To see more of Hugh MacLeod's cartoons, click the image.
One of the most entertaining things that happens in the legal sector, for me, is always an announcement from Quality Solicitors (QS). When this happens, say on the Law Society Gazette website, I know that it is time to put the kettle on, make a brew and watch numerous ‘anonymous’ contributors slag QS off.
What results isn’t debate, rather it is vitriol on a level I do not feel shows the legal profession in a very good light. I suspect the reality is that the ‘anonymous’ posts are just a couple of people with an axe to grind exploiting the reach of digital sharing to create a noise. Legal trolls, if you like.
However, aside from the entertainment value, QS really interests me. Not because they are opening a branch here or a branch there. Nor do I think the recent Specsavers analogy is a good one, (Craig and I have exchanged water pistols at dawn on that one, which was great fun and infinitely more sensible than being vitriolic).
What really interests me about QS is the fact that they are a banner for change in a profession that is in danger of disappearing where the sun don’t shine; not because of Tesco or QS but by shooting itself in the foot or thinking the only possible option is do nothing.
Change is going to happen, simply because you have brought it upon yourselves.
The argument, which I think is vacuous, is that Tesco Law will not deliver an equivalent service to a law firm. My answer:
Why would Tesco risk its brand by offering something sub standard?
Would Tesco not rather exploit the efficiency that the legal profession consistently fails to deliver? I believe that what will sink most law firms is not Tesco Law, but the continual denial that change is necessary and the failure of law firms to recognise that to survive they will increasingly have to use tools like DirectLaw to compete.
I put down some thoughts on the Legal Futures blog. They were stimulated partly by the latest QS announcement; partly by my thoughts on brands coming into the market; and partly by one comment that brands won’t do complex legal. So here is what I think, prompted by the point:‘Will Tesco be dealing with a client charged with rape or murder, probably not”
I agree and disagree. In the area of crime, probably not because of the brand impact, but to assume that ‘Tesco’ will not deal with complex matters and just deal with ‘easy peezy lemon squeezy’ stuff entirely misses the point.
‘Tesco’ will be less interested in law and more interested in client capture and leveraging legal services to generate income. Because leveraging the brand to capture clients and get (non-risk) income streams is what brands are all about.
They will then farm that out to a ‘process provider’ who has all the skills and infrastructure (lawyers) needed to deliver the service. I simply cannot see value in them doing that in-house. Yes you will say Co-op but I don’t think that will be the norm, (I think what Epoq have built for Halifax Legal Express is a model that brands will be more likely to deploy). The main reason is because Tesco will say “why do we need to create a huge cost centre when we can outsource it? Why would we do this in a new and emerging market? We are good at marketing to our customers, we are not lawyers.”
And here is the thing. They are already doing it. Look at Tesco Insurance. To the best of my knowledge Tesco is not an insurance company, they outsource it to a third party. They just ‘skin’ the policy and make sure that the service level delivery is in line with their own brand. As a consumer you buy that policy because you trust the Tesco brand.
This is why Tesco are looking at building ‘Tesco Bank’ – they know that ‘Brand Retail Bank’ is in the technical language, knackered. They know that they can exploit that. And here’s the irony: they will use exactly the same infrastructure. Perception is everything.
Even if/when they start to bring services in-house they only do that when there is a proven track record of identifying both the upsides (income) and more importantly the downsides (risk to brand). And that can take years, time Tesco has on it’s side.
So lets say QS build a panel (which they seem to be doing pretty well) that can serve remotely, using technology, over the phone but also the hugely valuable, local face to face. Effectively an holistic service.Then they go and white label that and take it to Tesco. Tesco can then market that white label and take in non-risk income.
- Brand gets a valuable holistic service offering to market with none of the cost/pain of managing lawyers
- Panel members get to surf the marketing of that with all parties [Tesco - Law firms - Clients] connected up
- Fee income shared via Rule 9.
This is where I think the opportunity exists for QS.
But this is the bit that should really interest you. There is plenty of room for everyone in this market…if you are smart. Just being there, doing what you do now though will not be enough.
