Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Creating a Culture of Intelligence
We constantly hear from clients that they want us to know their business and anticipate their needs, to help them to see around corners. We hear about the ongoing cost pressures clients face, which force in-house counsel to do more with less, and the pressures on outside counsel to provide greater efficiencies and cost predictability. We also hear that clients hate to be cross-sold. However, this does not mean that clients are not interested to be introduced to new colleagues who can provide insight. Rather, cross selling must be thoughtful and tailored to clients' needs — a concept many of you will recognize from Heidi Gardner's work and the success to be gained from Smart Collaboration strategies.
How Are Law Firms Reacting?
Law firms are listening and implementing strategies to better understand clients and their varied needs. In addition to adopting new technologies to increase efficiency and provide transparency, law firms are increasing their investment in business development and competitive intelligence. In a recent study, Acritas and The Tilt Institute found that law firms with highly effective competitive intelligence (CI) functions perform better than their peers over time. The study also showed that, while more than 80% of law firms had resources dedicated to CI, only 52% had a dedicated, formal function. To me, that says demand is outweighing supply.
Create an Intelligence Culture
What does it mean to build a CI culture at your firm? As I frequently say, intelligence comes when external market data is analyzed and combined with internal law firm knowledge. Without negating the skills CI professionals bring to their roles, there are tools and resources available to lawyers that they can use to create their own intelligence.
External Tools: Today, many lawyers are well acquainted with resources such as Westlaw and LexisNexis and want to be in control of their own research methods. Vendors such as these provide regular training to lawyers on how to use their services. Going through the process of doing their own research can be beneficial to lawyers in a number of ways:
- Doing their own initial search can help lawyers formulate their actual request; understand what they can find on their own, as well as what the library and other tools can help them with; and recognize where their gaps are. It also helps them understand when to make the best use of their time and when to make the best use of my time.
- It gets them up to speed faster on the day-to-day operations of their clients, which is what clients are crying out for. Lawyers can set alerts, make use of company/investor presentations, read SEC filings, etc.
- CI professionals can concentrate on their own value-added projects. If anything, this process of understanding on all sides also reinforces a CI brand.
Internal Tools: Firms are at different stages of sophistication in connection with developing and using internal tools, though all firms have some sort of internal information available to lawyers. Firms are also implementing collaboration tools to facilitate knowledge sharing within and across practice groups and offices. Encouraging lawyers to seek out those internal tools and the information therein, and combining that with the data found on external tools, is where the cultural change happens.
Seeking out key client relationships, engaging in client feedback programs, being involved with client development strategies, identifying a legal service client is in need of, etc. are steps lawyers can take to become more valuable to their clients. When lawyers introduce colleagues to clients with a specific purpose in mind, it will eliminate the client feeling like they are being 'cross-sold' to for no good reason. All of this combines to create a culture of intelligence — what can I learn about my client and how can I use this to build insight?
Don't Go It Alone
As firms strive to differentiate themselves and invest more resources in doing so, it's only natural that CI requests will continue to increase. Embrace the ability to create a culture of intelligence, promote end-user tools, and heighten awareness of clean internal data and the benefits to be gained from contributing to data collection efforts.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?