Do Less Law - Redefining Value in the Delivery of Legal Services

I have the good fortune to be invited to attend the upcoming ILTA annual conference to join my friend Ron Friedmann in conducting an interactive workshop entitled "Do Less Law." This session builds on a growing concept that the maturation of law practice is as much about doing less as it is about doing more with less, a concept that Ron coined in a November 2011 article "To Reduce Legal Spend, Do Less Law" and that he has since expanded on his blog and #DoLessLaw tweets. As regular readers know, I have also addressed this concept regularly here and in my other speeches and articles. Corporate law departments face budget pressure and demand more value from their law firms. Yet many cannot clearly define value. Some in the market equate value with efficiency.  A focus only on efficiency, however, misses many other opportunities to control cost and create value. Doing something efficiently that does not need doing at all still wastes money. What exactly does it mean, however, to do less law? And how big an opportunity is it?

At ILTA 2015, we will have an opportunity to crowdsource the answers. In preparation for the interactive session at ILTA, this post introduces the idea in more detail and seeks feedback.  Below is the taxonomy of Do Less Law options. Whether you think the ideas are terrible or great, we welcome comments or email to help refine it. And, we hope to see many of you at our session on Wednesday, September 2, 2015, at 3:30pm PDT in Las Vegas.  Our goal at the session is to get you and your colleagues discussing these ideas and deciding which are worth pursuing – and how to pursue them.

Do Less Law Taxonomy

1. Do what we now do but better 1.1 Improve Efficiency 1.1.1 Automate 1.1.1.1 Lawyers learn tech to their work faster and more consistently 1.1.1. 2. Market adopts interactive advisory systems (e.g., Neota Logic) or cognitive computing (e.g, IBM Watson) to supplement or replace lawyer work 1. 1. 2. Improve process to eliminate waste 1. 1. 3. Manage work to control effort (legal project management) 1. 2. Reduce Cost 1.2.1. Staff matters with lower cost resources (“alternative staffing”) 1.2. 2. Partner with or use alternative providers (LPO, New Law, doc review companies, or .lower cost firms 1.2.3. Reduce overhead with smaller offices, moving work to low cost centers, and working virtually)

2. Do what we now do but less intensively 2. 1. Scope matters systematically, more specifically, decide explicitly the level of effort warranted 2.1.1. In transactions, decide what risks need papering 2.1. 2. In litigation, use risk analysis (decision trees) to value matters 2. 2. Stick to scope with legal project management (LPM)

3. Do less than we do now by practicing preventive law 3. 1. Improve compliance (or decide consciously the appropriate level of compliance) 3. 2. Identify legal risks in advance and then act to avoid them 3.2.1. Conduct legal health audit and act on findings 3.2.2. Use big data and analytics to find problem 3.2.2.1. Detect prior “bad patterns” to prevent future recurrence 3.2.2. 2. Identify risky behaviors via analyzing email traffic (“big brother”) 3.3. Train corporate employees to comply where cost of non-compliance is too high

4. Re-think how we do what we do now 4. 1. “Settle” sooner 4.1.1. Decide litigation settlement value earlier and stick to it 4.1.2. Decide transaction key terms and stop negotiating when you get them 4.1.3. Decide how thorough a counseling answer is enough – what risks are you willing to live with – boulders or motes of dust? 4.2. Create open source law (this is not the law of open source code) 4.2.1. Pool know-how and re-usable documents across clients (privately or publicly, e.g., Docracy) 4.2.2. Think of this as collective knowledge management (KM) 4. 3. Automate contracts 4.3.1. Use existing technology more and more effectively 4.3.1.1. Analyze and systematize contracts (with, e.g., KM Standards) 4.3.1.2. Build document assembly systems 4.3.1.3. Deploy contract lifecycle management software (e.g., Apttus or Selectica) 4.3.1.4. Use eSigning software 4.3.2. Re-invent contracts 4.3.2.1. Write contracts as software code 4.3.2.2. Write contracts as database records (XML, JSON, or similar) 4.3.2.3. Design and deploy a Blockchain approach 4.4. Re-think litigation 4.4.1. Substitute information governance for eDiscovery 4.4.2. Do risk analysis (e.g., decision trees) to assess individual matters and portfolios 4.4.3. Assess cases early and decide consciously whether to look for boulders, rocks, stones, pebbles, or motes of dust. 4.4.4. Online dispute resolution 4.5. Automate counseling 4.5.1. Collect inquiries systematically (KM) 4.5.2. Develop interactive advisory systems to handle high volume problems 4.5.3. Convert regulations into code

