In business blog

Is economics useless?
Eduardo Reyes
Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Is economics any use? That sounds like the start of a rant/ a joke/ or a quip in an after-dinner speech (all the easier to make as many economies, presumably advised by fine economic minds, struggle to recover and grow).

So let me be more specific. Can a law firm’s principle, or even a practice manager, use economics to make a decent business plan? After all, the economy is water we all swim in - its tide and temperature should matter.

At last week’s conference for the Law Society’s Law Management Section investment adviser Justin Urquhart Stewart gave a hugely well-received ‘world economic context’ presentation. There were of course interesting nuggets of information brought together - a reminder of what’s fueling American growth, that the UK has a deficit, not a debt, problem, and some thoughts on the Eurozone and China’s ability to engineer a ‘soft landing’.

All interesting and good - even when the news is dire or difficult, having a narrative to make sense of it is somehow reassuring, and I happen to believe it is important to try to grasp these things when casting a vote in an election.

But macro-economics doesn’t drive the legal market in obvious ways. Instead, it is often professional regulation, statute, sector regulation and financial product development that create or destroy markets for legal services.

Let’s take China and India as examples. Leaving aside questions about China’s ‘soft landing’, economic growth rates and the size of their economies have attracted understandably huge attention from investors and legal advisers.

But with rules on business and land ownership, problems with the repatriation of profits, and restrictions on legal practice in place, returns for businesses and lawyers lag behind commercial confidence that prevails in the potential of both countries.

The liberalisation of the UK legal market is another case in point. If prices fall as a result (I make no judgement as to whether this is ‘good’ for clients), it will be because the old rules maintained a sort of regulatory arbitrage that lasted an age.

The jobs of securitisation lawyers (remember them?) were dependent on the whim of financial regulators as much as of the financial markets, while environmental law practices have experienced a boom based on changes in public policy at a UK and European Union level.

The Rolls Building is busy because clients find Russia and Eastern Europe’s commitment to the rule of law to be, shall we say, uncongenial. And a law firm’s turnover is not going to be much affected if the UK’s national debt cycle went from a 13-year affair to 12 or 14.

I can think of quite a few law firms of all sizes whose turnover is up 20-40% in the last two years, and who are planning for further growth - and it certainly isn’t because the markets their clients are in are doing equally well.

Economics is interesting and it’s an important discipline. But it happens to be next to useless for the purposes of running a law firm.

Eduardo Reyes is Gazette features editor

Follow Eduardo on Twitter

0 Comments
Add comment
Regulation: where has firms’ common sense gone?
Jeanette Lucy
Monday, 14 May 2012

Are firms responding to regulation by over-engineering their compliance systems, instead of simply putting good practice at the heart of the business?

Now that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has confirmed 31st July as the deadline for nominating compliance officers for legal practice (COLPs) and compliance officers for finance and administration (COFAs), many practices will be increasingly focusing their attention on their risk and compliance systems. There has been much talk of outcomes-focused regulation (OFR) and the sea-change in compliance this will bring to the solicitors’ profession, together with a lot of hype about risk and compliance systems.

Perhaps we should all step back and think about what we need to achieve. A recent benchmarking survey conducted by the brokers Locktons showed that some mid-tier practices are over-engineering their risk and compliance systems, with their report which provides some refreshing advice:

'There has to be a commercial balance between cost, benefit and service, however, and in the middle firms the costs are disproportionate to the benefits provided.'

The understandable fears around personal liability for COLPs and COFAs are driving some practices to adopt systems which are disproportionate to the risks involved, instead of looking rationally at what can be expected of people within the compliance officer roles. The right systems, procedures and processes need to be in place, and the tools to check compliance. Whilst breaches may well occur - as COLPs and COFAs cannot be everywhere all the time - the systems in place will demonstrate to regulators that the risk is being properly and effectively managed.

