lot", with a further 31% claiming it has stayed static.

Slaughter and May practice partner Paul Olney commented: "Clients are looking for value-added services and firms have to be responsive to this for valued clients, particularly if the service can broaden or embed the relationship.

"The recession has certainly increased the focus on value-added services."

Do clients have a realistic view of the time and cost required to provide value-added services?

• 3.8% believe clients have a very realistic view
• 29.1% believe clients have a pretty realistic view
• 44.3% believe clients don't have a very realistic view
• 22.8% believe clients take such services for granted

For more analysis, see Editor's Blog: Communications breakdown