Client Speak: Quality Work v. Quality Service

In the April 1984 issue of The American Lawyer, an Incisive Media sister publication of this newsletter, David Maister authored a groundbreaking article entitled “Quality Work Doesn't Mean Quality Service.” Stressing the professional services provider's need to be “client centered,” Maister contended, “Whether logical or illogical, sensible or not, even the most sophisticated client will ' come to focus more heavily on the quality of service than on the quality of the work.”

Sometime thereafter, in my role as CMO of one of the then-Big 8 accounting firms ' and working with a marketing communications firm ' I commissioned an extensive internal survey as well as a survey of the marketplace to determine, among other things, what it would take to differentiate my firm from the competition. Sure enough, we concluded that technical capability, competency and qualified professional personnel, i.e., the basic ingredients of quality work, were “not leverageable” characteristics. Rather, if we truly wished to appear distinctive, our emphasis in communicating about the firm, and establishing our identity, should focus on the personal elements of the business relationship. In effect, the survey results agreed with Maister.

Accordingly, my firm embarked on a campaign with a most compelling and apt tagline: We take business personally. Based on subsequent awareness surveys, our campaign seemed to work. Moreover, the partners loved it and felt they were living the brand. Since then, many marketing professionals with whom I've spoken have no doubt that quality work, while clearly essential, will not cause a firm to stand out from the competition ' but that quality service will.

Moving Forward, Developing Doubts

It has been 25 years since David Maister's article first appeared. For some time now, I have begun to question his conclusions, as well as my own survey's similar ones. Not that quality service isn't important. But whether there is still the perception, and even the reality, that quality service is more important than quality work in elevating a firm's prominence and its ability to generate business from its targeted marketplace.

Maister started his article with a scenario about you and your auto mechanic. I prefer an analogy using someone from the professions ' your family doctor. Assuming you are not a doctor yourself, how do you determine your doctor's capabilities when asked whether or not you'd recommend him or her to a friend or relative? The two essential attributes that normally form the basis of a recommendation seem to be tender, loving care and bedside manner. Key indicators of quality service, right? But what about the quality of the doctor's work? Well, you're probably in no position to judge that or its importance relative to TLC or BSM.

But what if I were to ask you to objectively assess the attributes of a fellow marketing professional whom you know well? You'd obviously want to know the reasons for my asking, so you could respond accordingly. But, generally, what attributes would come to your mind as being most important? Think about it, and then classify those attributes as either work-related or service-related.

A Defining Moment

It's probably appropriate at this point to briefly define the terms:

Quality Work ' the performance or actual conduct of what has to be accomplished to successfully complete the engagement so as to meet, and preferably exceed, the client's needs and expectations.

Quality Service ' the actual or implied promise and commitment to what is to be accomplished to meet the client's needs and expectations, and the ongoing communication of progress through to the completion of the engagement, and possibly beyond.

In other words, it's how it's done versus how it's delivered, with the added assumption that both are to be carried out highly effectively and most efficiently ' i.e., with quality. Admittedly, as between quality work and quality service, there is some overlap, as will be apparent from the client feedback excerpts included later in this article.

The Present

Over the years, as Maister anticipated, businesses have developed certain in-house capabilities that have provided them with well-informed personnel to interface with third-party providers of relevant services. This has enabled those businesses to deal more effectively with outside vendors. Hence, a situation such as the one you may encounter in assessing your doctor's attributes is no longer comparable to what your law firm will experience in pitching one of its key clients or key prospects. Your firm has to anticipate that it will be interacting with a highly sophisticated and knowledgeable buyer who has a fairly deep understanding of both your firm and the matter(s) your firm will be addressing or has been asked to address.

So, in interacting with these key clients or key prospects, should your firm's representatives emphasize the quality of their service or the quality of their work to make the greatest impression? Obviously both, but which one will have more impact on your firm being successful? Assume the key client or key prospect is important to the firm; assume the personnel your firm is meeting with are important executives and decision makers; assume also that the matter or matters being addressed are of considerable significance both to them and to your firm. It would seem that their focus will be primarily skewed to making certain your firm has an adequate understanding of the issues involved and is highly qualified to perform the work required ' with quality service being of lesser importance.

There is considerable support for such a conclusion. Let me first refer to two recent postings from The Am Law Daily blog on AmericanLawyer.com. The first, dated Aug. 7, 2009, and entitled “Another Jewel in the Weil Bankruptcy Crown,” leads with: “Another week, another major retail company turns to Weil, Gotshal & Manges to guide it through bankruptcy.” While the firm had a pre-existing relationship with the company, it is undoubtedly Weil's reputation for quality bankruptcy work that won the day.