Over-elaborate, costly compliance systems will not necessarily deliver what practices need or make them better at compliance. Practices should apply a cost-benefit analysis when deciding their risk and compliance strategy.

For compliance to work, it has to be part of everything you do - so it includes HR, IT, finance and business development. It shouldn’t be that separate thing you are forced to do simply to tick the compliance box. Nor is it the sole responsibility of the COLP, COFA or money laundering reporting officer.

If you want to make compliance work, then you must involve everyone in the practice and make them part of creating the risk and compliance processes. Systems and procedures which your team help to design are more likely to work than over-complicated systems which are imposed upon them.

The main blocks of a good risk and compliance system are policies and procedures which are relevant to the individual practice, its client base and the risks involved. A good system will enable the practice’s employees to evaluate the risks of the work to be undertaken, as well as providing a transparent governance framework for managing the business.

OFR hasn’t changed what constitutes good risk management; it has simply made it more compelling, because there are no rules in place to define what you can and can’t do. Those who have achieved quality accreditation already have systems and procedures in place. Now they must apply these good practices to ensure the outcomes in the SRA’s Code of Conduct are met.

Good systems which are well communicated and set within a strong compliance culture (for which read ‘no-blame’) go a long way to ensuring that clients receive the excellent client service all practices want to deliver, whilst the firm complies with its regulatory requirements.

Don’t think of risk management and compliance as being in one box and the running of your practice in another. Seize the opportunity this brave new world has created, to think about ways to improve how you manage your business and new ways in which you can deliver services to clients.

Remember, sometimes a little common sense can go a long way.

Jeanette Lucy is a director heading up compliance, quality and learning with law firm network LawNet

6 Comments
Add comment
My first jumbo
David Pickup
Friday, 11 May 2012

I was reading one of those booklets that get sent out by indemnity insurers to remind us how to avoid claims. Most of them are very good. They are readable and clear and will not give you too many nightmares. No one likes waking up in the middle of court one day screaming after a bad dream. It upsets the judge.

This edition included an article on initial interviews - six key objectives. It is so helpful that I am going to shamelessly use the ideas in some in-house training. It is one the rare things in life which are equally appropriate for any firm. Whether it's a builder suing for a non-paid bill of £400 or someone buying a jumbo jet for millions the same principles apply. Basically - do I know what to do, will the client pay me and do I really want to do this? (Yes I know that is not six key objectives but you know where I am going).

It is only with experience you can tell the answers to these questions. If you work in a high street firm you often get people with different problems phoning or calling for advice. They always end the message, 'I don’t mind if I have to pay'. Presumably this is some added incentive for me. I do not understand it. If I go to a shop to buy a television i do not say to the youth selling the things, 'Please I would like a television... Oh and I don’t mind paying'.

Hopefully as our careers progress we develop a sixth sense about prospective clients. The builder could probably go to the small claims’ court. He will not want to get a bill from me for £400 or even £40. We then find that he has been to the small claims’ court, and lost because the only evidence in writing was the telephone number of the customer written in biro on his shirt sleeve.

I must stop writing now. A client has come in wanting to buy a jumbo jet. How much shall I charge, I wonder?

David Pickup is a partner in Aylesbury-based Pickup & Scott

0 Comments
Add comment
How the new EU cookie law affects law firms
Rory MccGwire
Thursday, 10 May 2012

Most websites nowadays use ‘cookies’ (as I will explain) and the European Union has passed a law which means we all have to take action. Your clients need to take action, but so do you, as your firm has a website too.

What are cookies? They are tiny files that websites place on visitors’ computers. Cookies are helpful and provide many benefits. For example, they can automatically log a user in next time they visit a website - imagine having to type in your password every time otherwise.

Even small websites tend to use cookies, combined with free tracking software (analytics), to reveal which pages users visit on the site. But cookies (including third-party cookies) are also used on commercial websites to target future advertising at users, which many users would rather avoid; hence the new law.

