Gold, Silver And Bronze: Staying Ahead Of The Game

I have read rather a lot recently about commoditisation and problem solving. As I understand it, the argument goes something like this:

• Law firms can solve Clients' legal problems by embracing IT to help standardise and streamline their processes.
• Furthermore, practices should implement such systems now before the initiative is lost to the more commercially minded, scaled up competitors that alternative business structures will inevitably bring.

I certainly agree that the Internet is a "great leveller" for small and medium sized firms, providing access to markets and opportunities previously enjoyed exclusively by larger organisations. A Sole Practitioner's website can, in theory, reach out to the same audience and offer similar services (online at least) to a top City firm, especially in conjunction with Case Management and Document Production Systems and the outsourcing of secretarial and other key processes.

However, for me, the success or otherwise of such an approach depends on a number of factors, including:

1. Your Client base, in terms of location and demographics, for example.
2. The type/s of service/s your Clients want, be it "off the shelf" legal documents or bespoke advice and assistance etc.

For those firms that have an eclectic mix of Clients with different needs, how about adapting your services accordingly? For example, for IT savvy, cost conscious, non-centric Clients offer them a basic, "packaged" product similar to that advocated above? Similarly, deliver a personal, bespoke service to those local Clients demanding just that. Finally, for those Clients somewhere in between, give them the best of both-a mainly automated service, but with some human interaction for peace of mind. The level of service will then dictate the price. I have touched on this idea in previous posts (see "Conveyancing Factories": Can Solicitors Compete?).

Clients are accustomed to making such choices. One example that immediately springs to mind is insurance. Coverage is commonly labelled "gold", "silver" and bronze".

So how do you apply this principle to legal services? Whilst it perhaps lends itself more to work of a transactional nature, I believe that, in most areas of law, the method of delivery and/or the extent of involvement, can be tailored to meet the Client's needs. Here are just a few examples:

Wills and other documents

There will no doubt be some people who simply want a basic template that can (depending on the firm's capabilities) either be downloaded and completed in accordance with the accompanying notes or (even better) compiled online. In both cases, no help is required.

Others may want to go a little bit further and have the reassurance of a fee earner check the completed document to ensure that it is valid (but not advise as to its suitability/fitness for purpose).

Some Clients may be looking for a bespoke document to be prepared from scratch, based on their own individual circumstances, following a face to face meeting and specialist advice and assistance.

Conveyancing

Some will want the bare minimum, namely legal completion of their transaction. They desire a stripped down service, only paying for what is absolutely essential. They expect to be charged less if there is no Mortgage to redeem and/or register. Similarly, they will save money by completing and submitting the Land Transaction Return themselves. Given email and online case tracking, they also consider postage and telephone calls to be "added extras" and want to retain some control over the associated costs.

Other people will want the certainty of a fixed fee to cover everything, apart perhaps from the risk of the chain collapsing.

Finally, there will be those Clients who prefer the comfort of a "no move, no fee" guarantee and are prepared to pay for the privilege.

Probate

Depending on how complex the circumstances, Clients may just need a Grant of Probate/Letters of Administration. Possibly, a guide and links to the relevant forms is all that is required

Others may want you to obtain a Grant/Letters and also handle the sale of the deceased's property.

Some people may, in addition, require advice and assistance in relation to the actual administration of the estate.

Divorce

Some Clients act in person, possibly seeking ad-hoc advice. Again, a guide/links may well suffice, otherwise fixed fee web chats may be the answer.

Others may want you to deal with an undefended Petition, but not to get involved with any children or ancillary relief matters.

Then there are those who require advice and assistance regarding all aspects of their marital breakdown.

Litigation

As with divorce, there may be those who just want some initial advice or a Letter Before Action sent to the other party. In the latter case, the Client may be able to adapt a precedent available through your website (a debt collection matter, for example).

Again, some unrepresented Clients may need help as and when required.

At the other end of the spectrum, there will be those who instruct you to act from start to finish. Although all cases are different, there are those (Small Claims, for example) where the likely work can be assessed at the outset and thus justify a fixed fee.

The most important point is to understand exactly what it is your Clients want and how they want it delivered. Once you have done this, you can develop and adapt your services to meet their differing needs.

What do you think?

Law Firms' SEO: Can Squidoo And HubPages Help?

Following on from my previous post about Foursquare, this time I am concentrating on Squidoo and HubPages.

Squidoo is an online publishing platform and community that lets you create "lenses" (pages) about a particular topic. It is free to join and you can even earn 50% of the company's advertising revenue for charity or yourself.