The other posting also dealt with a firm that had a pre-existing relationship, but the result was entirely different. The Aug. 11 headline for this one read: “Merck Passes Landmark Securities Case from Cravath to Williams & Connolly.” This matter pertains to Vioxx and the case that was first filed in 2003. Cravath was successful at the district court level, but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Now, months away from arguing the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Merck has changed firms because of a partner with extensive and successful Supreme Court experience. Sounds again like reputation for quality work was clearly the deciding factor.

Findings, in the Words of the Clients

While the instances cited above are but two examples, the client feedback we have received over the past several years seems to support the notion that quality work is an increasingly important attribute, and now possibly the key attribute, in the selection of outside counsel, especially where the decision makers include members of the General Counsel's office, as is often the case.

Furthermore, when queried about their reasons for judging their relationship with a law firm as highly satisfactory and loyal, most interviewees highlighted commendable performance and/or favorable results that exceeded expectations. The following are but a few examples:

1. A CLO observed, “[The firm] is doing really well. Their work quality is very high and they provide a consistently high level of quality service. ' [They] also possess a balance of skills that's rare to find. All these skills have been integrated and this makes the firm unique and able to capably handle such diverse areas as the filing of motions, technical matters and litigation strategy. They can do it all ' from litigate to negotiate.”
2. According to a somewhat disappointed Chief Administrative Officer, “Going forward, I expect higher quality staffing and comprehensive client relationship management. Our company is pretty proud of what we've achieved and how we're perceived. Therefore, we feel we enhance our brand by associating with others who are comparable in their field and I don't feel [this firm] is.” Getting into more detail, he claimed, “While the firm has some good people, we don't universally have the 'A' team. One area of concern is how we perceive the quality of their people in terms of technical ability and degree of sophistication and intelligence. The enhanced complexity of our business and the complexity of the places in the world where we operate, as well as the sophisticated things we do, have required commensurate growth in their approach to us which I haven't seen.”
3. The following comments are from the Associate General Counsel in charge of litigation for a major U.S. company involved in a considerable number of ongoing and significant matters for which he has retained several AmLaw 100 firms: “Firms get more business by doing good work and [this firm] merits a 5.0 [the highest grade] as to both process and results. And process is as important as outcomes. A reliable process tells me the firm can do it again and again and again.” In brief, he described “process” as composed of planning for the various possible outcomes, strategy and future needs. He continued, “And process is key ' only a few firms can do this well and [the firm] is one of them ' . Despite their size, their people work together in a way that produces a better outcome. In fact, the bigger they've gotten, the better they've gotten ' . With other firms, you sometimes have difficulty with the level and quality of personnel once you get past the top person. That hasn't happened [with them]. They're pretty deep.”
4. Also impressed with a firm's depth of talent, a VP of Intellectual Property said, “I have enough confidence in the firm's deep bench to know there will be no deficiency in the quality of the work. [Their people] are super-smart, reliable and extraordinarily skilled lawyers who work relentlessly to represent us. They have a remarkable record of wins and successes for us ' in fact, I can't think of any losses. But that's not the only reason we turn to them. They keep their eye on the ball and proactively identify and fix things ' . Typically, they exceed my expectations. They think strategically and go above and beyond. They have a high level of responsiveness and provide a really great work product ' . In fact, they do windows. In other words, they'll do anything, including getting down and dirty with the documents. This is in stark contrast to some of the other firms I deal with. Also, they never want to seem less than perfect, and 98% of the time they are perfect. As a result, they have our business and our loyalty.” He concluded, “We rest very well at night knowing [the firm] is representing us on a particular matter, as I know they won't screw it up. I never have to worry that they'll miss something, as I do with others ' . We use a variety of firms but they are our number one firm.”
5. Referring to herself as a “technician,” a General Counsel revealed, “One of my great frustrations is dealing with generalists. I don't value their advice, but I do value the advice of technical experts.” Similarly, the CEO of a major business unit remarked, “I really only have interest in hearing from subject-matter experts in areas related to my needs. [The firm] has always impressed me as having good subject-matter experts and granting me access to them ' [and] they have provided good insights. It's not important to hear from generalists. Busy people don't like to sit in on meetings with less relevant content.”
6. A COO mentioned, “On large-scale projects, [the firm] has delivered well, timely and with good quality.” He said that other firms “seem to struggle more ' [while this firm] deals well with complex issues.”
7. An SVP in charge of Risk commented about the firm: “They tell me what I don't know. They meet my needs and are accessible, responsive, insightful and experienced. But, most important, they are good technicians and also pragmatic, which is a combination I place great value on but don't often find. [They are] also proactive regarding new ideas and best practices in areas of my concern ' including information about what the competition is doing and what other clients are doing, without violating client confidences. They keep me apprised about issues I'm interested in and those I should be interested in.”
8. The following feedback was offered by a VP Tax: “[The Tax Partner] and his team of Tax people are the type we like to deal with. They have substantive knowledge, are technically solid, have been reasonably proactive and are cohesive. It's a significant improvement from the prior firm when the key Tax Partner was mostly a relationship person and not very substantive.”
9. In setting forth his criteria for the lead partner, a General Counsel stated, “The new partner should be intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, knowledgeable and experienced, especially in our industry. I am looking for someone who can come up with smart, thoughtful answers ' and that's tough.”
10. Discussing the positive attributes of the lead partner, a Corporate Counsel noted, “I know [he doesn't] tolerate incompetence. He is able to put together and maintain a high quality team of lawyers from wherever they are located, whereas other firms supply staff based on the firms' needs and their personnel's availability.”
11. With the added complexity of cross-border transactions, a multilingual Senior International Corporate Counsel asserted, “We look very carefully to pick the right firm for the right case. It depends mostly on the lead partners. And [the firm's] partners have been very helpful by taking the time to educate me on the relevant issues and providing background from other cases. They also slow down to make sure I understand. All this is important because I have to explain it to others ' some of whom are located outside the U.S. ' and not always in English.”
12. Last, a CEO proclaimed, “It's an excellent team and they've been a huge amount of help. I have no complaints regarding quality and creativity. And there's no question that I would use them again. Generally, I hate lawyers. But I particularly like the two lead partners. They're smart and I trust them. They give us good opinions regarding what they can and can not do for us. And their interests are consistent with mine as to the resolution of legal matters.”

Some may argue that I've included only anecdotes that prove my point. But, as you've noted, many of the comments also mention elements of quality service that helped optimize the relationship, as there is some overlap because, as indicated above, whatever quality work has been performed must be compellingly delivered to clearly evidence its value to the recipient. Nonetheless, in the minds of discerning interviewees, quality service is no longer enough to distinguish a professional services provider. After all, to use an extreme example, it's highly unlikely that a firm will be selected for a bet-the-farm case primarily on the basis of quality service.

Conclusion and Reassessment

For sure, quality service is not unimportant. But over the last decade we've experienced Enron, Tyco and Collateralized Debt Obligations, to mention just a few. And more recently, we've been exposed to the exploits of Marc Drier and Bernie Madoff. While these two gentlemen were ostensibly providing their clients with quality service, the quality work they were performing was aimed at turning many of those clients into victims. As a result, we have hopefully learned to be much more leery of the subjective personal stuff and all that bedside manner. So be continuously mindful that you'll seldom meet an obnoxious con man. “He was always 'Uncle Bernie' to me!”

Accordingly, the need for due diligence has hardly ever been more apparent. And this would include the selection of outside counsel, where the key criteria should necessarily emphasize experience, expertise, excellence and favorable results, as well as integrity and trust, interspersed with at least a modicum of TLC.

Finally, with all the emphasis on quality service over the past two decades, that essential attribute should by now be taken for granted. Unfortunately, that's not the case. It still requires attention and emphasis ' as does quality work. However, for the reasons cited above, quality work appears to have replaced quality service as a distinguishing and most valuable characteristic of a professional services provider.

Addendum

In my “Client Speak” column in the July issue on Alternative Fee Arrangements (“AFA”), I stated in the first paragraph under “Conclusions and Recommendations” that, given certain relationship attributes, “fees will never be a problem.” I have received some criticism of that statement, in part possibly due to the old shibboleth: “Two words you should never use are 'always' and 'never.'” While I generally agree with that, I respectfully stand by the quoted statement from the article as appropriate under the circumstances as described therein.

Donald E. Aronson is the President of D. E Aronson Associates LLC and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors. Don's firm conducts market research by interviewing executives of professional services firms' key clients with a primary focus on client feedback. Don is located in New York City and can be reached at 212-874-4181 or [email protected]. Copyright ' 2009 by D. E. Aronson Associates LLC.

In the April 1984 issue of The American Lawyer, an Incisive Media sister publication of this newsletter, David Maister authored a groundbreaking article entitled “Quality Work Doesn't Mean Quality Service.” Stressing the professional services provider's need to be “client centered,” Maister contended, “Whether logical or illogical, sensible or not, even the most sophisticated client will ' come to focus more heavily on the quality of service than on the quality of the work.”

Sometime thereafter, in my role as CMO of one of the then-Big 8 accounting firms ' and working with a marketing communications firm ' I commissioned an extensive internal survey as well as a survey of the marketplace to determine, among other things, what it would take to differentiate my firm from the competition. Sure enough, we concluded that technical capability, competency and qualified professional personnel, i.e., the basic ingredients of quality work, were “not leverageable” characteristics. Rather, if we truly wished to appear distinctive, our emphasis in communicating about the firm, and establishing our identity, should focus on the personal elements of the business relationship. In effect, the survey results agreed with Maister.

Accordingly, my firm embarked on a campaign with a most compelling and apt tagline: We take business personally. Based on subsequent awareness surveys, our campaign seemed to work. Moreover, the partners loved it and felt they were living the brand. Since then, many marketing professionals with whom I've spoken have no doubt that quality work, while clearly essential, will not cause a firm to stand out from the competition ' but that quality service will.

Moving Forward, Developing Doubts

It has been 25 years since David Maister's article first appeared. For some time now, I have begun to question his conclusions, as well as my own survey's similar ones. Not that quality service isn't important. But whether there is still the perception, and even the reality, that quality service is more important than quality work in elevating a firm's prominence and its ability to generate business from its targeted marketplace.

Maister started his article with a scenario about you and your auto mechanic. I prefer an analogy using someone from the professions ' your family doctor. Assuming you are not a doctor yourself, how do you determine your doctor's capabilities when asked whether or not you'd recommend him or her to a friend or relative? The two essential attributes that normally form the basis of a recommendation seem to be tender, loving care and bedside manner. Key indicators of quality service, right? But what about the quality of the doctor's work? Well, you're probably in no position to judge that or its importance relative to TLC or BSM.

But what if I were to ask you to objectively assess the attributes of a fellow marketing professional whom you know well? You'd obviously want to know the reasons for my asking, so you could respond accordingly. But, generally, what attributes would come to your mind as being most important? Think about it, and then classify those attributes as either work-related or service-related.

A Defining Moment

It's probably appropriate at this point to briefly define the terms:

Quality Work ' the performance or actual conduct of what has to be accomplished to successfully complete the engagement so as to meet, and preferably exceed, the client's needs and expectations.

Quality Service ' the actual or implied promise and commitment to what is to be accomplished to meet the client's needs and expectations, and the ongoing communication of progress through to the completion of the engagement, and possibly beyond.

In other words, it's how it's done versus how it's delivered, with the added assumption that both are to be carried out highly effectively and most efficiently ' i.e., with quality. Admittedly, as between quality work and quality service, there is some overlap, as will be apparent from the client feedback excerpts included later in this article.

The Present

Over the years, as Maister anticipated, businesses have developed certain in-house capabilities that have provided them with well-informed personnel to interface with third-party providers of relevant services. This has enabled those businesses to deal more effectively with outside vendors. Hence, a situation such as the one you may encounter in assessing your doctor's attributes is no longer comparable to what your law firm will experience in pitching one of its key clients or key prospects. Your firm has to anticipate that it will be interacting with a highly sophisticated and knowledgeable buyer who has a fairly deep understanding of both your firm and the matter(s) your firm will be addressing or has been asked to address.

So, in interacting with these key clients or key prospects, should your firm's representatives emphasize the quality of their service or the quality of their work to make the greatest impression? Obviously both, but which one will have more impact on your firm being successful? Assume the key client or key prospect is important to the firm; assume the personnel your firm is meeting with are important executives and decision makers; assume also that the matter or matters being addressed are of considerable significance both to them and to your firm. It would seem that their focus will be primarily skewed to making certain your firm has an adequate understanding of the issues involved and is highly qualified to perform the work required ' with quality service being of lesser importance.

There is considerable support for such a conclusion. Let me first refer to two recent postings from The Am Law Daily blog on AmericanLawyer.com. The first, dated Aug. 7, 2009, and entitled “Another Jewel in the Weil Bankruptcy Crown,” leads with: “Another week, another major retail company turns to Weil, Gotshal & Manges to guide it through bankruptcy.” While the firm had a pre-existing relationship with the company, it is undoubtedly Weil's reputation for quality bankruptcy work that won the day.

