Sales shouldn't be a dirty word for law firms
Pitching is a vital skill for partners, but can any lawyer be taught how to sell well enough to win big mandates?
March 19, 2015 at 08:03 PM
3 minute read
Lawyers aren't salesmen, right? It is a profession practised by the well-educated (and in many instances privileged), and it's all about offering clients high-quality advice and professional service, not 'selling' – a word some lawyers might associate with car dealerships or mobile phone shops. Selling may have been a rarity in the legal profession 20 years ago, at least for some established firms lucky enough to have institutional client bases and no need to fight for their dinner. But this isn't the case any more – not for any firm, regardless of size.
As our lead feature this week outlines, creating the perfect pitch is big business for law firms. Large teams of professionals with expertise in pricing, business development and project management will spend many hours working with lawyers to prepare for the most important tenders.
And while the size and scope of these pitches will vary depending on the potential client, firms are conducting thousands of pitches each year to win enough work to retain their market position. Given the time committed by so many people, particularly those who could otherwise be fee-earning, that's a costly business if you're not getting it right or are pitching for the wrong work.
Much of the work comes down to nothing more radical than organisation, preparation and practice: making sure you know who you're pitching against, what the client wants and how you can deliver it better than the competition. This can all be taught. But at the presentation stage sales skills are definitely called for – admittedly of a specialised and nuanced nature.
So, can you teach these skills to those more likely to have been drawn to the profession because of the intellectual challenges it presented than a desire to win competitive pitches? Here the answer is less clear. With the best training there is no reason why everyone can't be capable of a solid performance assuming they remember a few basic rules, which arguably apply as much to mobile phones as legal services: know what you're selling; believe in it; and understand why it's a valuable service.
But the natural flair of the archetypal rainmaker or even just the best salesman is something quite different and cannot be taught. Which means making sure you have someone on the pitch team who fulfils that criteria is important – almost as important as making sure you definitely want the work before you pitch and practise until it's perfect.
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 AllMcDermott Hits Paul Hastings In London Again As Macfarlanes Also Swoops For Talent
2 minute readRe-Examining Values: Greenberg Traurig's Executive Chairman on the Lessons of the Pandemic
4 minute readDiversity Commitments Feel Hollow When Firms Cosy Up to Oppressive Regimes
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. 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