Timothy B. Corcoran is the immediate past President of the Legal Marketing Association and an elected Fellow of the College of Law Practice Management. He delivers keynote presentations, conducts workshops, and advises leaders of law firms, in-house legal departments, and legal service providers on how to profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

Upcoming Workshops on Process Improvement and Project Management in Chicago and Washington, DC

While many visitors enjoy reading my insights into the changing face of the legal profession, others want more in-depth advice, instruction, and counseling.  Luckily, there's an app for that! In my day job as a management consultant, I work on-site with law firms, law departments, and legal service providers to embed and operationalize new ideas and business improvements into their organizations. To provide a glimpse into some of these ideas, my colleagues with the Legal Lean Sigma Institute, Catherine MacDonagh and Amy Hrehovcik, and I routinely offer open-enrollment workshops where we provide hands-on instruction. Please join us if you can at one of our upcoming events, details below. Process Improvement & Project Management White Belt Certification Course

Today's law firm and law department professionals are faced with continued challenges and opportunities to help maximize efficiencies. In reconnecting legal costs to the value received, we must begin with the voice of the client and then devise and employ strategies that deliver what clients want and competitive advantages for themselves. With process improvement (PI) and project management (PM), there are no tradeoffs – no one loses and everyone wins. This combined Legal Lean Sigma® Process Improvement White Belt Certification course will give you proven, disciplined approaches, tools and skills to take your role (and your firm, group, or department) to a new level of excellence and profitability. It is designed to provide an overview of Lean, Six Sigma and the fundamental drivers of project management and the essential elements of a quality project management initiative.

The workshop instructors have experience providing process improvement and project management courses in academia, training to lawyers in law firms and professional staff and law departments in multiple countries, and have implemented PI projects and LPM pilots within numerous law firms. The instructors also have direct experience managing high-stakes projects in both the corporate sector and in law firms. This certification course is experiential and interactive and requires full participation in order to be effective. Participants will leave with an appreciation for how project management, process improvement, law firm profitability and client satisfaction are inextricably linked. Plus, each attendee is eligible to receive a Certification in Legal Lean Sigma and Legal Project Management from the Legal Lean Sigma® Institute.

These interactive courses include experiential learning, table work, and discussions. We rely on case studies, examples, and success stories from our client law firms and legal departments to illustrate key learning points and to expose you to Six Sigma, Lean, and the principles of project management in context.  While we offer individual courses in Process Improvement and Project Management, we have found that offering both disciplines together more accurately reflects the realities of today's workplace:  A well-designed project plan can be impaired when impacted by inefficient processes; and the benefits of a well-designed process can be lost when combined with other inefficient processes as part of a larger project. Start with process improvement, start with project management - it almost doesn't matter. Sooner or later, you'll need to address both.

In addition to combining PI and PM, we also combine our own experiences: we have experience inside law firms, inside law departments, and as corporate executives managing the law department and hiring outside counsel. Our programs are practical and based on real-world experience. We balance the necessary academic content with the reality that most practitioners want to do it, not just learn about it.