You can make a lens about your law firm, its website or blog, or your speciality. Either way, there are, as I see it, 3 main benefits from a search engine optimisation (SEO) perspective:

1. The obvious one is that users searching Squidoo itself will hopefully find your lens.
2. Your lens may also appear in the organic results for Google and other search engines.
3. Linking the lens to your site/blog will help increase its own visibility.

Consequently, the choice and use of keywords and associated SEO techniques is crucial in creating your lense and there are some useful resources on the site and elsewhere on the web to help. However, from my own experience, I found the Dashboard not as user friendly as say Blogger or WordPress, especially as, in the absence of an Editor, a basic knowledge/understanding of HTML code is required. The proliferation of Google Ads, the majority originating from your competitors, is a real pain to say the least and impacts badly on the aesthetics/overall impression. You can turn off other types of adverts, but I have not yet found a way to do so completely. Any tips in this regard would be appreciated.

Squidoo has also introduced a "fun"/"game" element in the form of Rockstar Mode and trophies and badges, perhaps in homage to Foursquare.

HubPages appears remarkably similar. Simply substitute "hubs" for "lenses" and "Accolades" for "badges". Your share of the advertising spoils is 100% of Google AdSense clickthrough revenue and 60% of total hub impressions (although the Affiliate and Referral Programs complicate matters). However, one distinguishing feature is the "...community-wide HubScore ranking system". Apparently, a low HubScore (40 or 50 have been mentioned in Forums) results in "nofollows" for outbound links. The Dashboard is more professional and there is an Editor (including HTML). Spam is prohibited. Overall, HubPages seems more involved and complicated.

Free means of improving your web presence and traffic are surely a good thing and should not be sniffed at. I have to say that their biggest advantage for me is the "link juice" passed back to your own website/blog, although, as usual, quality content is king.

Do Referral Fees Work for Solicitors?

According to a recent report commissioned by the Legal Services Board, referral fees do not harm consumers. Whilst one can question the efficacy of such findings (including the apparent bias of estate agent respondents and the small, and arguably non-representative, samples used), they have today been supported by a separate report. According to the Legal Services Consumer Panel, referral fees neither increase costs nor reduce the quality of advice. This is, perhaps, surprising given the Panel's concerns that price, not quality, dictates who gets the work, clients are subjected to high pressure sales techniques, non-disclosure is prevalent and panels are restricted, mainly consisting of larger firms. Consequently, the recommendations include greater transparency, written consent and enforcement action. Disclosure is already required pursuant to the Solicitors Code of Conduct, breaches of which can (and should) be enforced by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, so it is rather doubtful that the protection afforded to clients will be enhanced, unless, of course, the Panel feels that the Authority is either unable or unwilling to perform its duties. If it is the latter, is this an example of what Law Society President Robert Heslett warned on Tuesday is the looming threat to the profession's independence? Similarly, the Panel concede that written consent is impractical in personal injury cases where much of the initial work is transacted over the telephone. The same argument can surely be applied in many other fields, especially with improved IT and "legal tourists" removing the geographical constraints that have hitherto existed. It is certainly somewhat difficult to accept at face value Vanilla Research's claim that the suggestions are a "game changer".

Regardless of whether or not these two reports prove determinative in the Board's final analysis, I believe there is a broader, and possibly more pressing, issue: are referral fees actually good for the profession itself? Should solicitors not retreat and regroup now before they become over reliant on third parties for work? For what it is worth, my own view, as both a practising solicitor and law firm consultant, is that, irrespective of the ethical issues, paying referral fees to agencies can be self defeating. Here's why.

Yes, the volume of work may well increase, but what really matters is your bottom line and reputation/goodwill. Take A Firm & Co. They were a general High Street practice undertaking both contentious and non contentious work, largely for local clients, who had either used the firm before or had been recommended to do so. Advertising was fairly low key as a consequence. Most work was transacted face to face and "snail mail" was the norm. Work was handled by experienced solicitors with a good claims record. Support staff were experienced and had been with the firm for many years. Workload was, except for the usual peaks and troughs, more or less constant, as was turnover and profit. However, the partners began noticing that they were losing conveyancing work. They discovered that local estate agents, who they regularly dealt with and instructed to carry out probate valuations, were directing erstwhile clients to other firms, usually out of town, and receiving a referral fee in return. A similar thing was happening in respect of personal injury work. Claims management and insurance companies were capturing clients at an early stage and referring them to panel solicitors, again willing to pay for the privilege. Not wanting to get left behind, A Firm & Co. entered into an arrangement with both a local estate agent and a claims management company. They paid the Agent £200 per conveyancing file and £500 for each personal injury case (the reports highlighted that the fees can be as much as £400 and £800 respectively).