The other posting also dealt with a firm that had a pre-existing relationship, but the result was entirely different. The Aug. 11 headline for this one read: “Merck Passes Landmark Securities Case from Cravath to Williams & Connolly.” This matter pertains to Vioxx and the case that was first filed in 2003. Cravath was successful at the district court level, but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Now, months away from arguing the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Merck has changed firms because of a partner with extensive and successful Supreme Court experience. Sounds again like reputation for quality work was clearly the deciding factor.

Findings, in the Words of the Clients

While the instances cited above are but two examples, the client feedback we have received over the past several years seems to support the notion that quality work is an increasingly important attribute, and now possibly the key attribute, in the selection of outside counsel, especially where the decision makers include members of the General Counsel's office, as is often the case.

Furthermore, when queried about their reasons for judging their relationship with a law firm as highly satisfactory and loyal, most interviewees highlighted commendable performance and/or favorable results that exceeded expectations. The following are but a few examples:

1. A CLO observed, “[The firm] is doing really well. Their work quality is very high and they provide a consistently high level of quality service. ' [They] also possess a balance of skills that's rare to find. All these skills have been integrated and this makes the firm unique and able to capably handle such diverse areas as the filing of motions, technical matters and litigation strategy. They can do it all ' from litigate to negotiate.”
2. According to a somewhat disappointed Chief Administrative Officer, “Going forward, I expect higher quality staffing and comprehensive client relationship management. Our company is pretty proud of what we've achieved and how we're perceived. Therefore, we feel we enhance our brand by associating with others who are comparable in their field and I don't feel [this firm] is.” Getting into more detail, he claimed, “While the firm has some good people, we don't universally have the 'A' team. One area of concern is how we perceive the quality of their people in terms of technical ability and degree of sophistication and intelligence. The enhanced complexity of our business and the complexity of the places in the world where we operate, as well as the sophisticated things we do, have required commensurate growth in their approach to us which I haven't seen.”
3. The following comments are from the Associate General Counsel in charge of litigation for a major U.S. company involved in a considerable number of ongoing and significant matters for which he has retained several AmLaw 100 firms: “Firms get more business by doing good work and [this firm] merits a 5.0 [the highest grade] as to both process and results. And process is as important as outcomes. A reliable process tells me the firm can do it again and again and again.” In brief, he described “process” as composed of planning for the various possible outcomes, strategy and future needs. He continued, “And process is key ' only a few firms can do this well and [the firm] is one of them ' . Despite their size, their people work together in a way that produces a better outcome. In fact, the bigger they've gotten, the better they've gotten ' . With other firms, you sometimes have difficulty with the level and quality of personnel once you get past the top person. That hasn't happened [with them]. They're pretty deep.”
4. Also impressed with a firm's depth of talent, a VP of Intellectual Property said, “I have enough confidence in the firm's deep bench to know there will be no deficiency in the quality of the work. [Their people] are super-smart, reliable and extraordinarily skilled lawyers who work relentlessly to represent us. They have a remarkable record of wins and successes for us ' in fact, I can't think of any losses. But that's not the only reason we turn to them. They keep their eye on the ball and proactively identify and fix things ' . Typically, they exceed my expectations. They think strategically and go above and beyond. They have a high level of responsiveness and provide a really great work product ' . In fact, they do windows. In other words, they'll do anything, including getting down and dirty with the documents. This is in stark contrast to some of the other firms I deal with. Also, they never want to seem less than perfect, and 98% of the time they are perfect. As a result, they have our business and our loyalty.” He concluded, “We rest very well at night knowing [the firm] is representing us on a particular matter, as I know they won't screw it up. I never have to worry that they'll miss something, as I do with others ' . We use a variety of firms but they are our number one firm.”
5. Referring to herself as a “technician,” a General Counsel revealed, “One of my great frustrations is dealing with generalists. I don't value their advice, but I do value the advice of technical experts.” Similarly, the CEO of a major business unit remarked, “I really only have interest in hearing from subject-matter experts in areas related to my needs. [The firm] has always impressed me as having good subject-matter experts and granting me access to them ' [and] they have provided good insights. It's not important to hear from generalists. Busy people don't like to sit in on meetings with less relevant content.”
6. A COO mentioned, “On large-scale projects, [the firm] has delivered well, timely and with good quality.” He said that other firms “seem to struggle more ' [while this firm] deals well with complex issues.”
7. An SVP in charge of Risk commented about the firm: “They tell me what I don't know. They meet my needs and are accessible, responsive, insightful and experienced. But, most important, they are good technicians and also pragmatic, which is a combination I place great value on but don't often find. [They are] also proactive regarding new ideas and best practices in areas of my concern ' including information about what the competition is doing and what other clients are doing, without violating client confidences. They keep me apprised about issues I'm interested in and those I should be interested in.”
8. The following feedback was offered by a VP Tax: “[The Tax Partner] and his team of Tax people are the type we like to deal with. They have substantive knowledge, are technically solid, have been reasonably proactive and are cohesive. It's a significant improvement from the prior firm when the key Tax Partner was mostly a relationship person and not very substantive.”
9. In setting forth his criteria for the lead partner, a General Counsel stated, “The new partner should be intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, knowledgeable and experienced, especially in our industry. I am looking for someone who can come up with smart, thoughtful answers ' and that's tough.”
10. Discussing the positive attributes of the lead partner, a Corporate Counsel noted, “I know [he doesn't] tolerate incompetence. He is able to put together and maintain a high quality team of lawyers from wherever they are located, whereas other firms supply staff based on the firms' needs and their personnel's availability.”
11. With the added complexity of cross-border transactions, a multilingual Senior International Corporate Counsel asserted, “We look very carefully to pick the right firm for the right case. It depends mostly on the lead partners. And [the firm's] partners have been very helpful by taking the time to educate me on the relevant issues and providing background from other cases. They also slow down to make sure I understand. All this is important because I have to explain it to others ' some of whom are located outside the U.S. ' and not always in English.”
12. Last, a CEO proclaimed, “It's an excellent team and they've been a huge amount of help. I have no complaints regarding quality and creativity. And there's no question that I would use them again. Generally, I hate lawyers. But I particularly like the two lead partners. They're smart and I trust them. They give us good opinions regarding what they can and can not do for us. And their interests are consistent with mine as to the resolution of legal matters.”

