Let’s put clients and attorneys on the same team
I recently saw an article in a legal journal quoting an in-house attorney saying that he had to cut the costs of outside attorneys, otherwise they would come out of his bonus. Although I’m sure this lawyer is dealing with pressures, cost control and others, which I can only imagine, what struck me was the implication of a somewhat antagonistic relationship between the client and the outside lawyer.
After many years in this profession, and despite the current economic conditions, I hope it hasn’t come to that. It seems to me that the focus should be on providing the necessary legal services to the client in the most efficient manner possible, whether those services are provided by an in-house or external attorney. That result is best achieved when there is a strong relationship of trust and understanding between the lawyer and the client. Although the lawyer must earn that trust, it is also true that this type of relationship can only happen when the client allows the lawyer to be part of the team.
In a team relationship, the attorney gets to know in detail the client’s business, the client’s approach to legal issues, and the client’s approach to business issues. As a result, the customer receives added value without overpaying. The client does not have to waste time telling me about his business or his general objectives, because I already know it.
There are other ways that intimate knowledge of a customer’s business adds value. For example, I and many other business lawyers read the business press voraciously almost every day. If I see an item that I think will be of value to a customer, I resubmit it. Although I try to do this for all clients, it’s certainly much easier to tune into items of potential interest when you thoroughly understand the client’s business.
The least satisfying relationships are, as I have written before, when a client treats the lawyer like a fire ax in a glass box: break the glass and use it only in an emergency. I guess some customers think they are saving money this way. In reality, in the vast majority of cases, the fire probably could have been prevented if the client had called an attorney first. Damage control is rarely very satisfying to anyone.
Other variations of the “fire axe” approach include not telling the lawyer all the facts, or providing the relevant documents drop by drop. Or by calling with a “quick question” without giving the full context. Even when you do your best to get the client to avoid these approaches, sometimes it’s hard to convince people to do what’s best for them.
Customers probably follow the fire axis and related approaches because they think they will save money. However, it is doubtful that these approaches will result in any real cost savings (much less in the optimal provision of legal services). It certainly makes it difficult for the lawyer to add any value beyond the limited topic when used so piecemeal. In fact, it is even more difficult to tackle the limited problem when one does not understand the big picture.
Of course, relationships of trust and understanding do not happen overnight. However, there are some things that both attorneys and clients can do to move the process forward.
1. Lawyers need to communicate with their clients. I still hear cases where attorneys don’t return clients’ calls or respond to emails. Frankly, it’s hard to believe that this can happen today, but apparently some lawyers still do it.
2. Fee issues need to be discussed up front and up front. If there is a reasonable mutual understanding of what the fees will be, there will rarely be a fee dispute.
3. If a customer has a fee problem, the customer must bring it up immediately. Maybe there is a simple and reasonable answer to the bill. In other cases, an adjustment may be appropriate. However, letting a fee issue simmer unresolved is not good for anyone: it undermines the client’s trust in the attorney, is likely to result in unnecessary personal stress on the client’s or in-house attorney’s part, and cannot drive to a resolution.
4. Lawyers don’t always need to be working. Of course, I do not charge customers to send them trade items. I look for opportunities to take clients out to lunch, which gives them a chance to discuss their legal issues or whatever is on their minds outside of business hours. I often offer to provide educational presentations on relevant legal topics to clients at no cost. If I’m going to attend an event that may be of interest, I try to make sure that clients are invited. Also, I almost always write a cover letter (free of charge) that accompanies a statement for services rendered. If there has been any significant activity during the month, I usually try to include a brief status report in the letter reminding them of what was accomplished in the previous month. I use the word “remember” on purpose; hopefully the customer is well informed before the bill arrives.
5. Lawyers should thank their clients for their business and their trust. Likewise, although I never think you should wait, it sure feels good when you’ve worked hard to achieve a good result, and the client says thank you for a job well done.
6. If lawyers are invited to be part of the team, they must join the team. Lawyers should look for opportunities to provide added value, such as through articles and, where appropriate, notifying the client of potential beneficial opportunities or business relationships.
7. Lawyers must remain involved in their clients’ work. One of the big frustrations I hear in the legal press is that in-house lawyers hate meeting with a “relationship” partner on a new matter and then being sent to someone they’ve never met, often a junior partner. This is probably the root cause of the rebellion of some corporate clients who refuse to pay for associate time for the first year. It does not have to be this way. There are firms that avoid a leverage model and where senior lawyers do most of the work, or at least stay involved. This approach brings experience and judgment to the relationship and also helps ensure that customer expectations are met. One of the things that attracted me to my current company is that it follows this approach.
8. If a client is on a tight budget, involve the lawyer directly in the discussion. Although we always try to work efficiently, there may still be opportunities to get work done more efficiently. There may be work that can be identified as “optional.” There may be work that the client chooses not to do, even though, optimally, it would be done. A word of caution on the last point: if the client decides not to do certain work, you should not blame the lawyer if it later turns out that he should have done it, and you should also not object to an email from the lawyer confirming the decision not to do the work.
I do not have all the answers. I know that difficult economic times have tested corporate legal budgets for companies of all sizes. But I can’t believe that, in the short or long term, an adversarial approach between clients and their lawyers or between internal and external lawyers will help anyone.