2012 InnovAction Awards

As the newly appointed chair of the InnovAction Awards, presented by the College of Law Practice Management, I am extraordinarily pleased to announce that we are now accepting entries for the 2012 awards season. The pace of change in the legal marketplace continues to accelerate.  If you have developed a new and better way to serve your clients, a breakthrough way to find new business, an efficient approach to managing your operations, or a truly innovative way to value and sell your services, you deserve the recognition of lawyers and clients in your region and worldwide by receiving a 2012 InnovAction award.

Past award winners include:  Berwin Leighton Paisner, LLPThe University of Toronto Faculty of LawThe University of Miami School of LawPro Bono NetAxiom LawNew Family OrganizationPractical Law Company, Inc.Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMallesons Stephen Jaques; Novus Law, LLC; and many more!  See the full list here.

Now in its 8th year, the InnovAction Awards conduct a worldwide search for lawyers, law firms and other providers of legal services who are engaged in extraordinary, game-changing, innovative activities.  The award entries are judged based on the following criteria:

  • Originality: Is this a novel idea or approach, or a new twist on an existing idea or approach?
  • Disruption: Does this entry change an important element of the legal services process for the better, and marketplace expectations along with it?
  • Value: Is the client and/or legal industry better off because of this entry, in terms of the affordability, ease, relevance or effect of legal services?
  • Effectiveness: Has this entry delivered real, demonstrable or measurable benefits, for the provider, its clients, or the marketplace generally?

Applications and more information are available at http://www.innovactionaward.com.  The submission deadline is June 15, 2012.

Law Firm Management Science: Ignore At Your Peril

"Imagine this business school case study:  A global business is managed by part-time leaders with minimal business training.  The business offers different products to different customers depending on the varying skills and interests of the local service providers, who also serve as the salespeople, project managers and product managers.  Pricing is customized to each transaction and rarely follows a cohesive strategy, save for the fiat that prices must increase each year.  Marketing consists of promoting the business’s capabilities, which are presented as vast and unparalleled.  Customer demand has been a constant for as long as anyone can remember.  The challenge:  Customer demand shifts overnight from a constant to a variable, with immense competition for declining customer budgets.  What should the leaders do first to ensure the survival of the business?" Welcome to the dilemma facing law firm leaders today.  How would you respond?  See my recent article here in the ABA's Law Practice Today ezine.

Marketing Change - Differentiation Amid Upheaval

Clients have demanded changes from their law firms for years, but the economic downturn accelerated this process.  Law firms have begun to adapt business concepts that have proven to be effective in other business segments.  The most progressive law firms have embraced these changes and proactively seek opportunities to showcase their new capabilities to clients and prospects.  Leaders at these law firms have also discovered that change can be more profitable and help the firm stand apart from those clinging to the old ways.  Marketing takes on a whole new meaning at firms where growth is predicated on news ways of doing business. To read the full article published in The Legal Intelligencer, click here (a subscription may be required.)

Nobody's Somebody Everywhere

I'm continually amazed at the curious phenomenon common to the legal profession, where we anoint to celebrity status certain lawyers who appear to have mastered a particular subject matter. It goes beyond wishful thinking and bleeds into blind optimism that somehow we are as world-famous, if not world-class, as we think. I visited four cities during one busy week recently, meeting with something like twenty law firm clients of all shapes and sizes to discuss trends in legal marketing and business development.  In separate conversations at three different firms, legal marketers described one of their top lawyers as "One of the best, if not the best, in the country in this practice area."  This would be a startling coincidence, as the cities and firms I visited could best be described as a random sample from the NLJ 250.  What are the odds that of all the practice areas, and of all the firms in this group offering these practice areas, and of all of the lawyers in these firms engaged in these practice areas, I was sufficiently fortunate to cross paths with the top practitioner three separate times? Astounding!

The stark reality is that not every accomplished lawyer is a celebrity.  And even those who have mastered their domain and are indeed shining lights in the profession are often little more than transient blips in the daily lives of the business professionals who hire them.  Ouch.

