"There is ongoing pressure to provide a high-quality, cost-effective legal service for our clients – our challenge is continually to strive to deliver that service and to take advantage of the opportunities that arise if we achieve that."

david-wittmann-slaughtersThe words of David Wittman (pictured), practice partner at Slaughter and May. In speaking for his firm, he encapsulates the central task facing lawyers everywhere. The only lacuna is that law firm clients are increasingly taking advantage of much greater choice in the type, location and delivery methods offered by assorted legal service providers, both traditional and alternative.

Andrew Inkester, managing partner at Nabarro, develops the point: "The arrival of disruptors like Axiom has added an edge to the legal sector. Competition presents exciting opportunities for incumbents."

However, for respondents to Legal Week Intelligence's recently published Best Legal Advisers report, the critical word is still quality. As one GC explains: "It makes sense to send work to quality providers."

The report, which analyses the views of over 900 general counsel and users of legal services, of which the vast majority have responsibility for instructing law firms, found that quality remains the undisputed king. Respondents were asked how important 12 aspects of legal service are on a 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important) scale and then asked how satisfied on a scale of 1 (dissatisfied) to 5 (satisfied) they are with their current law firms.

Of all questions answered by general counsel, quality of legal advice (95%) and quality of service delivery (reliable, practical & dependable service, including consistency across network) (95%) rank highest in terms of importance.

The good news for law firms is that average satisfaction levels for both criteria also remain strong, at 84% and 85% respectively. These figures – the highest levels of satisfaction for any criteria – are supported by an abundance of favourable comments from respondents.

bla-illustration-1Each of the following relates to different firms:

• 'Excellent quality of legal work, only partner level contact.'
• 'Quality of legal advice, wide capability, intelligent partners.'
• 'Their quality of lawyers is exceptional.'
• 'Quality of staff at all levels.'
• 'They have high-quality lawyers available across full range of disciplines/jurisdictions.'
• 'No frills or flannel, just great quality of advice and market knowledge.'
• 'They know us very well; they are very focused and have a dedicated, high quality service.'

One very satisfied GC says of his preferred firm: 'They are simply brilliant.'
The reason why quality prevails as the single most important criterion is perhaps best summarised by another GC: "It's just the absolute confidence they give me in the quality of their work."

Examining the detail, however, provides a more nuanced picture: one where significant divergence in satisfaction exists between firms, including those of similar size and perceived strength in their areas of practice. This polarisation is best illustrated by notable differences between firms in the levels of uniform satisfaction with the quality of service provided, even at the highest level.

Consider the view of these GCs. 'Some very strong individuals working for them, but very patchy,' observes one respondent. Pulling no punches, another respondent observes: 'Given the cost, the degree of legal service they provide is dire.'

Very few GCs are as brutal as this, but the 'patchy' epithet echoes comments made by a number of survey respondents. The data reveals a spread of satisfaction across individual firms, ranging from 78% to an outstanding 95% (service delivery) and 96% (quality of legal advice) at the top end. This disparity is supported by the commentary. For example, among those firms which attract significant levels of response, one large international player receives praise for the high quality of its work from multiple different respondents with virtually no criticisms made. A close competitor in size and reach, with a similar number of comments, received comparable plaudits from only five GCs, surpassed in number by those making more critical remarks.

Higher standards expected

Although aggregate levels of dissatisfaction are modest, the commentary provides proof that GCs expect higher standards from some firms that rely too heavily on a well-respected brand, but do not always deliver the uniform quality that inevitably underpins their established reputation.

As evidence, consider the following damning indictment: 'They trade on their good name, they overcharge and don't have a commercial approach.'

Further withering remarks, each about different firms, include the following:

• 'Quality and availability of partners inconsistent – some excellent and others not.'
• 'The quality of their specialist teams in terms of clarity/level of advice is not as strong as their corporate team.'
• 'The quality is variable.'
• 'Higher quality of advice needed, they are good but could be better.'
• 'The delivery of service has fallen.'
• 'Quality of service and advice are generally behind the market.'

Integral to the success of those firms that are highly rated for quality of service delivery is how well they position and educate themselves about their clients, and the sectors in which they advise.

bright-susan-hogan-lovellsSusan Bright (pictured), London managing partner of Hogan Lovells, says: "Excellence in client satisfaction is a key priority. We have therefore refocused ourselves in relation to industry sectors, where we can really demonstrate to clients that we understand what they do. Clients do want industry expertise, so our strong focus is in areas, for example, like life sciences, financial institutions, insurance and energy."

The theme of client understanding is further developed by Claire Rowe, chief executive of Shoosmiths, another highly ranked firm.

"You need to ensure that you remain close to your clients, you're listening to those clients, finding out the development of their business, finding out about their drivers, understanding what's on their board agenda. We need to continue to listen to our clients and be very responsive to and imaginative about their requirements."

Communication skills

"Communication is a strength," says one GC of his law firm. The word appears frequently in the commentary, often as part of a combination of factors, explaining why particular law firms are preferred:

• 'Dynamic interested partners, quick turnaround times, good communication skills.'
• 'Personable partners with good communication skills.'
• 'Superb knowledge, communication and industry awareness.'
• 'Excellent delivery, great communication and outstanding legal advice.'
• 'Extremely responsive, we have got great communication with them.'
• 'Impressive level of service and communication.'
• 'Excellent communications and timely response to issues.'

On the flipside, communication is an impediment for some firms. One respondent advises her advisers to be 'less lawyer-like in their communications'.

jonathan-blair-02Another comments: 'Communication is not always in the format that suits the recipients, they partner up quite a lot so we are paying for a junior and a senior partner.'

And a third suggests: 'The knowledge is there in the practice area, but there is an approachability issue, communication is sometimes a bit lacking.'

At Bond Dickinson, managing partner Jonathan Blair (pictured) concludes: "The legal sector remains extremely challenging. Every ambitious firm faces the same issues – UK legal spend has plateaued so growth has to come from winning market share through compelling, creative people-driven proposals."

As an example of how to do it, one firm receives the following testimonial from a very satisfied GC: 'Excellent delivery, great communication and outstanding legal advice.' Who could ask for more?

It should be emblazoned on their website.

This is an edited extract of the Legal Week Intelligence 2015-16 Best Legal Advisers report. For more information contact [email protected] or tel: +44(0)2073169864 

Related: