What Is More Important for Pitching Business—Preparation or Relationships?
Practicing law starts with getting and maintaining clients. Pitching business is an often underappreciated aspect of being successful as a lawyer. Thorough preparation is just as important for business development purposes as the research and planning needed for a trial. On the other hand, a lot of business is generated through relationships.
October 17, 2018 at 11:56 AM
7 minute read
Practicing law starts with getting and maintaining clients. Pitching business is an often underappreciated aspect of being successful as a lawyer. Thorough preparation is just as important for business development purposes as the research and planning needed for a trial. On the other hand, a lot of business is generated through relationships. Women attorneys can use preparation and relationships to even the playing field, but which is more important?
Let's start by acknowledging two things. First, developing business is not easy. Even people who are good at it go through dry spells or encounter rejections. Second, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to generating business. Every lawyer seems to have her own style.
That said, business generation can be especially challenging for younger women lawyers who have spent almost their entire firm life working on matters that have been assigned to them by more senior attorneys. When transitioning into the role of a business generator, it can be difficult to impress upon prospects why they should choose you rather than a more senior competitor who already has a significant book of business.
To the extent possible, it is important to know how a prospective client makes decisions about hiring counsel and how she prefers to be approached. Some clients may focus primarily on credentials. You either went to the right school, clerked for the right judge, belong to the right professional associations, and have the right legal experience—or not. Other clients may prioritize personal relationships and personality, and look for attorneys with whom they have a connection. Then there are those who fall somewhere in between.
It is wise to identify how a potential client thinks along these lines, and then incorporate suitable strategies when marketing your services. You probably should not make the soft pitch to someone who is entirely credentials focused, and you may want to let your personality show more when you are pitching a prospect who emphasizes relationships. These considerations apply, with appropriate adjustment, notwithstanding the size of your firm or the prospective client.
Regardless of how the prospect usually makes hiring decisions, it always remains crucial to thoroughly understand the nature of her business and industry, her legal and business needs, and the role in the business of each of the decision makers. Before meeting with a potential client, I perform substantial research on the business itself, recent legal matters involving the prospective client's work, and the people with whom I will be meeting. I also research other members of the prospect's legal team, both internal and external. All of these factors can help in determining the most important needs of the prospective client, and how my firm and I can assist in meeting their goals.
For women attorneys, putting your preparation on display is crucial. In my experience, this is particularly important when serving as part of a larger team making a pitch. In these situations, women can demonstrate value by focusing on the substantive issues that should drive the hiring decision. When these moments arise, don't hesitate to jump in and make the relevant point. Try to be concise and fact-based, concluding by expressing how the client and their business will benefit in practical terms.
I have certainly experienced some awkward pitch meetings where I have been the only woman in the room and the conversation seems to flow more easily between “the guys” It helps me to keep in mind that I was asked to be part of the team for our firm, and that my colleagues know I have substance to offer the client. So when an opportunity arises to use the material I prepared, I am not shy. And, in those instances in which the guys go off script by discussing the latest sports news, for example, I interject my own analysis of that topic and then bring us back to the subject of the meeting. After all, ESPN is one of my favorite channels and I don't allow the people in the room to presume otherwise. This signals to both the prospect and my team that not only do I have a thorough grasp of the substantive issues, but I can just as easily engage in conversations about other topics in which the client is personally interested.
This leads me to the other side of the coin. Many clients hire counsel based on relationships or referrals. For younger women lawyers, this aspect of business development presents both challenges and opportunities.
Attorneys vary in their approaches to developing personal relationships with potential clients. The best-case scenario is that the prospect is someone who you have known for years and with whom you have a pre-existing relationship. Women attorneys can be intentional about cultivating relationships over time among alumni from their law school and college, former colleagues, peers on boards of directors, individuals they meet at professional associations, and even through neighbors and family members. Then, when a legal need arises, the connection is already built.
One of my favorite clients was introduced to me by a former not-for-profit board colleague. My colleague and I had worked together on a long-term, intense project during which she observed my problem solving and negotiation abilities. About a year after the project had been completed, and after my colleague's service on the board had ended, she referred to me a medium-sized corporate client that was in need of litigation work but did not have its own in-house counsel. My board colleague's strong referral played a meaningful role in my ability to get the client. I was pleased that my not-for-profit work resulted in business. The situation was a reminder that relationships with people you meet in any context can develop into potential clients or referral sources.
Where your new business target is someone who you do not know and with whom you do not already have a connection, it takes more effort to develop a rapport. It is in those situations where lunches, sports events, or other outings can often be a helpful tool.
Earlier in my career, I underestimated the importance of developing personal relationships with potential clients. But over the years I have observed a number of colleagues generate sizable books of business primarily as a result of their charm and wit. They meet prospects they like, hang out with them, and eventually, after that's been repeated enough times, they initiate a conversation about how they can work together. Because the attorney has become a friend, the prospect wants to be helpful to her, personally.
Women can have a potential advantage with female prospects. Developing these relationships can feel more natural. But I have also had success in cultivating connections with men who are in the position of influencing the hiring decisions for legal work at their businesses. I do not force the issue, but I do look for opportunities, for example, to sit next to a new person at a meeting and strike up a conversation.
So is there a definitive answer to the question, “Which is more important, preparation or relationships?” I'd like to think that preparation is a necessary ingredient to successful business development tactics for getting and keeping clients. A lack of preparation can certainly destroy a client meeting. However, over time I have come to believe that relationships are often a determining factor for who even receives a pitch meeting in the first place. So while I will continue to over-prepare, I also make time for cultivating personal connections with prospects who may be important to my career success.
Courtney Devon Taylor is counsel in Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis' litigation department and vice-chair of the securities litigation practice group. She focuses her practice on commercial litigation, and securities litigation and enforcement.
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 AllFrom Courtroom to Cradle: Practical Advice for Young Attorneys About Parental Leave
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Consumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
- 2Ex-Schnader Partner Nears Settlement in Misappropriated Comp Class Action
- 3The Increase in Artificial Intelligence-Related Securities Class Actions
- 4Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
- 5Jefferson Doctor Hit With $6.8M Verdict Over Death of 64-Year-Old Cancer Patient
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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