I've written previously about this concept, which hearkens back to our school days.  Imagine the coolest guy or the most popular gal in your high school.  Now imagine your hero transplanted overnight to a different school a thousand miles away.  Will Miss Popular or Mister Big Man on Campus be afforded the same privileges and adoration by the fawning class immediately upon arrival?  Isn't it more likely that some measure of their "success" is a function of time and location and isn't readily transferable, at least not immediately?  I say this with the greatest amount of respect for the exemplary credentials and accomplishments of the many lawyers I've hired and on whom I've relied over the years in my corporate career:  I simply can't recall your names, even though by and large I valued your contribution in addressing my business issues.

A couple years ago I gave a talk to a group of lawyers assembled for a conference in a South American country.  After I had returned to the airport and while sitting in the business lounge awaiting my flight home, I suddenly became aware of a large number of thick-necked men in dark suits roaming about and a growing sense of hustle in the airport staff.  One beefy man was evidently assigned to watch me, as he stood a short distance away gazing alertly in my direction.  In time a private plane pulled up on the tarmac outside the ground floor lounge and a non-descript man in a natty suit disembarked and was accompanied into the lounge by several stern men, and when the bags were retrieved they all disappeared in a flash out a side door.  To this day I have no idea who this dignitary was, although he was clearly of some importance to the locals.  However, I have a distinct recollection of annoyance, as whoever he was delayed all air traffic for a short time, including my departure, which put my later connecting flight at risk.

This anecdote came to mind recently when I was chatting with a General Counsel after we participated on a panel discussion together.  We were both invited to speak at a law firm partner retreat, sharing anecdotes and best practices between in-house counsel and outside counsel.  She admitted some reluctance, because though she had recently concluded a successful and quite large transaction with the firm's help, she was not delighted with the performance of one of the senior partners.  He and his team delivered excellent legal advice, she reported, but she was constantly chasing the partner for budget updates and she was regularly negotiating invoices that reflected much higher fees than she had agreed to.  Each conversation followed a predictable path:  the partner would patiently (and somewhat patronizingly, she added) explain why the nature and complexity of the transaction allowed little predictability, and the partner claimed that other clients happily paid his fees because he delivered the desired results.  The partner would then agree to write down a portion of the invoice and the cycle would repeat the following month.

But it was the other predictable conversation that troubled her more:  the divisional CFO would request a quarterly budget update for her transactions, the invoices on this matter would exceed budget every quarter, and even when she negotiated a write-down and added cushion she was left in the unfortunate position of explaining and justifying the budget exceptions.  Again and again.  To the person who signs her paycheck.  Not surprisingly, the CFO didn't know the sterling reputation of the lawyer, didn't have an appreciation for the complexity of the legal matter and accordingly at the conclusion of the transaction he strongly suggested that this lawyer not be re-hired for future work based on his "poor" performance.

While there are several learning opportunities here, a key takeaway is the lawyer's misguided sense of importance in the client's operation.  His lack of interest in providing budget predictability was, to the ultimate buyer of the lawyer's services, an indication of poor performance.  The renowned reputation of the lawyer, the presumably high quality of legal work product and the successful conclusion of past engagements meant little.  Too often lawyers lose business without realizing it.  My friend the GC wasn't planning to "fire" the lawyer but she would protect her integrity and her future legal budgets by simply not re-hiring this particular partner.  She was, she shared to little surprise, inundated with unsolicited approaches from other capable lawyers who might deliver the same result but with less surprise and stress.  It wasn't the overall cost, she reiterated, it was the constant uncertainty and failure to adhere to a budget that troubled her.

At a recent conference held at the Opryland Hotel outside Nashville, I was dashing to a very early breakfast meeting when I passed a young man in a cowboy hat strumming a guitar while sitting alone in an empty side lobby.  "What a curious time and place for the hotel to arrange entertainment," I thought as I sped by.  When I returned an hour later, this same young man was at the head of a long line, signing autographs and posing for photographs.  As it turns out, he was a well-known country music star who had just concluded an  interview on the Grand Ole Opry radio station conveniently located within the hotel (who knew?).  Several dozen fans came out to hail the star and he caused quite a commotion.  Don't ask me who he was, because the sum total of what I know about country music and its talented stars could be written on a guitar pick.  But that's the point.  I wasn't this young man's target audience so to me he was merely a curious diversion on the walk back to my hotel room.