Some may argue that I've included only anecdotes that prove my point. But, as you've noted, many of the comments also mention elements of quality service that helped optimize the relationship, as there is some overlap because, as indicated above, whatever quality work has been performed must be compellingly delivered to clearly evidence its value to the recipient. Nonetheless, in the minds of discerning interviewees, quality service is no longer enough to distinguish a professional services provider. After all, to use an extreme example, it's highly unlikely that a firm will be selected for a bet-the-farm case primarily on the basis of quality service.

Conclusion and Reassessment

For sure, quality service is not unimportant. But over the last decade we've experienced Enron, Tyco and Collateralized Debt Obligations, to mention just a few. And more recently, we've been exposed to the exploits of Marc Drier and Bernie Madoff. While these two gentlemen were ostensibly providing their clients with quality service, the quality work they were performing was aimed at turning many of those clients into victims. As a result, we have hopefully learned to be much more leery of the subjective personal stuff and all that bedside manner. So be continuously mindful that you'll seldom meet an obnoxious con man. “He was always 'Uncle Bernie' to me!”

Accordingly, the need for due diligence has hardly ever been more apparent. And this would include the selection of outside counsel, where the key criteria should necessarily emphasize experience, expertise, excellence and favorable results, as well as integrity and trust, interspersed with at least a modicum of TLC.

Finally, with all the emphasis on quality service over the past two decades, that essential attribute should by now be taken for granted. Unfortunately, that's not the case. It still requires attention and emphasis ' as does quality work. However, for the reasons cited above, quality work appears to have replaced quality service as a distinguishing and most valuable characteristic of a professional services provider.

Addendum

In my “Client Speak” column in the July issue on Alternative Fee Arrangements (“AFA”), I stated in the first paragraph under “Conclusions and Recommendations” that, given certain relationship attributes, “fees will never be a problem.” I have received some criticism of that statement, in part possibly due to the old shibboleth: “Two words you should never use are 'always' and 'never.'” While I generally agree with that, I respectfully stand by the quoted statement from the article as appropriate under the circumstances as described therein.

Donald E. Aronson is the President of D. E Aronson Associates LLC and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors. Don's firm conducts market research by interviewing executives of professional services firms' key clients with a primary focus on client feedback. Don is located in New York City and can be reached at 212-874-4181 or [email protected]. Copyright ' 2009 by D. E. Aronson Associates LLC.