So I will continue to watch with great interest how QS develop.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Quality Solicitors - leading the legal change charge? | Legal 2.0 | | Quality Solicitors - leading the legal change charge? -- Topsy.com
Jon
I expect that you are right with a lot of what you say and the profession in one sense deserves everything it gets. But on another level that would be a great travesty. Why? Because the march of progress – whether it is FMCG retailing, Optometry or DIY has not made the experience any better and in a lot of cases a damn site worse. The problem is that retailing left unchecked becomes all consuming and sooner or later there is no alternative. I wish that I didn’t have to shop at some of the warehouses but I just don’t have a choice. I think this is where the rubber meets the road for law firms. They need to be doing a much, much better at promoting their brand position, USP and highlighting what is good about them before people begin to lose them from their consciousness. I suspect though that most don’t care enough and we will see a whole swathe of them go out of business or their business model become unsustainable. I am in the corner to help them and show the way. Will they follow? Who knows but I am going to give it a bloody good try.
Regards
Julian
I agree and I am curious how you will do that. Ideas and conversations are great but to execute real change you need real tools that do real things.
So we are in a similar space but I have a powerful tool, DirectLaw, that can deliver what law firms need. It won’t happen overnight, it takes time, it takes understanding, it takes two sides building a value partnership all of which we focus a heck of a lot of time on, (we didn’t always, we do now <— we are all learning). Legal IT providers have not been great at that.
Every law firm I present to really has their eyes opened up when they see what I am demo-ing. They assume that online will remove them from the delivery of legal services. As you know, you could not be further from the truth.
If you want to know, just ask…I leave it up to you to make your own mind up.
This is why I don't think change is the problem but ignorance of the possible.
Jon
You are in the IT space – and the very best of luck to you: you have an excellent product/service. My business is people – whether that is business development, social media or client excellence (you know the Wizard of WOW stuff…). Like I said when we first spoke I believe in what you are doing – even more so now I have seen the product in action – but it is only a part of the solution (we may not agree quite how big it is just yet). I want to see every person in professional practice reach their full potential or as Dave Liniger says of Re/MAX to create a life success company. Might be a bit Yanky doodle for you but it suits me just fine.
Glad to see you like Hugh McLeod. Another Tom Peters fan. He blogged about Playmobil the other day. He has a book out called Evil Plans which I hear is quite good. I suspect he will have a few good drawings in there.
Julian
This might shock you Julian…my business is people not IT. People always buy people which is a crass sales slang, but true.
In my view you can sell an average product with a good network and fail to sell an excellent product with a bad network. So network is everything for me.
Dear Jon,
Very interesting post, with which I largely agree (save that I do stilll strongly believe that the Specsavers analogy is a powerful one – not because of the similarities between opticians and lawyers, but in terms of the impact of brand entrants to a highly fragmented, professional services market).
Building the QualitySolicitors network, on its own, is not the answer (although its a good start due to the fragmentation referred to above!). It is what we do with the network that is key. It provides the opportunity to implement innovations and strategies with real scale and communicate those innovations successfully to a large audience. That includes using tools such as Directlaw as well as implementing service excellence in a more general sense as identified by Julian (which is at the very heart of the QS offering).
Of course, the opportunity you identify for QualitySolicitors to be the providers of legal services for established organisations and brands is a key element of our strategy moving forwards with some interesting discussions already quite far advanced…
Thanks Jon for another insightful blog.
What I’ve always thought is great about QS is its tireless work to be promoting “brand solicitor”. There are precious few other organisations looking for a slice of the legal services cake which have this as their cornerstone.
For whatever reason (and we know there are plenty), many solicitors are not readily engaging with the changes to the legal services market place. However QS provides a very real opportunity for them benefit from the approach and resources of the volume players.
Craig’s comment about “… some interesting discussions (are) already quite far advanced” with national brands is key here. If lawyers are not already involved in these types of conversations themselves, then why wouldn’t they want to engage to an organisation that is?
Go go QS!
Thanks Sally…coffee in Islington next week? Get us…eh!
Thanks for the comment Craig. To be honest the Specsavers analogy is not worth arguing about. You and me are both in the change game and what works for one doesn’t necessarily work for the other. I think where we do agree is that law firms are far too fragmented for change and it would do them no harm to at least engage in an initial discussion. Personally I don’t see change as being a tsunami but a slowly rising tide. Either way, if you can’t swim then you will probably drown…still time to learn, but not much time.