Whether you're a practicing lawyer who believes that you're a star in your field, or a marketer asked to cater to the needs of one of these many stars, be sure to first ask some tough questions: Am I selling only a reputation or am I selling solutions to my client's business challenges?  Have I confirmed what constitutes a quality work product for this client on this engagement?  Am I confident that my contact and the person who pays the legal bills share the same definition of quality work product?  Am I working as hard to keep this client satisfied as I worked to win this client in the first place?

It's hard work to achieve the many accolades and laurels that accomplished lawyers are awarded.  But let's be sure not to rest on those laurels, particularly if there are hungry rivals waiting to delight your clients.  Your reputation alone may not be sufficient to win, and keep, work from dissatisfied clients.  And it might might be humbling, but extraordinarily helpful, to acknowledge that your reputation might not mean all that much in the first place.

The Legal Futures Conference, October 28-29 in Chicago

I have the good fortune to be a Fellow of the College of Law Practice Management, a group of highly esteemed and accomplished professionals who have spent their lifetimes improving law practice in a myriad of ways.  My own humble efforts in this arena were recognized some years ago when I was nominated and inducted into this group.  For me, a high point of my year is attending the College's annual conference where I can attend riveting discussions delivered by people I admire, and on occasion deliver some of my own remarks to the group on issues of the day. This year's conference is shaping up to be an inspiring event, as the list of profound topics and worthy speakers is unparalleled.  Titled "2011 Futures Conference: Challenging the Law Practice Model" with a special symposium on "Defining Value in Value Billing," I submit the following examples of the extraordinary content to be discussed:

What is the Future of Price: Defining Value in Value Billing with Ron Staudt, Toby Brown, Paul Lippe and Ellen Rosenthal

Disruptive Technologies/Innovative Thinking with Marc Lauritsen, Richard Granat, Maura Grossman and Kingsley Martin

Law Practice Without Borders with Jordan Furlong, Simon Chester, BieBie Que and Pam Woldow

Future View: Do You See What I See? with Sally Fiona King, Ross Fishman, Dave Hambourger, Chris Murray, Chris Petrini-Poll

Innovation, with Velocity with Tom Clay, Raymond Bayley

Finally, I will be presenting along with several esteemed colleagues.  Session moderator Ron Friedmann describes the session as follows:

Law Factories vs. “Bet the Farm” Firms Will law firms of the future need to segment clients in new ways? Might some firms focus on “industrialized” practices: hyper-efficient work using automation and low cost resources? Might others focus on “bet the farm” cases using mainly top legal talent? Or do we need to focus on the “bread and butter legal work” middle ground? If the market segments, will it do so by practice, by firm, by matter type or along some other dimension?

Toby Brown, Vinson & Elkins; Timothy B. Corcoran, Hubbard One; and Mark Robertson, Robertson & Williams, join me to lead a highly interactive session. Each of us will kick-off the session with a maximum 2-minute intro. We will organize and facilitate break-out discussions around a series of questions, including:

  • What does it mean to industrialize law practice
  • Can a single firm play both ends of the spectrum (factory and farm)?
  • How big is the middle “bread and butter” segment and can this be industrialized?
  • What large firm practices have industrial elements
  • What consumer practices have industrial elements
  • If paradigm is true, what are the implications for marketing. For professional development? For ethical compliance?
  • Should law school teach lean six sigma, process mapping, or industrial engineering?
  • Alternative service providers - cause or effect?

If you don't recognize the speaker names above, then you aren't paying very close attention to the colossal systemic and sustainable changes being wrought in the global legal services marketplace today.  Google any one of the names and you're bound to learn something.  Better yet, attend the conference and learn from all of them.  The conference is intended for law firm leaders, managing partners, executive directors, chief marketing officers, directors of professional development, law school deans and anyone else interested in the future of the business of law.

This year's Legal Futures Conference will take place in Chicago on October 28th and 29th, and is presented by the College of Law Practice Management in conjunction with the IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.  For more details about the conference, click here.  To register, click here.

I hope to see you there!