Communications breakdown
The question of what clients want from their external legal advisers and how law firms meet this demand may well be nothing new, but two recent examples suggest that this is an area where there is still a significant lack of communication.
February 22, 2010 at 10:14 AM
3 minute read
The question of what clients want from their external legal advisers and how law firms meet this demand may well be nothing new, but two recent examples suggest that this is an area where there is still a significant lack of communication.
It's an issue that has prompted heated debate on Legal Week's LinkedIn group for in-house lawyers, while also dividing opinion among private practice lawyers in the latest Big Question survey.
While in-house lawyers are split over whether they would rather have value-added 'extras' or simply a more basic service at a reduced price, most partners are convinced that clients do not have a realistic idea about the time and cost of providing such services.
Top of the list of complaints from in-housers is that law firms are not properly analysing whether these extras they are providing are either delivering value to the client or providing return on investment for the law firm.
That clients will always want better, more tailored services and preferably at a cheaper price is, of course, a given. But that many still feel they are not receiving the service they want – even despite the additional man-hours firms have thrown at value-added services during the recession in a bid to win more work – shows the extent of this disconnect.
And despite the efforts of law firms, the gap between both parties seems to be widening. More than 90% of partners responding to the Big Question survey said they believe their clients hold value-added services in a high regard. Yet conversely in-house lawyers argue that a) the offerings are frequently not tailored enough to be useful and b) good commercial legal advice will always be far more important than either price or value-adds.
So while law firms are busy devoting extra resource to client relationships in the form of secondments, training and corporate hospitality, and clients are, on the face of it, lapping up the offers without complaint, firms may be seeing little benefit in return for their efforts.
Even if clients do have an unrealistic view of the demands of providing these extras, ultimately all they really care about is getting good advice for a reasonable price – any expense to the adviser is not even a consideration.
Of course, in some instances firms will not have a choice. Growing numbers of large corporates and financial institutions are insisting on value-added services as part of the panel tendering process, so, like it or not, firms have no option but to comply to be in with even a shot at winning work.
But where this is not the case, law firms may be better off spending a bit more time asking their clients what they actually want, rather than falling over themselves to offer these extras and then feeling bitter at the lack of love they get in return.
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 AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Partner Cuts: The Grim Reality of Post-Merger Integration
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
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