So what do you need to do?

The EU’s Privacy and Communication Directive came into force on 26 May 2011 and will supposedly be enforced from 26 May 2012 onwards. Sounds a bit vague? You get the picture. Put simply, the law says that before putting a cookie on anyone’s computer, that user must opt in on an informed basis.

Millions of websites suddenly switching to an opt-in approach? All with pop-ups to explain which cookies are used and why? It sounds like a pretty irritating interruption that will put a lot of people off visiting a lot of completely harmless websites, doesn’t it?

This technology site is an example of what to expect, although you’ll notice that it is opt out and not opt in.

As a publisher of websites covering law, marketing and IT among other things, we went straight to Dave Chaffey, the UK internet marketing guru who writes and lectures on matters such as cookies. Chaffey explained that the regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office in this case, is not expecting instant compliance even after 26 May 2012. Although not strictly legal, you are unlikely to be prosecuted provided that you are 'moving towards compliance'. Plus, there are exceptions (‘strictly necessary’ cookies... which even the ICO itself has).

Phew. That sounds a bit more realistic for the real world (outside Brussels) that most of us inhabit.

Although some law firms may choose to be fully compliant on day one, I expect that most of them will take a wait-and-see attitude. After all, this new EU law is not about law firm websites, is it about intrusive adverting and passing on personal data.

And what will law firms advise their clients? To spend precious time and money becoming compliant to the letter of the law? Or will they offer more ‘commercial’ advice, suggesting that clients save their money but stay out of trouble by simply moving towards compliance, at least until one sees how things turn out in the next few months?

No need to ask what all the website developers will recommend. The ICO’s stipulated website adjustments seem like a bit of a windfall for them.

Here, Blue Peter style, is an example of a website that has shown a move towards compliance for some time. Read the current Privacy Policy, Cookies section of the legal resource centre of Gregg Latchams'. We used simple online cookie audit software to establish which cookies were in use, then, as you can see, we put this into a clear, accessible explanation. The main Gregg Latchams website (hosted by Conscious Solutions) will be fully compliant by 26 May, but this element of the website is not live in the meantime.

You can find a list of cookie audit software in the guide Coping with the EU cookie laws.

And finally, as this is a blog after all, here’s my chance to predict the future. The law will work to the extent that more websites will now reveal what cookies they are using, which is a good thing.

The law will gradually make the more reputable commercial websites move to an opt-in approach, after a messy initial period when users will be confused and put off. The law will also waste lots of taxpayers’ money as thousands of public sector websites - which were never a problem in the first place - dutifully comply.

But most websites are pretty harmless in terms of cookies/privacy and will simply continue as before (perhaps with some standard cookie wording added to their privacy statement).

Which brings us to the $64m question: enforcement. I imagine that the ICO will be completely toothless when it comes to enforcing the cookie law, just as it has been 100% ineffective in enforcing the EU’s anti-spamming laws. What about all the offshore websites that sell to EU citizens, for a start?

The ICO site is compliant (see top) and is rumoured to have instantly lost tracking of over 90% of its users. Tracking is the ‘eyes and ears’ of any website and in this respect compliance comes with a pretty severe price tag for what it achieves in return.

It’s now 10 May, we’ve less than three weeks to go. I know of many websites that will switch over to a compliant version a week before 26 May. But has anyone seen examples of full compliance already being put into practice on a commercial website? I would be interested to know.

Rory MccGwire is chief executive of BHP Information Solutions

13 Comments
Add comment
LLPs 10 years on
Fergus Payne
Tuesday, 8 May 2012

In fact, limited liability partnerships (LLPs) have been with us for just over 11 years since their introduction in April 2001. Although it was possible to operate a law firm as a limited company prior to 2001, an LLP has been viewed as a more obvious alternative to a traditional partnership, not least because of its tax transparency. After a slow uptake in the legal profession, LLPs have become a common structure for law firms of a certain size. This is borne out when looking at the top-200 law firms ranked by turnover; indeed Slaughter and May is the only firm in the top 50 which is not an LLP. According to Solicitors Regulation Authority figures, approximately 13% of all law firms in England and Wales are LLPs. This may not sound a high figure but one should not forget that one-third of the total number are sole practitioners.

