« Rule 10: Be Accurate, Thorough and Timely--But Not Perfect. | Main | Do What You Love: Hero 1 - Chris Abraham »

March 04, 2006

Riskin Post: High-End Clients Not Happy At All.

It's here, from Gerry Riskin's shop, and it's based on a BTI Consulting Group Survey. And it's what I've been telling you for 6 months. Good news for smaller firms and boutiques willing and able to capture, serve and keep BigLaw clients.

Posted by JD Hull at March 4, 2006 10:21 PM

Comments

DH,

so I follow the link and find out that its $1600 to read the report--why are people giving away info on their blogs and websites?

Being in the dark, can only ask questions.

First question, Why would BigLaw clients ever say "we're happy and we love you?"

Add Moe's axiom based on observation of Frank Gailor--having to tell the client they have or will violate a federal criminal statute always ends the relationship--and it all makes sense to me, for BigLaw has been passing out a lot of harsh news the last 5 years.

Posted by: Moe Levine at March 4, 2006 11:21 AM

Moe--All my main partner Julie McGuire and I really know is "BigLaw" clients (Fortune 100 and 500)--that's my background/hers and how we built our firm. She was at Alcoa and I was a partner in a much bigger firm with about 6 offices at its peak. And our "new" firm (since 1992) is small and spread out in 3 cities. In fact, we don't really know how to do any other kind of work. BL clients do say "I'm happy and I love you" to us and others and have been saying it for years in repeating work situations in many smaller firms. Very few BL clients play games with you after you get them. It's the whole point of my blog...some BL client GC's are insecure and chickenshit company men and won't take chances on smaller firms--but NOT many; most get it. Part of the reason is that in the last 15 years, GC's have become higher quality, stronger lawyers than in past years. They are no longer guys who couldn't get jobs in BigLaw. The good GC's go to talent and hustle. 85% of the time, they could not care less about your size. Dan

Posted by: Dan at March 4, 2006 02:16 PM

DH,

Foremost, appreciate your candor and optimism--very helpful and positive on getting another perspective

nuts and bolts question

let's just assume that there is a biglaw client within 1 mile of my office but no one in the place is on my rolodex

also assume, which happens to be true, that your office is in a state that has recently made it plain as day that any "in-person" soliciation is unethical, save for a 39cent stamp, with the envelope marked advertising. If, for example, you heard of a nice lawsuit you even have to say in our letter or intro "I just read in the WJS that you got your Ass sued." And, you cannot contact if you have reason to believe the client already has a lawyer (ie. at M&H listing by BigLaw, down town). And, just to avoid the one possible opening, let's assume the firm has no GC or the position is vacant.

Am not worried about the pitch, once through the door.

Ethically, how does one even approach viz the nice environmental spill at the factory last week?

Posted by: Moe Levine at March 6, 2006 07:22 PM

Answer to a good question: Moe, you figure out a way to get an ethical AND classy introduction. And that is always something which you can figure out and arrange. Have done it many times. Even when I "didn't know" anyone. Dan

Posted by: Dan Hull at March 7, 2006 06:29 PM

Dan,

First, I appreciate your feedback. Just right to send to several young lawyers I try to help.

Second, I want to pay you a really high compliment.

I've know some of the best lawyers around in the last 25 years--Top of the list is Fred Bartlit, Ron Motley, lots of criminal defense types, but you are not far behind and it comes across from your blog that you really get the business side of the practice, better than anyone I've seen.

Others should take notice.

Posted by: Moe Levine at March 7, 2006 07:36 PM

Thanks, Moe. You are kind and I appreciate that very much--I will try to keep making it all true... And, funny, on Monday I was thinking about and talking about Fred Bartlit, who once said in an interview years ago some things about selecting a jury--the differences between men and women panelists, who to pick depending on length of the trial, factors like that, etc.--that I think about all the time. Dan

Posted by: Dan Hull at March 8, 2006 04:09 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?