Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
OK, somebody talked to the press, and leaked information that shouldn't have been leaked. That's three problems, not one.
Primary, of course, is how we control the damage caused by the leak. Then we worry about who did it.
The second problem is that who did it is frequently not as important as why it was done. That may be the more urgent damage to control. The problem caused by the press leak will go away by itself, most often. It has to be treated like any bad story, and we've talked a lot about that in these pages. But the reason for the leak can be more stubborn to deal with, as is the mechanics of preventing leaks.
The mechanics of preventing leaks can be tricky, and that's the third problem. If they're mishandled, they can cause more damage to the firm than the leaks do.
Leak prevention, on the face of it, can be pretty obvious. For example:
Why People Leak
It may be more important to find out why the information leaked. Except to punish the individual ' which may not always be warranted ' the leak is really a symptom. People leak information for several reasons:
It's this array of reasons for leaking that comprise the dangerous symptoms.
Why should there be a ground for malice in a firm? Is the management group aware of it? What's the cause of it? What must be done to eliminate it — or to eliminate the individual?
The self-important individual is usually easy to recognize. That individual should be identified, and kept from sensitive information, when possible.
Politics is almost impossible to deal with in a firm, particularly a large one. The only solution is absolutely wise management. OK, as Napoleon said, then give me lucky generals. But this kind of situation is a clue to a serious crisis in management. A poorly managed firm, one in which the callousness to the needs of the firm leads to hurting the firm for an individual or a group's political advantage, is in serious trouble.
As for the other causes, they are primarily emotional or careless, They can be dealt with only by taking steps to make a point of not just the secrecy, but the reasons for it. If leaks are a problem, then firm management may have to make a point of patiently explaining how the firm is hurt by it, and how that affects every individual, including the person responsible for the leak. Thoughtlessness and mindlessness are not tolerated in dealing with clients. Why should they be tolerated in dealing with the firm?
On the face of it, leaks are a communications ' and therefore a marketing ' problem. But clearly, they are more than that, and should be treated accordingly.
The problem is that a leak in a firm is like a thief in the firm. It angers, beclouds, and saddens everybody. And everybody loses.
Bruce W. Marcus is a Connecticut-based consultant in marketing and strategic planning for professional firms, the editor of THE MARCUS LETTER ON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MARKETING, (www.marcusletter.com), the author of PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MARKETING 3.0 (Bay Street Group, 2011'http://bit.ly/MarcusBook), and the co-author of'CLIENT AT THE CORE'(John Wiley & Sons, 2004) His e-mail address is'[email protected]. ' 2013 Bruce W. Marcus. All rights reserved.
OK, somebody talked to the press, and leaked information that shouldn't have been leaked. That's three problems, not one.
Primary, of course, is how we control the damage caused by the leak. Then we worry about who did it.
The second problem is that who did it is frequently not as important as why it was done. That may be the more urgent damage to control. The problem caused by the press leak will go away by itself, most often. It has to be treated like any bad story, and we've talked a lot about that in these pages. But the reason for the leak can be more stubborn to deal with, as is the mechanics of preventing leaks.
The mechanics of preventing leaks can be tricky, and that's the third problem. If they're mishandled, they can cause more damage to the firm than the leaks do.
Leak prevention, on the face of it, can be pretty obvious. For example:
Why People Leak
It may be more important to find out why the information leaked. Except to punish the individual ' which may not always be warranted ' the leak is really a symptom. People leak information for several reasons:
It's this array of reasons for leaking that comprise the dangerous symptoms.
Why should there be a ground for malice in a firm? Is the management group aware of it? What's the cause of it? What must be done to eliminate it — or to eliminate the individual?
The self-important individual is usually easy to recognize. That individual should be identified, and kept from sensitive information, when possible.
Politics is almost impossible to deal with in a firm, particularly a large one. The only solution is absolutely wise management. OK, as Napoleon said, then give me lucky generals. But this kind of situation is a clue to a serious crisis in management. A poorly managed firm, one in which the callousness to the needs of the firm leads to hurting the firm for an individual or a group's political advantage, is in serious trouble.
As for the other causes, they are primarily emotional or careless, They can be dealt with only by taking steps to make a point of not just the secrecy, but the reasons for it. If leaks are a problem, then firm management may have to make a point of patiently explaining how the firm is hurt by it, and how that affects every individual, including the person responsible for the leak. Thoughtlessness and mindlessness are not tolerated in dealing with clients. Why should they be tolerated in dealing with the firm?
On the face of it, leaks are a communications ' and therefore a marketing ' problem. But clearly, they are more than that, and should be treated accordingly.
The problem is that a leak in a firm is like a thief in the firm. It angers, beclouds, and saddens everybody. And everybody loses.
Bruce W. Marcus is a Connecticut-based consultant in marketing and strategic planning for professional firms, the editor of THE MARCUS LETTER ON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MARKETING, (www.marcusletter.com), the author of PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MARKETING 3.0 (Bay Street Group, 2011'http://bit.ly/MarcusBook), and the co-author of'CLIENT AT THE CORE'(John Wiley & Sons, 2004) His e-mail address is'[email protected]. ' 2013 Bruce W. Marcus. All rights reserved.
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.