Over time, larger firms faced with challenges over conversion to an LLP, such as bringing their international offices within the structure of an LLP, or legacy issues, typically around partner annuities, found a way to address these problems. Now, the most oft-cited reason for not converting is a reluctance to publish financial results as it is necessary for LLPs to prepare and file statutory accounts in accordance with the Companies Act. Others take the view that it is not worthwhile if personal liabilities to third parties, such as landlords and banks, cannot be removed at day one.

Looking back over the last 11 years, one might be struck by how little case law there has been on LLPs. There are only two significant cases which have a direct impact on the use of LLPs in the legal sector. The first relates to whether fixed-share partners are real partners or, in fact, employees. The latest decision in the case of Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP has given us greater clarity about this and many firms will draw comfort from the decisions which support the view that, in most circumstances, a fixed-share partner is unlikely to be regarded as an employee.

The second case, concerning a hedge fund business, was F&C Alternative Investment (Holdings) Limited v Barthelemy. Here, the High Court ruled that LLP members do not owe fiduciary duties to each other, a view long held by most commentators. However, the court rejected an argument that the members owed fiduciary duties to the LLP beyond any contractual obligations in the LLP agreement. This probably came as a surprise to many and is a decision that may not have been reached in the context of a typical law firm LLP structure.

In truth, given the relative youth of LLPs, it is not surprising that there has been so little case law, particularly as many of those formative years were during a benign economic climate. Turning to the future, I think we can expect to see developments in LLP case law over the next decade. The most obvious area is in relation to the personal liability of LLP members in an insolvent liquidation. It is quite possible that this may happen as part of the ongoing disputes in relation to the collapse of Halliwells. The contentious area is likely to centre on whether partners who did not participate in the management of the business can be liable for wrongful trading and/or repayment of monies withdrawn prior to the insolvency (the clawback provision under section 214A of the Insolvency Act 1986).

I also think that we have not heard the last of potential claims by fixed-share partners that they should be regarded as employees or on the extent of fiduciary duties owed by partners to the LLP. What we have yet to see is a claim for personal liability on the part of an LLP member in the context of negligent advice. With the advent of LLPs, this was identified as a real risk for individuals trading through this structure. To date, the LLP has proved a robust liability shield but that’s not to say it will not be tested at some point.

Given the timely arrival of the Supreme Court decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes, it would be remiss of me not to comment on the still vexed issue of the legitimacy of retirement ages for LLP members. Although the Seldon case concerned a traditional partnership, the age discrimination issues will apply equally to LLPs. This is very much an area where we expect to see further case law.

So as the song goes, 'look to the future now, it’s only just begun'...

Fergus Payne is a partner at the law firm Lewis Silkin LLP, and joint head of its Partnerships and LLPs group.

0 Comments
Add comment
Poor marketing opens the doors for sharks!
Sue Bramall
Wednesday, 2 May 2012

Regular blog readers may recall the relative who needed a lasting power of attorney, several months ago and was confused by the way prices were quoted. At the time of her initial enquiry, she also enquired about changing the way their property was held, amending their wills and advice regarding care homes fees.

Well nine months on, the lasting power of attorney is finally in place. Has the solicitor called to see if everything was to her satisfaction? And, would she like to come in to sort out those other matters? Of course, if he had I would not be writing this article.