Sample Process Improvement Agenda

• Demonstration of a process - Time & Billing simulation
• Key methodologies: Lean and Six Sigma
• DMAIC: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control
• Define Phase exercise - process mapping
• Getting Started and Structuring for Success

Sample Project Management Agenda

• Connecting Project Management and Process Improvement
• Project Management Fundamentals
• Getting Started - Project Charter exercise
• Risk Register
• Getting Started in your organization

Washington, DC

Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K Street NW, Washington, DC

Date: Thursday, October 2, 2014

Register here

Chicago, IL

Produced by The Ark Group

Location: Drinker, Biddle & Reath, 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700, Chicago, IL

Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014

Register here

Timothy B. Corcoran is the 2014 President of the Legal Marketing Association and an elected Fellow of the College of Law Practice Management. He delivers keynote presentations, conducts workshops, and advises leaders of law firms, in-house legal departments, and legal service providers on how to profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

Law Firms Getting Schooled

Law firm partners have a curious approach to addressing client needs.  Imagine a crowded subway car in which a General Counsel is sitting comfortably while a Biglaw partner stands next to him. When the train lurches, the partner inadvertently stomps on the GC’s foot. “Ouch,” exclaims the GC, “You’re standing on my foot.” The partner’s response is, naturally, to call the office and direct three associates to drop everything and enroll in medical school, to specialize in podiatry, and to attend only night classes so as not to miss work, in order to ensure that, should the client’s foot pain persist in the future, the firm will be in a good position to resolve the issue.

This is what I envisioned as I read the recent article by Nathalie Pierrepont of The Recorder, an ALM publication, describing a new associate training program at Orrick. In “Orrick Puts Would-Be Partners Through Business Boot Camp” (subscription may be necessary) we learn of a refreshing and innovative program to teach business skills to lawyers, specifically senior associates on the partner track. The program, produced by The Fullbridge Program, covers a number of business topics that will help lawyers speak the language of business.  The program, or something like it, should be required in every law school immediately. And it should be required of every practicing lawyer who wants to serve business clients. I’ve talked at length with Andrew Notaro, executive director of Fullbridge – he gets it and he provides a necessary service. Trouble is, most firms organize these programs for associates – law firms may be sending the wrong students to class!

Or more precisely, the law firm leaders, by failing to enroll fellow partners, are missing the central point of business leaders’ most common complaint. “Our outside law firms don’t understand our business” rarely means that an associate billed to a M&A transaction is unable to calculate the after tax weighted average cost of capital. Or that the lack of such knowledge means she’s therefore unable to properly advise on the relative risk of this investment over alternative courses of action.

More often it’s something less profound and business-mathy: “The partner in charge of this transaction, despite having led a half dozen substantially similar transactions for us in the last five years, once again underestimated the legal costs, this time by a substantial margin, and exacerbated the situation by failing to alert us until long after we closed our quarterly budget re-forecast process.”

Or “After relying on the same litigation counsel for numerous cases and constantly fighting over growing fees, a new law firm identified two key areas upstream in our business processes that we didn't realize were creating ongoing exposure. We addressed the exposure and within months the number of filings plummeted - and so did our legal costs.”

Pulling an all-nighter to cram for the test isn’t learning.

Perhaps my cynicism stems from hearing one too many in-house counsel or business client express frustration with outside counsel and their lack of interest, empathy, and insights into the client’s business.  To be fair, many law firms have tried to address the issue, but many have also failed on execution:

• Technology: Sophisticated tools have been purchased and breathlessly rolled out to help lawyers obtain “the most comprehensive go-to-lunch report” on a moment’s notice when meeting with a client or prospective client. However, few clients are impressed with a partner whose industry knowledge is parroting analyst report headlines or recent stock movements.

• People: New roles have emerged in recent years, such as competitive intelligence specialists, whose primary skill is analyzing and synthesizing vast sums of information to proactively identify compelling marketing opportunities that provide a competitive advantage. The good ones are worth their weight in gold! Regrettably, more than a few spend a great deal of time manually creating last second, on-demand, “urgent” go-to-lunch reports rather than help inform strategy, resulting in fruitless pursuits of the wrong clients at the wrong rates.