As a consequence, workload increased. New staff had to be taken on to cope and a new IT system (including a case management system) was installed, all at significant up front cost to the practice, placing considerable strain on the firm's cashflow. Indeed, borrowing was increased. Costs pressures dictated that the new employees were more junior/less experienced than those already at the firm, introducing a culture change and necessitating more training and supervision than before. Similarly, the solicitors increasingly delegated more work to the non qualified staff, personal contact was lost and other service standards slipped. Unfortunately, some mistakes were made, leading to a rise in the professional indemnity insurance premium, already swollen by the increased turnover and referral arrangements. Moreover, the arrangements had to be disclosed to clients, who questioned whether the firm was acting in their best interests. Dissatisfied clients made complaints, taking up yet more valuable time, and spread adverse publicity, damaging the reputation/goodwill that had taken years to build up. Eventually, the firm outgrew its town centre premises and relocated to an expensive open plan office complex on the outskirts of town, alienating former clients still further. Staff turnover was much higher. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Ah, I hear you say, but what about the increased fee income? This made it all worth it right? Well, yes, turnover was up, but the referral fees had to be deducted from this. Even discounting the additional overheads and other burdens, the firm was, in effect, standing still, doing twice as much work for the same fees (similar to some Legal Aid firms, but without the element of public service). Factor in the associated expenses and other negative effects and A Firm & Co. was, in fact, worse off. Nevertheless, they felt they had gone past the point of no return. They had invested so much in this new, "commoditised" business model, and were so reliant on the agents and claims companies, that they simply could not "pull the plug". They were stuck with the situation they themselves had created and could not help feeling that the tail was wagging the dog. You do not need me to tell you how much worse this situation will get if the agent and/or company squeeze the firm for even more money, the referrers go bust or close down, rules and regulations change or the markets slump. The same (or at least a very similar) scenario can be applied to third party referral networks, who take a share of any profit costs, as well as charging an annual membership fee.

So what is the alternative to the "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality? Well, I firmly believe that A Firm & Co. should have concentrated on building (not destroying) their own brand, rather than someone else's. They were reliant on the agent and claims company to attract the client and then automatically refer the client to the firm. A Firm & Co.'s own branding was, to a certain extent, irrelevant, as they were going to get the work anyway. Their referral fees were contributing to the third parties' own advertising and marketing budgets. A Firm & Co. both neglected its core clients and took no independent action to gain new ones.

I am in no way advocating that the firm should have continued with the same, staid "traditional" approach. As I have been at pains to stress elsewhere, law firms must adapt both their services and mode of delivery to compete with the new, more commercially minded entrants to the legal marketplace (so called "Tesco Law"). A Firm & Co. could, for example, have developed an interactive website to both serve existing clients and attract new business. IT could still have streamlined processes and helped improve communication, transparency and access to information. They could even have gone further and created a "virtual" office engaging self employed consultants and slashing operating costs in the process. Both old and new media could have been utilised to improve the firm's exposure. Standard tasks could still have been delegated to paralegals. The firm could have become more specialist, differentiating itself from rival firms and charging a premium based on its unique selling proposition. Perhaps a merger with a compatible firm to achieve economies of scale was the way forward.

Believe it or not, I also support referrals, but to and from fellow solicitors. A Firm & Co. could have referred work that it did not carry out to another firm, perhaps as part of a reciprocal arrangement or in return for a fee or share of any profit. It could also have sought work from another firm. Such arrangements, which do not necessarily have to be disclosed, re-seize the initiative, help solicitors retain control over their own destiny and keep referral fees within the profession. Over reliance should not be an issue either if the firm has also adopted some of the practices outlined in the preceding paragraph. The firm will always have its (enhanced) brand to fall back on.

Yes, similar growing pains and teething problems would have been encountered, but they could have been controlled, managed and smoothed over more easily. If necessary, more regard could have been had to the needs of those existing clients still craving a local, High Street Solicitor providing a bespoke, personal service, whilst at the same time reaching out to more IT savvy, less centric potential clients where speed, ease of use and price are king. Different levels and types of service could have been offered to accommodate both. Crucially, the firm's bottom line should have improved and its medium to long term future placed on a much firmer footing.

I do not want to scaremonger and I appreciate that all firms are different. A combination of solicitors referrals, other referrals and updated practices and procedures may well be the answer for some, but if, as seems to be the case, third party referral fees are here to stay, each individual practice must carefully consider all of the alternatives and decide what is best for them. Blindly following the crowd may not be all it is cracked up to be.

26/5/10