However, she did get a call from 'a very nice man, who offered to come and see us at home…' and she agreed to a visit. Over the years of working with solicitors I have heard many reasons why follow-up calls are not made. Aside from possible personal difficulties, reasons might include:

  • Inadequate notes being made at time of initial enquiry
  • No system to capture such enquiries
  • No system at close of matter to prompt selling on
  • He or she is 'busy enough'
  • He or she is not comfortable making this sort of call
  • He or she is not comfortable with selling
  • There are no other resources to make this sort of call
  • This is not a priority for marketing

I often hear will-drafting described as 'not worth doing' or 'just a loss leader', but this is usually where there is little recognition of the lifetime value of a client to the firm, rather than short term value to the department. At the other end of the client scale, I often hear clients say 'we didn’t know they could do that' when debriefing on lost work due to lack of effective cross-selling. Whilst the client database in many law firms is a sadly neglected piece of intellectual property - to others it is seen as a goldmine.

The elderly lady is now on various healthcare equipment mailing lists and is therefore likely to have had her contact details passed to any number of providers of services to the elderly - some more unscrupulous than others. Thankfully, she sent me this adviser's details to check and a quick look at their (well-designed and impressive) website indicated that they were not solicitors. However, my relative is blissfully unaware of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and so had no idea that she could check credentials in this way.

A further check of the phone number on WhoCallsMe.com revealed that they were known sharks and I was able to point her back towards her not-so-proactive solicitor. Capturing and converting such opportunities is simply a case of being systematic, something which the likes of The Co-operative can be expected to excel at.

As those firms which have embraced marketing know, keeping in touch with your clients once or twice a year with a simple newsletter will remind them that you have their interests at heart. A call to check that everything that you did for them was satisfactory and 'if there is anything else we can help you with…' will earn their client's loyalty, secure more business and keep the sharks from the door.

Failure to take a proactive approach to client marketing simply provides a big window of opportunity for better organised providers, including the less reputable ones.

Sue Bramall is director of Berners Marketing and former head of business development at Pinsent Masons

8 Comments
Add comment
How much is your practice worth?
Viv Williams
Tuesday, 1 May 2012

As the legal market expands - as all markets do when deregulation is applied - who will be benefiting from this growth?

Predictions are that the numbers of solicitors will decline - but, as the legal sector grows, why should this be? Fundamentally, we have too many solicitors’ practices serving a growing but changing market.

At a basic level we have 9,000 firms with five partners or less with the average age of equity owners fast approaching sixty years.

Most have no succession planning or exit strategies and work with ageing clients whom have not been communicated with for years - so it’s little surprise that new brands are looking to enter this space which offers such opportunity! For far too long many law firms have been providing the same below par services, charged for by the hour, at a standard that is unacceptable, although most will not accept this as reality.

These law firms have failed to move with the times. In numerous secret-shopper exercises we have seen damning reports of a failure to offer even the most basic client care, a failure to return phone calls and more fundamentally a complete lack of understanding of how important it is to convert potential business into new instructions.

Unfortunately the new brands entering the market will focus on exceptional client care and are experts at turning a sales lead into a new instruction.

Let’s just look at the Tesco marketing model - a club card that recognises what we purchase and comes up with alternatives at a competitive price; a money-back offer and a client care service that is second to none. As yet Tesco have declined to show any interest in legal services but if it did...

Already at the table is QualitySolicitors, who may not be everyone’s choice as a national brand, but they are at least focusing on these fundamental issues.

Using private equity investment wisely QS is working to recruit high-quality people and raising the standard of the member firms by focusing on the basic client expectations. Work generation and converting those leads into business is also part of their strategy.

This alone will put their member firms streets ahead of many of their local competitors and will create a perceived value in independent firm members as part of a national brand.

How do you think other national brands will approach your market and win over your clients? The answer is of course, by identifying the clients and customers they intend to serve and providing products and services at a price those customers can afford, whilst providing exceptional client care.

As these brands enter the UK market space what impact will this have on independent law firm valuations? In reality there is no value in goodwill anymore and if the legal brokers would only stop raising expectations by overvaluing these practices just for the valuation fee, we might see a gradual awakening to this fact in the real world.