• Process: Some law firms have implemented client teams with the objective of capturing client insights, sharing learnings, cross-pollinating ideas, and collaborating to increase cross-selling opportunities. But even eager people stumble in the face of flawed processes -- and compensation systems that reward isolationist activity coupled with firm-centric org structures that inhibit cross-functional interaction are most assuredly flawed processes.

So what does work?

As a former business leader, I was pleasantly surprised when my outside advisers were familiar with my business segment. On a few occasions deep industry insight is crucial, but for many companies legal needs aren’t so unique to an industry that specialized knowledge is crucial. What most need, and what is a constant struggle to find, are advisers who understand our appetite for risk, how we make build vs. buy decisions, what factors matter and who’s involved in go/no-go decisions on major capital investments, our budgeting and re-budgeting (and re-re-budgeting!) schedule, and the relative importance we place on legal advice in the overall context of running a business in fiercely competitive markets.  And we are often just as dissatisfied with in-house counsel as we are with outside counsel in this regard!

In case my point is buried, I’ll emphasize it: the partners who send their associates to business school need to attend business school first. The weakest link in the law firm value chain isn’t the associates, it’s the partners.  Much of what business leaders and in-house counsel describe as “knowing our business” refers to how we do business, not our SIC codes or movements in our EPS. What keeps a business manager up at night? It’s not placing a multi-million dollar bet on a new product line or new acquisition – we do that all the time because of our high tolerance for risk and our endless quest to gain a competitive edge. It’s looking like an idiot in front of my CEO when the advisers I hire continually go over budget after claiming to be deep subject matter experts who have advised in this sort of matter hundreds of times previously. We all look incompetent as a result, and that’s not the sort of reputation that earns me a seat in the Boardroom.

So high marks to Orrick for making this investment in its lawyers' professional development, for an investment it is, not an expense. It will surely pay dividends down the road as business-savvy lawyers establish beachheads as trusted advisors rather than as expensive suppliers.  But collectively, we can all do more to serve our clients' needs. And it should start at the top of the law firm hierarchy where partners with demonstrably improved business acumen can deliver immediate benefits, for their clients and their law firms.  What are you waiting for?

Timothy B. Corcoran is the 2014 President of the Legal Marketing Association and an elected Fellow of the College of Law Practice Management. He delivers keynote presentations, conducts workshops, and advises leaders of law firms, in-house legal departments, and legal service providers on how to profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

What's next for law firm leaders?

MimesisLaw: "Senior Privilege: How Some Law Firms Stifle Rainmaker Development"

I met with Lee Pacchia on Mimesis Law's "Business of Law" web TV program to discuss, among other topics, my recent post in which I described how some law firms are stifling the growth of future rainmakers.  I made a few bold comments, many of which are culled from the remarks and presentations I deliver at numerous law firm and law department retreats, and from previous articles. Yes, it's easy to lob critiques. But it's also easy to hide from the truth. There are answers for the major challenges facing law firm leaders, yet we see so few bold, progressive moves on any scale.

"Law firm leaders tend to think their business is so complex and challenging and unlike others." Nonsense. Most complexities are self-induced. Many leaders are challenged by the changing incentives driven by client price pressure. Finding the right balance between rewarding the origination of new matters, which is important in all industries and should be rewarded well, and those who deliver the work, maintain the relationship, upsell or cross-sell additional services, or focus on client retention, can be challenging, but there are hundreds of compensation schemes used every day in every business that can provide guidance. Law firm leaders who invent their own plans to address their "unique" business model are often simply unaware of these other models.

"I've come around to the view that you can't change behavior unless you change the compensation plan first." Many partners won't say it out loud, but I will: if it looks like changing behavior is contrary to a partner's financial self-interest, it's easy to find numerous objections that pertain to quality, or client satisfaction, or the infinite variability of legal matters. Fact is, it's not a choice between making more money and making less money. If we have to change the compensation plans to emphasize different outcomes such as, say, profitability, client retention, and client satisfaction, and de-emphasize the longtime inefficient proxy for all of this, namely hours, then so be it. Good lawyers will continue to make good money.

