Brand and deliver – why law firms must work harder to differentiate themselves
Firms that fail to develop a clear brand and business strategy will struggle to survive in today's legal market
February 24, 2015 at 07:08 PM
4 minute read
Firms that fail to develop a clear brand and business strategy will struggle to survive in today's legal sector
When Eulogy! published its white paper, 'Reputation: the key to staying afloat in the new legal world', this time last year, it caused quite a stir. We had spent 10 months analysing how the top 100 law firms were performing from a brand and reputation perspective. We looked at their marketing strategies and tactics, PR coverage and sentiment and client communication, as well as questioning lawyers, marketers and clients about their views of the legal sector. This gave the first true picture as to which firms had the best brands and reputation.
Our key findings were that, while there were several firms with a clear identity and culture, there were too many that had difficulty in differentiating themselves from other firms. This was simply not good enough when the sector was experiencing a perfect storm of change. On one side, new commercial bodies such as BT and the AA had begun to offer legal services. On the other, a new post-recession economic reality created new expectations from clients. In 2014 excelling at legal work was no longer a differentiator, it was a given.
Many traditional law firms are aware that there aren't the fees to sustain the traditional business model. Put simply, there are too many law firms and too many lawyers for a finite amount of work. Without a strong reputation within the legal and wider business market – without a clear brand, direction and business strategy – many law firms will simply not survive the next few years.
So, one year on, what's changed? Unfortunately, very little. We are about to publish our latest report and, while there are some firms that have made great strides in developing their brand, others are crossing their fingers and hoping for the best.
More importantly, this year we decided to move away from the legal propensity for navel gazing and instead compare law firms to management consultancies and accountancy firms. The difference is stark.
So why is the legal sector so far behind others? Some partners believe that the biggest hindrance is the partnership model itself, but, when assessing other professional services firms, this reasoning doesn't stack up. My view is that too many firms have grown organically without a clear business strategy, with management teams under pressure from partners to maintain and increase profit per equity partner rather than wider commercial matters.
If your firm was created from scratch today, would you adopt its current structure? What is the market need for it to exist? If these questions can't be answered, then having a clear brand proposition is impossible.
Underpinning this is the simple fact that, for many partners, the term 'brand' is alien and not relevant to their daily lives. Yet by joining their firm they already have a perception and understanding of what it does well and its culture. The firm's brand is the promise that potential clients have, and this promise is delivered by the way the partners service the client.
We entered into a crowded market when we published this report last year; the legal sector has been open to rankings for years. The legal directories – Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 – have traditionally been powerhouses and are still beloved of many a partner. However, judging a firm's capability based on work undertaken up to two years before publication is outdated. If firms spent as much time on their brand proposition as they do on legal directories, they may have a better chance of survival.
David Flynn is head of professional services at Eulogy!
- Marketing and Business Development Innovation is one of the categories for The Legal Innovation Awards, which take place in London on 22 May. The deadline for entries is 20 March. For more details call Steve Hands on 0207 004 7460.
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 AllKPMG's Bid To Practice Law in US On Hold As Arizona Court Exercises Caution
Combative Arguments at EU's Highest Court Over Google's €4.13B Antitrust Fine Emphasize High Stakes and Invoke Trump
4 minute readLaw Firms 'Struggling' With Partner Pay Segmentation, as Top Rainmakers Bring In More Revenue
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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