Keeping work in progress and debtors and expecting one-third of turnover as a valuation is NOT realistic in this environment.

Having completed some 60 mergers to date we have failed to realise hardly any value in the practices involved. Our success has been in ensuring the firms, generally distressed, have been able to repay their bank borrowings and that the existing partners minimise their personal liability. Goodwill has simply not been on the agenda.

The delayed implementation of the Jackson report until April 2013 will have a further devastating effect on personal injury practices as those firms that have relied on paying referral fees for their work will find their business model completely unsustainable. With the exception of valuing work in progress and debtors, what value would you place on their business model beyond April 2013?

On a positive note there are buyers out there and if we finally accept that consolidation is inevitable ensuring you present your firm in the best positive light will enhance any value left in your practice.

If you do not have the appetite or the resources to remain independent and the age of the partners is against you, then deciding what your future should be sooner, rather than later, is the most sensible option.

If we accept we have such large numbers that need to merge/be acquired then we also have to accept that this is very much a buyer’s market. The expression that beauty is in the eye of the beholder is very appropriate. There will be a series of trigger points that will put pressure on firms to act. To do nothing and expect this to all go away could be the death knell for your practice.

Act now before it’s too late.

Viv Williams is chief executive of 360 Legal Group and specialises in law firm mergers and valuations.

11 Comments
Add comment
Judges can and should be involved in pro bono
Lia Moses
Thursday, 26 April 2012

I have heard it said that judges cannot get involved in pro bono work. On the contrary, I can think of many and various ways in which judges might get involved. And, in fact, a good number are already doing so.

Admittedly, most judges are unable to get involved in pro bono casework. While deputy judges are in just as good a position as any other practising lawyer, according to the Judicial Appointments Commission, a full-time salaried judge is restricted from returning to practice and so probably could not take on a pro bono client. However, there are many other ways of getting involved in pro bono that do not require a practising certificate.

First, judges can act as so-called Reviewers for LawWorks. Each application we receive is assessed by one of our panel of Reviewers for its suitability for pro bono assistance. The panel is currently made up of senior solicitors and barristers but there is no reason why it couldn’t include judges, as well.

Our Reviewers remain anonymous and do not provide any legal advice to the applicant. The Reviewer’s involvement in a case is limited to deciding whether, based on the applicant’s financial position and the merits of his or her case, LawWorks’ resources should be allocated.

In my opinion, this screening process is crucial to the success of our pro bono brokerage scheme. It helps to ensure that when LawWorks offers a case out to a member firm it is worthy of that firm’s time. Without this stamp of approval firms might just as well accept applications directly from members of the public.

Judges are also in an excellent position to support the Pro Bono Costs Order scheme simply by raising awareness of its existence. Pro Bono Costs Orders have been available since 2008 and since then the number of orders made under section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 has been steadily increasing.

However, the Access to Justice Foundation and the Bar Pro Bono Unit report that the number of orders made is still too low. Apparently, the number of orders made does not match up with the number of successful pro bono clients that come through Unit’s system.

Why is this? Is there some reluctance amongst the judiciary to award costs in cases where the winning party is represented pro bono (and therefore did not actually incur any costs), or is it because of a lack of awareness of the scheme amongst solicitors, barristers, and judges? If the latter is true, judges are in a good position to remedy this.

Judges might also get involved by referring unrepresented litigants to an appropriate pro bono organisation. I imagine that when I wrote my first blog post last month the majority of readers had no idea about LawWorks or the National Pro Bono Centre.

If lawyers are unaware, how can we expect members of the public to find us? When an individual truly slips through the net and ends up before a judge without having had any legal assistance or any contact with a front line advice agency, the only people likely to know about pro bono that will come across that individual will be the judge in the case and the lawyer for the other side - if indeed there is one.