"If you're hiring the wrong people and you can't trust them to write an article that puts the firm in a positive light, then I'd look in the mirror and say who am I hiring and what are my skills as a manager?"  If you can't trust the people you hire, then fire yourself as a manager, since you're evidently terrible at recruiting, on-boarding, and training.

"The younger generation is not bound by the traditional partnership path." It's a cop out to say that the younger generation of lawyers doesn't want to work hard just because many tend to eschew the traditional pursuit of Biglaw partnership. For one, they're aware of the math that illustrates the extraordinary unlikelihood that the firm hiring them out of law school will anoint them partner someday, regardless of how hard they work. They're also adaptable and flexible and value their time differently. Embrace their creativity and use this flexible work force as a competitive advantage.

"It's easy to demonstrate that changing behaviors will put more money in the partners' pockets." Many partners embrace the fallacy of the false dilemma when they assume they must either pocket profits or reinvest in the firm for future growth, i.e., deplete the profits and thereby lower their compensation. By maximizing short-term profits, they have always forgone more lucrative long-term profits. They're like day traders flipping a stock purchased in the morning for $32.05 and selling it in the afternoon for $33.50, yet ignoring the better option of holding onto the stock for 6 months until it reaches $176. Of course it's a bit more complex than this... but not much.

"A law firm partnership model is a ridiculous model for governance. Giving people an equal vote on how an operation should run is silly." This is not even worthy of a lengthy debate, as it's been long-settled in every other business on the planet. Corporate stakeholders include clients, competitors, employees, bond holders, equity investors, management, executive leadership, and board members, and yet very few of these stakeholders have a voice in the daily operations of the enterprise. Allowing every partner a say in operations just because he or she has an equity stake is as sensible and noisy and ill-informed as conducting a political debate on Facebook and expecting a rational dialogue.

"Nowhere in my job description does it say I've got to protect the model of the Biglaw business." Dominant incumbents in any market will erect any roadblock to change under the guise of quality, competitiveness, and customer needs, but in reality most of these roadblocks are designed to protect the status quo. It's human nature. Whether it's auto dealers in New Jersey claiming that direct-to-customer sales are bad for customers, or bar associations prohibiting alternative business structures, the actual voice of the customer is often quite muted in the debate.

"A potted plant can demand discounts from suppliers." The notion of continuous improvement in a business is not just about perpetually lowering costs, though that's a key outcome. It's about improving quality and throughput and competitiveness while lowering the marginal costs of production. After several years of essentially demanding discounts from law firms, many GCs have to get more creative. And many are struggling. This speaks to the increased role of procurement (which is as much about analytics as it is about cost). There has never been a more opportune time for law firms and law departments to collaborate to find a better way.

Timothy B. Corcoran is the 2014 President of the Legal Marketing Association and an elected Fellow of the College of Law Practice Management. He delivers keynote presentations, conducts workshops, and advises leaders of law firms, in-house legal departments and legal service providers on how to profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

The Changing Definition of Value: What Matters Most to In-House Counsel

The rules have changed. Law firm partners worldwide reached professional maturity in a much simpler world: One delivered a quality work product and everything else fell into place. Clients were satisfied, lawyers were engaged in thought-provoking work, associates received good training and generous, albeit hard-earned, revenues and profits ensued. This worked. Until it didn’t.

As with all extraordinary ecosystem disruption, many are reeling, casting about for an anchor in the storm. Partners face seemingly conflicting demands from clients who require quality work product but refuse to pay premium rates. To the clients, however, and particularly to in-house counsel, there is little conflict. The definition of quality has simply been redefined to encompass the manner in which legal services are delivered, and not merely the price or the outcome. And clients are happy to describe what this means to them.

