In the second part of the debate, delegates were invited to vote on a series of questions relating to their own law firm marketing activities. Delegates were drawn from some of the largest UK and US law firms, and comprised a mixture of senior marketing managers and business development partners.

When asked what information law firms should include in their pitches to clients, the majority of participants replied that the number of deals / cases they had handled was the single most effective marketing tool. The second most popular option was client feedback, followed by references to awards, league tables and client testimonials.

Nevertheless, there was some inconsistency in the responses given by delegates. When asked how often they included quantitative data about past work in their pitches, just over half of respondents did so in most situations. By contrast, more than a third of respondents only included this information rarely, or not at all. Assuming the respondents provided accurate responses to the “most effective” question, there is only one logical explanation for this discrepancy. That is, while law firms recognised that it is important to include quantitative data in their pitches to support their claims to expertise in particular markets, they are often not able to do so.

When asked whether they use awards, directory rankings and league tables in their pitches, 100 per cent of respondents said that they did on a regular basis – despite believing it was less effective than quantitative data about existing clients. Nevertheless, this provoked a lively debate on how they should promote their firms, when ranked towards the middle or bottom of such tables. One speaker took the view that even a low position on a league table was a positive attribute, because many of their competitors did not feature on the table at all. Others recommended using a disappointing score as a spring-board for a strategy of improvement. However, the Zeughauser Group’s Norm Rubenstein, urged caution when using some league tables, particularly when they were based on deal volume rather than deal value. “You need to determine what transactions would impress a client,” he said.

In relation to client testimonials, delegates gave a confused response. From a marketing perspective, respondents said that they regarded testimonials as fairly important. However, when ask whether they actually used them, 55 per cent of respondents said they did not. Even more surprising, a further 45 per cent claming they did not know whether or not they did. This provoked a wry response from Ross Fishman. “Let’s face it, unless you’re on your firm’s brochure committee – would you read your firm’s own brochure?” he said.

The fact that none of the respondents was able to confirm whether or not they used client testimonials may not be surprising, given it was rated fifth out of the five options in terms of effectiveness. One charitable explanation for this response is that, for reasons of equal treatment, clients may be reluctant to allow their brand to be used by law firms. Another explanation may be that lawyers are simply too scared to ask - in case their approach is rejected.

In relation to client feedback, marketers appear reluctant to boast about their achievements. While one third (36 per cent) described their programmes to be advanced, an equal number said it was average. One third of respondents offered no opinion on quality of their client feedback programme, while none described it as “state of the art.”

Here, the biggest obstacle to a successful client feedback programme was not surveying the correct clients (nine per cent) or the administrative hassle (zero per cent) - but obtaining internal partner buy-in (55 per cent). “When I first recommended client feedback programmes, I couldn’t understand why the firms were so reluctant,” said Mr Fishman. “Their visceral response suggested a deep-seating insecurity.” To overcome this roadblock, Norm Rubenstein suggested that marketing managers should roll out such a programme gradually, starting with a department or lawyer they believe is loved by their clients. “This may produce biased results, but it will encourage others to participate,” he said.

Even where client feedback was obtained, around 36 per cent of respondents said their programme was only run on an informal / ad hoc basis. An equal number of respondents (27 per cent) said they obtained client feedback after the close of each matter, or on a half yearly basis. Yet, as Leigh Dance from ELD International explained, the fact that not all law firms carried out client reviews on a systematic basis was irrelevant. This, she said, did not mean they had avoided being appraised by clients. “Many clients will carry out their own review post matter, irrespective of whether the law firm is involved,” she said. Remarkably, 10 per cent of respondents said they never carried out a client feedback programme.

For his part, Ross Fishman said that he thought it better to obtain client feedback in real time, in order to fix problems as they develop. This approach is already used by the law firm Eversheds, who provide an online feedback mechanism through its client extranet. Indeed, using third intermediates – whether web-based technology or third party survey companies - may avoid embarrassment on either side. Client embarrassment may be particularly acute if the client wishes to complain about law firm representative that is seeking the feedback. “This is often not an easy or satisfying discussion for the client,” said one speaker.

For Leigh Dance, the most important aspect of a client satisfaction programme is that it should produce results the firm was capable of acting upon. Mr Fishman agreed with this proposition, stating bluntly: “If you’re not in a position to fix a problem, don’t ask about it. Clients will be annoyed that you’ve wasted their time. If you’re not prepared to act on what you’ve heard, you might as well drive them straight round to a rival law firm.”

Commenting on the session’s findings James Harley, international marketing director at LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, said it was rapidly becoming a “business imperative” to obtain feedback from existing clients in a structured manner. “Our research indicates that 92 per cent of in-house counsels consider personal referrals to be either important or very important when seeking new law firms to instruct,” he said. “Despite this, too many firms have no idea how existing clients rate their performance. If clients believe their needs are being addressed, then they are far more likely to recommend your services to others. Client feedback can create a virtuous circle – your existing clients also become your biggest advocates.” This feedback, he argued, could help the firm win new business - even if a client is not willing to lend its name to a specific advertising campaign.

What is more, Mr Harley argued that clients who are willing to promote their law firm advisers to others tend to be more loyal customers themselves. “If clients feel that you offer them an indifferent service, they are also less likely to remain loyal to you. By contrast, clients who are willing to recommend your firm to others are far more likely to be loyal,” he concluded.

Client feedback can create a virtuous circle for firms who run these programmes. If firms act on the findings to improve the quality and value of their services, this can result in more clients being willing to act as advocates for their practice.” This, he argues, is crucial for firms seeking new business in overseas markets.

Last updated -16 October 07

Back to homepage