In some cases the lawyer for the other side might be aware of the pro bono services available to his or her opponent, but, isn’t it more likely that he or she will just keep quiet? And even if the lawyer does point their opponent in the direction of some pro bono help, I wonder whether this suggestion might just be refused as a matter of principle.

Therefore, the judge might just be the only person in a position to point this sort of individual in the direction of help.

It might be argued that to make a referral would threaten the judge's impartiality. But I would have thought that a judge having to accommodate the needs of a litigant in person - which would be avoided if pro bono help is put in place - is more of threat to his or her ability to be impartial. Quite recently, a case was referred to us by a judge in the Court of Appeal.

The respondent in the case did not qualify for public funding, had no money to pay for a lawyer and could not attend the proceedings. His wife attended on his behalf but she was unable to contribute in any way. Neither the respondent nor his wife had any idea about the availability of pro bono services but, fortunately, the judge did. The judge referred the matter to LawWorks and it is hoped that pro bono help will be put in place.

What would have happened had the judge not been aware of our service? How would this have affected the proceedings for all involved? How regularly is this sort of thing happening? It’s worth noting that this particular judge only knew about LawWorks because of his involvement in the Court of Appeal Mediation Scheme (supported by LawWorks) and that, in fact, awareness of LawWorks and other pro bono organisations amongst the judiciary is low.

The problem, though, with my last two suggestions is that, if successful, they would cause an increase in demand for our service. There will be more pro bono costs orders to be processed by the Access to Justice Foundation and more applications for pro bono help to be dealt with by LawWorks and other pro bono organisations. How would our already scarce resources cope?

This leads me on to another valuable contribution judges could make i.e. to publicly support pro bono initiatives in order to raise funds and increase participation across the profession. In fact, a good number of senior judges are already making a significant contribution in this regard.

There are a number of Legal Support Trusts all around the country each with the aim of raising money to support local legal advice agencies and pro bono organisations. These trusts organise local sponsored walks throughout the year, the publicity for which mostly focuses on the senior walkers taking part. The Bristol Legal Walk was held on April 18, 2012, led by a District Judge team; the Cardiff Legal Walk was on April 26, 2012, led by HH Judge Seys Llewelyn; the Nottingham Legal Walk is planned for May 10, 2012 to be led by Mr Justice Haddon-Cave; and the Bournemouth Legal Walk will be held on May 21, 2012, led by Lord Phillips.

The London Legal Walk is also coming up on May 21, 2012. Over 100 judges from the lord chief justice to magistrates and tribunal judges are walking. Lord Justice Leveson has organised a Leveson Inquiry Team and there will also be large teams from the Association of District Judges, and The South West London, West London and Herts Magistrates. London’s immigration judges will be out again in force and The Principal Registry of the Family Division team will be on its fifth year.

Through their participation in events such as these, judges help to raise serious funds, and their involvement draws attention to the work of the London Legal Support Trust (LLST) and all the free legal advice agencies and pro bono projects it supports.

So regardless of the restrictions on judges actually taking on pro bono clients, they certainly can get involved in pro bono, and many already do.

It’s not too late to register your firm’s team for the May 21, 2012 legal walks in London, Guildford, Newbury, and Luxembourg. Please see the LLST website for more details.

Lia Moses is a caseworker at LawWorks, a national charity working with solicitors to support, promote and encourage a commitment to pro bono across the profession

5 Comments
Add comment
The right kind of feedback
David Pickup
Monday, 23 April 2012

This week in a gap between seeing clients I went to buy a light bulb for my car. I had noticed I had not been very bright (if you see what I mean). It is the sort of thing you usually never get around to sort out. Buying a new one is complicated by having to know exactly what year your car was made; if not the month, and the precise model, and having bought the right thing it is virtually impossible to fit unless you have eyes on stalks and at least three multi-jointed arms.