“We’re in the midst of consolidating the panel of counsel that we use. We’ve identified five decision criteria that reflect our values: the firm’s relation- ship to us, including years of service and any customer relationship we have; billing rates for partners and associates; diversity; approach to resourcing and budgeting; and innovation,” reports Anne Sonnen, deputy general counsel and chief administrative officer for BMO Financial Group. Marilyn McClure-Demers, associate vice president and associate general counsel of corporate and intellectual property litigation at Nationwide Insurance, offers a similar robust definition: “Our top metrics are result, diversity and cost- efficiency, but this is closely followed by communication. This refers to timeliness, understanding urgency, managing expectations and helping us avoid surprises with our business management.” James Partridge, formerly chief counsel for outside counsel relations with Ally Financial Inc., and now consultant with Duff & Phelps, continues the theme: “We developed a scorecard to capture the metrics the company values. These include service quality, program delivery, cooperation and teamwork, communication, financial management and price, which is really a component of financial management.” 

To in-house counsel, quality lawyering is merely table stakes. It’s how outside counsel manage the relationship that matters most. “Outside counsel can be insensitive to the amount and frequency of communication that the client needs during the course of a matter,” laments Ted Banks, a partner with Scharf Banks Marmor and formerly chief counsel of global compliance for Kraft Foods. This is echoed by Partridge, who notes how exceptional good communication can be. “One firm impressed us by going well beyond our expectations for normal communication, providing a monthly update on all matters whether we asked for it or not, offering unsolicited insights on litigation techniques, jury pools, judges and the like. This was better than what the majority of our other outside counsel were doing. I liked this approach so much that I worked to turn it into an early case assessment process and asked other outside litigation counsel to adopt the approach.” 

Many in-house counsel report that a well-crafted project plan and an accompanying matter budget are critical to managing expectations with business leaders. Yet, law firms tend to resist such requirements, believing that the ebb and flow of complex matters, and certainly the outcomes, are beyond their control. While this is true to some extent, reports Banks, experienced lawyers can still provide directional guidance based on deep experience: “If you’re using a law firm that holds itself out to be an expert in a certain area of law, you expect them to provide a budget for a matter. What most in-house lawyers are looking for is a budget that gives an order of magnitude. Is this going to take 10 hours or 50 hours or 200 hours?” For law firm partners who fear encroachment from low-priced competitors, budgets based on a nuanced understand- ing of the various decision trees involved in a complex case can clearly differentiate subject matter expertise from those eager to win on price alone.

Of course, price is still quite important, which is why “cost-effective delivery of legal services” is a critical component of the outside counsel selection process used by CIT, a bank holding company, according to Bob Ingato, executive vice president and general counsel. This is defined, in part, by being “creative and flexible in designing and accepting alternative fee arrangements [AFAs] that align our interests and allow for shared success.” 

While some law firm partners may view AFAs as synonymous with “low cost,” in-house counsel, not surprisingly, have a different perspective. Most wish their outside counsel would take the initiative and offer more options. According to McClure-Demers of Nationwide, “By and large we don’t see proactive innovation. We find ourselves encouraging outside counsel to embrace creative value-based billing arrangements and opportunities.” But outside counsel don’t have to blaze this trail on their own. Sonnen avers that the best arrangements are developed collaboratively: “Many of our in-house team, along with outside counsel, have attended the ACC Value Challenge workshops, and as a direct result, we are piloting several different types of AFAs and having better conversations with our counsel about value. Cost is one factor to consider in determining value, but predictability and outcomes are also key.” 

Ingato says CIT isn’t only looking for firms with the lowest hourly rates. Rather, it seeks “competitive rates compared with the efficient delivery of quality legal services.” In-house counsel are increasingly analyzing fee trends and applying bench- marking to identify which tasks can now be performed routinely by multiple providers and which, according to the immutable laws of economics, should there- fore decline in price. Such sophisticated analysis has become much easier in recent years as new tools have emerged. Sonnen reports that at BMO “we’re incorporating a new electronic billing system, TyMetrix, that can provide far more analytics and support for AFAs.” 

