Media & Communcations Corner: Alleviating Client Fatigue Caused by Legal Directories

Editor's Note: This month we are pleased to welcome communications consultant John Tuerck as a guest columnist.

As virtually any legal marketing professional will attest, legal directories are here to stay. While the value of a ranking in a legal directory is in dispute, there is little doubt that most large law firms attribute a great deal of importance to rankings, particularly in the more reputable directories. Ironically, however, the process of positioning lawyers and law firms for potential rankings ' all in an effort to boost their stature in a keenly competitive legal market, of course ' may impair the relationships with the very clients they hope to impress.

A bit of context: Many legal directories, from established publications like the various Chambers guides to the inaugural ranking of law firms to be published later this year by Best Lawyers and U.S. News & World Report, derive their rankings from client feedback. A key part of the process for attaining a ranking is the submission of client references, which usually result in client interviews or requests to complete surveys. With the sharp increase in the number of new rankings, as well as the increase in the scope of existing rankings, the demands on client time have grown accordingly, resulting in the problem of client fatigue.

A Hypothetical

Let's take a hypothetical example of a well-regarded IP firm seeking to elevate its profile in one of the most well-known guides. The firm's domestic locations include New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Texas. In addition, the firm has foreign offices in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong. Assuming our hypothetical firm has IP lawyers in each office, it is eligible for at least 10 rankings (six in the U.S., including a national category; one for London; and three for Asia, including an “Asia-wide” category). To position itself for the rankings, the firm will thus provide at least 10 written submissions, each of which may include up to 10 client references.

Now let's look at it from the clients' perspective. It's not unusual for Fortune 500 companies to retain five or more outside law firms for counsel in IP matters, including assistance in litigation, transactions, and patent prosecution. Many of those law firms will fit the profile of our hypothetical firm, with several domestic and foreign offices, many of which will be candidates for IP rankings. If even a fraction of eligible law firms vie for rankings, we can assume that there will be considerable overlap in the client references provided to the ranking company. It's easy to see how the same client references can be listed in several submissions.

In short, while there are no reliable data on the exact extent to which clients are fielding requests for interviews, it doesn't take a statistician to realize that the burden on clients' time is increasing. And one hastens to note that our hypothetical firm hasn't yet considered other legal directories.

Client Fatigue

Client fatigue is a vexing problem; the best way to eliminate it is to abstain from active participation in the process by which law firms are ranked in directories. For most firms, that's an untenable solution. However, there are a number of simple steps firms can take to alleviate client fatigue. The keys are clear communication with clients and a more thoughtful approach to providing client references.

Ask for permission before proceeding. A short note or phone call seeking the client's consent to be included as a reference is a courteous gesture that also provides notice of the potential request for information from the publisher. The contact should originate from the partner responsible for the client engagement, but it's helpful to draft a form note or script that the partner can modify as needed. The note or script should briefly outline the rationale for participating, the anticipated questions for the client and, of course, a sincere thanks for participating.

Circle back. If the client has granted consent, the partner should check in at least once for a status report. This provides a useful occasion to thank the client once again if he or she has heard from the publication. If the client has heard nothing, it also provides an opportunity for you to contact the publication and gently remind the researcher that the client reference has volunteered to provide valuable information for research purposes.

Cross-reference client references. The publishers of legal directories are sensitive to concerns from firms. One, for example, is receptive to the approach of reducing the number of interviews by consolidating and cross-referencing client references in submissions. Our hypothetical IP firm, say, could take pains to note that a client reference is cited in multiple submissions, which may result in fewer interviews. This is particularly useful in submissions for national rankings, which often draw from state-level submissions.

Pare down. In their zeal to provide thorough, comprehensive submissions, firms often provide more information, including client references, than is necessary. This serves neither the interest of the client references nor the publication itself, which prefers tight, streamlined submissions. Strive to limit client references to the absolute minimum.

Go to the bench. It may look impressive to list the general counsel at Microsoft as your client contact, but that may not be the best strategy. In addition to the client-fatigue problem, there are at least two good reasons to look down the list and provide an alternative contact, even if that person sports a lesser title. For one, the GC at Microsoft is an extraordinarily busy person who is hard-pressed to attend her child's piano recitals, never mind return calls from publishers. For another, it's quite possible that the assistant GC for IP is much more familiar with your firm's work and in a better position to provide a ringing endorsement to the Chambers researcher.

Conclusion

There is a clear conflict between the perceived need to attain rankings in legal directories and the very real need to avoid irritating clients. Short of abstaining from the rankings process, large law firms can minimize irritation by communicating clearly with clients and taking a more strategic approach to submissions. Those measures should help set your firm apart when it comes to alleviating client fatigue.

John D. Tuerck, the former director of communications at Ropes & Gray, is a communications consultant. He can be reached at [email protected] or 781-801-7381.