The point of this story is on the way out I was given a slip of paper with a picture of a cheerful car-parts person explaining how I could win money by completing a feedback form. You had to go online to fill out the questions. I, in fact, had a good service and was pleased to rate them highly. The questions were designed to make you think you - the customer - are the store’s best friend and you would shortly be invited to tea by the staff.

I then went back to my office and compared this to my feedback form. Several years ago we dutifully adopted the standard design and questions. The term feedback itself is not particularly impressive. The questions asked are really a suggested list of reasons to hate solicitors. 'Were we slow, could you understand us, did we treat you unfairly, and you wouldn’t recommend us to your dog would you?' I exaggerate but by giving complaints information you are often pointing out shortcomings rather than reasons to be cheerful.

We send these out to all clients and get a small number returned. Fortunately most people are fairly positive. People usually hate us or love us. You rarely get people saying they liked parts of the case and not others.

My experience of going to the shop was the staff were friendly but not intrusive, they knew what to do and had been trained to make the customer feel important. It was not cheap but I felt it was worth it. Do we as solicitors do this? Are we trained in how to handle customers? Not really.

David Pickup is a partner in Aylesbury based Pickup & Scott

3 Comments
Add comment
Is it different this time?
Alastair Moyes
Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Two things have occurred that need your attention. The first alternative business structure (ABS) firms have been announced and QualitySolicitors’ new TV promotional campaign has started. I’m sure there will be a fierce debate about the pros and cons of QS' approach to promoting legal services; however given the Co-operative is now an ABS offering ‘solicitors’ services, this will be somewhat academic. Whatever your opinion is, the facts are that both these businesses are starting a high-profile market entry strategy aimed at generating a brand value that will bring the work to them. Is it different this time? Is this the start of the consumer legal service revolution?

The answer is yes and no to both questions, we’ll know the answer is a couple of years. Certainly other businesses will be advertising and promoting their services and I’m sure the Co-op will be along soon, as will other ABSs with big plans and financial backing. They may not all compete via TV advertising but you can be sure their promotional messages will be arriving in front of your current and past clients soon.

One of the significant elements of the market’s development and all the Legal Services Act 2007 changes is that, as yet no one has consistently told the consumers and small and medium-sized businesses (SME) that anything in the legal services market comes with changes. The market for domestic and SME legal services is still wide open. This is an opportunity for all to present the benefits of their services to the clients they want to serve in the future. For a number of years Professor Richard Susskind has been outlining the potentially huge ‘latent market for legal services in the UK’. These are the unrealised needs of consumers and small businesses that solicitors need to tap into, by delivering the benefits of good legal services at sensible costs and in a manner easily understand by the client. Consumers with choice will not necessarily return to their previous ‘supplier’ without a compelling reason to do so.

A further significant point is the consumers’ needs have changed little in the past few years. Consumers have chosen to use or not use legal services in the situation they find themselves in. This is why I would suggest it is different this time. Significant investment in legal services businesses, ABSs or not, will lead to increased promotions of the services they offer. More people will be aware of where they can get legal ‘help’ should they need it and will have more knowledge of how and in what situations it could be beneficial for them. That promotional activity will grow the market for legal services of all kinds. However, to compete in that market all suppliers have to be able to present the benefits of the services they offer in a meaningful manner to the target client groups.

So far the revolution has been on the supply side, those delivering services to the consumers. Now we have the real test and from the marketing department we must ask difficult questions within solicitors firms. 'Are you ready to compete and accept the changes needed within your firm to remain competitive in the future market for your legal services?' Clear your mind of the history of your firm, its solicitors and clients and try to answer this question looking forward, not backwards.

Each firm has a unique marketing management challenge and the opportunity is to use the high-profile ad campaigns as a spur to get things moving in your firm. Those that do will be the firms that have a chance to be around in two years time to assess whether this really is the start of the legal services revolution.

Alastair Moyes is a director at Marketlaw and co-author of Marketing Legal Services, the current marketing handbook from Law Society Publishing

5 Comments
Add comment