And these tools capture more than merely financial metrics. Partridge indicates that “Ally regularly surveys each of its in-house lawyers to collect feedback. It imports the metrics into our Sky Analytics system, and then conducts financial and non-financial benchmarking. When a new matter arises and Ally needs to retain a firm, its lawyers can then query the database to find a firm that meets certain financial and non-financial criteria.” Over time, he reports, “non-financial measures grew to become a significant factor in [outside counsel hiring] decisions.”

According to Banks, solid relationships are based on more than price and out- comes. “If it’s litigation, you win some and you lose some, and most clients understand that. It is when the outside counsel presents an overly rosy assessment of a case, or fails to communicate developments that affect the likely outcome, that the relationship will suffer long-term damage.” The mandate to “learn my business” results from a common frustration by in-house counsel. As Peter McDonough, general counsel of Princeton University, says, “Higher education is different. Period. The lawyers who have made the deep and consistent effort to understand it, including the faculty-centric nature of it, and—very importantly—know how to avoid corporate-speak and truly use the language of a higher education environment without faking it have a huge leg up. Not getting that right is a deal-breaker.” This mind-set is shared by Banks, who pays careful attention to his style of communication now that he sits on the other side of the table: “I try to make sure that what- ever work product is delivered, is delivered in the format that the client wants. Some want to have a personal conversation, some want formal memos, some want results in PowerPoint. Clients generally don’t want highly formalistic structures of communication full of lawyer-speak.”

A key and growing imperative for many businesses is diversity. Many in-house counsel, Sonnen of BMO included, expect their law firms to value diversity as well. “Diversity to BMO is more than a social responsibility; it’s a business case,” she says. “There is a direct link between our diversity profile and our financial performance. Shareholder earnings are enhanced when we employ a diverse work- force, and we expect our key suppliers to reflect and support the same rationale.” At Nationwide, confirms McClure-Demers, diversity is also a critical initiative that matters to everyone, including the CEO. “Our outside counsel voluntarily submit their diversity metrics today, and our chief legal officer reviews this at least quarterly with our CEO to discuss our progress. We’ve implemented a new program recognizing diversity in our outside counsel. We’re a supporter of NAMWOLF [the National Association of Minority & Women Owned Law Firms] and will also be recognizing a NAMWOLF firm in this most important area.”

Firms that get it right will earn more business. McDonough confirms that “if a lawyer in a firm has wonderfully served us, we’ll follow that lawyer. Yet, if that lawyer’s colleagues also served us well, and we appreciated the firm on other levels—such as a real service mind-set, a real understanding of higher education, quality and consistency, pleasant people, etc.—we will try to also keep his or her former colleagues, and maybe even the firm in general, specifically in mind as opportunities develop.” McClure-Demers says Nationwide is eager to recognize outside counsel for outstanding efforts. As she indicates, “One of our outside counsel took the initiative to combine their institutional knowledge of our business, information from matters they were working on for us and insights looming on the horizon, and recommended a two-year litigation strategy to address these issues. The result clearly addressed our needs, but it also helped set new law and helped our industry as a whole. Our business management loved it!” The firm earned not only more legal work, but became more involved in legal strategy.

The legal marketplace is indeed changing, and law firm partners should take heed of the evolving definition of value and what matters most to in-house counsel. For every client seeking a low-cost provider, many others are seeking law firms who understand their business, who communicate frequently, who manage expectations through budgets and project plans, and who acknowledge the importance of a diverse workforce. Law firms getting this right enjoy loyalty and repeat business, the most critical ingredient for long-term profitability. What matters to your clients? What do they value? Don’t guess. Ask them.

This article was first published in ABA Law Practice magazine, Vol. 39, No. 6, November/December 2013, p. 46. Reprinted with permission. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

Timothy B. Corcoran delivers keynote presentations and conducts workshops to help lawyers, in-house counsel and legal service providers profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.