Solicitors Referrals

According to a recent global study, lawyer to lawyer referrals "...constitute a vitally important income stream for many law firms". However, for the vast majority of small to medium sized High Street practices, I suspect that this could not be further from the truth. In my experience, Solicitors are somewhat reluctant/wary to refer work to their fellow professionals, even though they have no expertise/capacity to do the work themselves! Perhaps it is an intrinsic fear that the other firm will "poach" their Client. Maybe they are worried that they will look "desperate" touting for business. Whatever the reasons, they certainly have no commercial basis. Who would not want to make money from unwanted enquiries, either via a referral fee or profit share or a reciprocal arrangement? Is the business case not overwhelming, especially as no third parties are involved and the Solicitors Code of Conduct actually helps for once?

So, if the concept is a "no brainer", how are you going to develop formal/informal referral relationships? One easy solution is to join Solicitors Referrals, the national referral network between Solicitors. Annual membership starts at just £100 plus VAT and the first 25 subscriptions to SearchLite are completely FREE. What are you waiting for?

How Can Solicitors Compete?

In a previous post, I suggested that most High Street conveyancing Solicitors simply cannot compete on price and should not even attempt to do so. So, how else can such firms survive in the ever changing legal marketplace? Here are just a few ideas:

1. Identify both your existing and "wish list" Clients and, in each case, determine the type/s of service they (not you) actually want and what they are willing to pay (not how much you want to charge). Unless and until you have performed this exercise, you are simply fumbling around in the dark, unable to reach your target audience with any degree of precision. It is impossible to "be all things to all people". Armed with such information, why not offer different levels of service to different Client types?

2. Differentiate your practice. What is your unique selling proposition? Why should potential Clients choose your firm over its competitors, especially if you are more expensive? How can you justify higher charges? What additional benefits do you provide and why are they important? You could, for example, emphasise that you are:

2.1 Partner led;

2.2 Qualified;

2.3 Experienced;

2.4 Regulated; and/or

2.5 Local.

Furthermore, you offer:

2.6 A personal service; and

2.7 The protection afforded by both professional indemnity insurance and the Solicitors Compensation Fund.

You may also have embraced IT.

Perhaps, you visit Clients at home or in hospital.

3. Now you know your target audience and distinguishing features, promote your own brand, rather than someone else's. Take advantage of the new opportunities created by social media and social networking.

4. Consider offering a truly fixed price, irrespective of whether it is a sale or purchase, freehold or leasehold, with or without a mortgage etc. First, research the types and values of properties in your target area. Next calculate your average fee. Practice/case management systems should help in both respects. Finally, ensure that the average fee remains competitive for the most common type/s of transactions and that the estimated loss of income related to low value transactions will at least be met by the potential increased number of higher value matters.

5. Arrange the Energy Performance Certificate and then refund its cost (about £50) if you deal with the conveyancing. A group of local firms could join together for advertising and marketing purposes and still offer Clients freedom of choice between local, quality firms. Such a proposition could also alert unsuspecting potential Clients to the alternative being advanced by third parties.

6. Offer a free Will or a discount against other legal services, especially those not provided by your competitors. Provided you meet/manage Clients' expectations, this should, over the medium to long term, produce dividends, cultivating brand loyalty. Clients will, in time, regard you as their "family Solicitor" and recommend you to others.

7. Offer Clients a referral fee or other financial incentive for all new instructions introduced by them.

Of course, with the exceptions of 4. and 5., all of these ideas are of general application.

"Conveyancing Factories": Can Solicitors Compete?

In short, the answer is, in my view, no, and law firms should not even try. Here's why.

With any type of service, quality and price are undoubtedly the main drivers influencing customers'/clients' choices. Most people believe the old adage that "you get what you pay for". Nevertheless, many buyers and sellers of property, not to mention those remortgaging their homes and/or transferring ownership, are perfectly happy to instruct the cheapest firm, wherever they may be located and regardless of the service offered. It is the end result that matters most, not how (and if!) they get there. Conveyancing is, despite the personal attachment, not to mention the financial importance of the transaction, viewed no differently to the weekly shop. Price is king.

At the other end of the spectrum, are those that desire a bespoke, personal, local service and are, if necessary, prepared to pay for the privilege. For them, the "experience" or "journey" is key.

Finally, there are those somewhere in the middle, who are simply after the best compromise that they can get. Their expectation is that both price and quality of service will be "average"; a sort of halfway house.

So, should Solicitors try to compete on price? I believe the answer, for the vast majority of High Street practices, is no, at least not entirely. Such firms are unlikely to ever reap the economies of scale enjoyed by the out of town, high volume/bulk conveyancers. For this reason, being the cheapest is simply unattainable. No matter what they do, their competitors, especially with the proposed introduction of alternative business structures (i.e. "Tesco law"), will undercut them, possibly even offering conveyancing as a loss leader to grow their brand. Even in the current market, a Google search for "cheap conveyancing solicitors" lists numerous firms offering fees "from £89" and this ignores the cost of advertising and marketing and referral fees. In any case, it is your bottom line and reputation that counts. More work does not necessarily mean higher profits at the best of times, and reducing fees is hardly going to help! The adverse consequences attaching to a loss of goodwill should not be underestimated either.

It does not follow, however, that you should not give Clients the service they actually want (not what you think they want) and adjust your pricing structure accordingly. I have commented elsewhere on how this might otherwise be achieved and will revisit this conundrum in future posts, but here are just a few ideas. You could, for example, offer different levels of service to different Client types. Another possibility, depending on the types and values of properties in your target area, could be to offer the same fixed fee, irrespective of whether it is a sale or a purchase, freehold or leasehold and with or without a mortgage etc. Simply calculate your average conveyancing fee, which case/practice management systems should readily support, and give the comfort of clear, straightforward and transparent pricing.

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