Editor's Note: This month we are pleased to welcome communications consultant John Tuerck as a guest columnist.

As virtually any legal marketing professional will attest, legal directories are here to stay. While the value of a ranking in a legal directory is in dispute, there is little doubt that most large law firms attribute a great deal of importance to rankings, particularly in the more reputable directories. Ironically, however, the process of positioning lawyers and law firms for potential rankings ' all in an effort to boost their stature in a keenly competitive legal market, of course ' may impair the relationships with the very clients they hope to impress.

A bit of context: Many legal directories, from established publications like the various Chambers guides to the inaugural ranking of law firms to be published later this year by Best Lawyers and U.S. News & World Report, derive their rankings from client feedback. A key part of the process for attaining a ranking is the submission of client references, which usually result in client interviews or requests to complete surveys. With the sharp increase in the number of new rankings, as well as the increase in the scope of existing rankings, the demands on client time have grown accordingly, resulting in the problem of client fatigue.

A Hypothetical

Let's take a hypothetical example of a well-regarded IP firm seeking to elevate its profile in one of the most well-known guides. The firm's domestic locations include New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Texas. In addition, the firm has foreign offices in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong. Assuming our hypothetical firm has IP lawyers in each office, it is eligible for at least 10 rankings (six in the U.S., including a national category; one for London; and three for Asia, including an “Asia-wide” category). To position itself for the rankings, the firm will thus provide at least 10 written submissions, each of which may include up to 10 client references.

Now let's look at it from the clients' perspective. It's not unusual for Fortune 500 companies to retain five or more outside law firms for counsel in IP matters, including assistance in litigation, transactions, and patent prosecution. Many of those law firms will fit the profile of our hypothetical firm, with several domestic and foreign offices, many of which will be candidates for IP rankings. If even a fraction of eligible law firms vie for rankings, we can assume that there will be considerable overlap in the client references provided to the ranking company. It's easy to see how the same client references can be listed in several submissions.

In short, while there are no reliable data on the exact extent to which clients are fielding requests for interviews, it doesn't take a statistician to realize that the burden on clients' time is increasing. And one hastens to note that our hypothetical firm hasn't yet considered other legal directories.

Client Fatigue

Client fatigue is a vexing problem; the best way to eliminate it is to abstain from active participation in the process by which law firms are ranked in directories. For most firms, that's an untenable solution. However, there are a number of simple steps firms can take to alleviate client fatigue. The keys are clear communication with clients and a more thoughtful approach to providing client references.

Ask for permission before proceeding. A short note or phone call seeking the client's consent to be included as a reference is a courteous gesture that also provides notice of the potential request for information from the publisher. The contact should originate from the partner responsible for the client engagement, but it's helpful to draft a form note or script that the partner can modify as needed. The note or script should briefly outline the rationale for participating, the anticipated questions for the client and, of course, a sincere thanks for participating.

Circle back. If the client has granted consent, the partner should check in at least once for a status report. This provides a useful occasion to thank the client once again if he or she has heard from the publication. If the client has heard nothing, it also provides an opportunity for you to contact the publication and gently remind the researcher that the client reference has volunteered to provide valuable information for research purposes.

Cross-reference client references. The publishers of legal directories are sensitive to concerns from firms. One, for example, is receptive to the approach of reducing the number of interviews by consolidating and cross-referencing client references in submissions. Our hypothetical IP firm, say, could take pains to note that a client reference is cited in multiple submissions, which may result in fewer interviews. This is particularly useful in submissions for national rankings, which often draw from state-level submissions.

Pare down. In their zeal to provide thorough, comprehensive submissions, firms often provide more information, including client references, than is necessary. This serves neither the interest of the client references nor the publication itself, which prefers tight, streamlined submissions. Strive to limit client references to the absolute minimum.

Go to the bench. It may look impressive to list the general counsel at Microsoft as your client contact, but that may not be the best strategy. In addition to the client-fatigue problem, there are at least two good reasons to look down the list and provide an alternative contact, even if that person sports a lesser title. For one, the GC at Microsoft is an extraordinarily busy person who is hard-pressed to attend her child's piano recitals, never mind return calls from publishers. For another, it's quite possible that the assistant GC for IP is much more familiar with your firm's work and in a better position to provide a ringing endorsement to the Chambers researcher.

Conclusion

There is a clear conflict between the perceived need to attain rankings in legal directories and the very real need to avoid irritating clients. Short of abstaining from the rankings process, large law firms can minimize irritation by communicating clearly with clients and taking a more strategic approach to submissions. Those measures should help set your firm apart when it comes to alleviating client fatigue.

John D. Tuerck, the former director of communications at Ropes & Gray, is a communications consultant. He can be reached at [email protected] or 781-801-7381.