To see more of Hugh MacLeod's work just click the image
Lawyers by definition are detail people. Thank goodness for that. I am not a lawyer but I know when and why I would need one. Lawyers offer huge value. They just don’t deliver that value very well. That is a vital distinction.
Look around at many of the new ideas or new brands and suggestions that are being presented to this market. In many ways there is nothing much new going on other than a rebranding exercise, a corralling of embedded suppliers or a ‘new brand’ development. Same wine, different bottle.
That’s a shame because right now, in my view, there is little imagination going on when now is the perfect time for imagination and creativity to run riot.
Let’s forget about the lawyers, the law firms and the brands for a moment and focus on the real deal…the client, the customer, people like me. I want better and no one seems to be thinking about that. I am not interested in fancy logos or big statements nor am I interested in what you are planning to do because my problems are now, today. Better is not the same thing with a fancy designer wrapper around it. You are a lawyer, I get that, I get what that means. All I want is real solutions to my real problems. I want services that are easy to understand, transparent, clear on price and fit into my world. I shouldn’t have to fit into the lawyers world. I am the customer, I’ve got the cheque book. This is not about marketing to me better. This is about delivering what I want, better.
I think the whole delivery model should be broken up and put back together in a way that the customer wants first and how the lawyer wants second. If you want to be any part of the future and you are in the ‘providing a service’ business then we the customer have to be at the centre.
We absolutely need lawyers, maybe not as many, maybe delivering differently, but the mistake with what is going on at the moment is that lawyers do not have the experience or knowledge of distribution and delivery to justify their high influence on the future. They are, in my experience, excellent at lawyering but less good at those other important things; marketing, technology, customer service delivery etc. To be blunt these other important things matter…a lot. To be more blunt, they are going to matter more and more. There are also far to many pseudo-experts, ex lawyers who overnight become SEO engineers, marketing experts etc. These are hugely skilled areas. Choose your torch bearers carefully would be my advice.
Most of the new ideas I look at are being constructed by, you guessed it…lawyers. And lawyers seem to think they ‘own the road.’ We all ‘own the road.’ This is the mistake that the retailer Borders made. They thought they ‘owned the road.’ What changed for Borders? We didn’t stop wanting or needing books. We just found better ways of getting those books. We the customer chose to consume books how we wanted to. We found other roads; Amazon Avenue, iTunes Highway BUT we could still choose to walk into Waterstones. Did we ask someone to build Amazon or iTunes? No. Someone else worked that out for us. Someone else understood the future better than Borders.
[Author's note: please read the comments below where the analogy of Borders is expanded out further]
We will still want and need legal services. We just need better ways of consuming them and that will require the one thing that is largely ignored in these debates. Technology.
Technology where you collaborate with the client directly is going to be (and I hate this expression) the real game changer. This is so radical, in my view, that I think technology will ultimately drive the break up of that most hierarchical institution; the law firm.
How can any business deal with any form of data capture or volume processing in the 21st century and not have a serious technology platform at its base? What is the point in creating large numbers of leads or lots of traffic if you have no infra structure to extract maximum value from it? Law firms deal in huge amounts of data capture but virtually none of their tech points at the client. Getting a client to write down critical data (hopefully in such a way that you can read it) and then you or a colleague re-inputting it into another system is hugely inefficient especially when many clients are happy to input it directly themselves for you, for free.
In the 21st century when you are talking technology all roads lead to the Internet and the Internet can deal and manage vast amounts of client data for you…on your behalf. It can build things for you…yes you. I am not saying technology is the most important thing, far from it, delivering value is. Technology is just a means to delivering better value and if you are not using it as every other industry does to point at the client then your business has, in my view, a limited future. Nor am I saying it’s an either or. I am saying that we the customer need a choice of engaging and we are comfortable with technology so please please give us the tools to help you deliver better.
Technology has traditionally not been the friend of the lawyer. But technology has changed and critically so has the rest of the world’s view on it. We the customer are at ease with technology, you the law firm are not. There can only be one winner here.
Yes that’s right. Technology that will help you. Technology removing routine processing and inefficient duplicating leaving the lawyer free to focus on what the clients really needs, the intellect bit, the lawyering bit. The irony is that is the bit the lawyers want to do too. Lawyers see technology as a kind of takeover. I see it as a merging of two valuable parts that work better together. Technology’s strength is a lawyer’s weakness. A lawyer’s strength is technology’s weakness. Come together. Work together. Build together. Solve together
Sure Apple could disappear, Google could evaporate, Amazon could vanish, we could stop using our iPhones, Blackberries, iPad’s and laptops and completely disengage from technology returning to just pad and paper. But I doubt any of that will happen and I suspect you hold the same view. The easier option is lawyers waking up and realising that if certain aspects of their process can be migrated to the client at nil cost leaving them to focus on the high value, human to human intellectual lawyering bit the whole delivery of legal services will change, heavily weighted in their favour.
Heavily? Yes heavily. The future will fail for law firms not because brands necessarilly delivered good or better but because law firms did not.
Technology allows to build process efficiencies and also allows the client to research their problem themselves.
If they perceive they can DIY the solutions even the most efficient processes become obsolete. That is why, as you state at the start of your post, law firms (all professional service firms) need to understand and demonstrate the value they add. This starts by thinking about the client first. This requires skills that have not been prioritised before: questioning and, most importantly, listening.
Hi Andrew
I hope you are keeping well. Thanks very much for your comment. I can see your point that ultimately we will all self serve. I think this would be the case if we were all the same but being human we are not. Each of us has different needs and demands on our time. I also think that the more complex a need is (and that is a highly subjective thing) the greater our need for more human to human engagement, the greater the need for the input of intellect such as advice or recommendation.
I read an interesting piece a while ago around your area of financial advice and how most IFA’s had moved to platform based fund purchasing; Fidelity etc. This didn’t stop clients coming to IFA’s (as far as I am aware) because those clients still valued their input. What these platforms did was make the routine processing better without compromising on the intellectual value bit.
Where technology will assist, at least initially, is in the processing of standard routine date. A client doesn’t need to come in and pass basic details over. In fact, in our experience lawyers are sending out the questions electronically so their clients can pre-populate a draft prior to a meeting for them for free. As you can imagine this saves time = more margin or price flexibility.
Of course some clients will go their own way, some will be execution only, some will be face to face only, some will be a combination of face to face and online. My over riding point is the client/customer will decide this probably in partnership with the lawyer. A one size fits model, in my view, is unsustainable.
You are right re the questioning and the listening. Asking right and relevant questions does two things. It gets to the solution quicker (good for the lawyer) and it makes the client/customer feel as if they are at the centre. Listening (as opposed to hearing) compounds that.
As always Jon you lead us lawyers gently by the hand to enlightenment ! I am not sure I am sold by the Borders comparison I have to say. I still cannot correlate provision of legal services with sale of goods. I see reference by other commentators that legal services should be seen as a commodity. I can’t quite accept this.
I do however see the value in systems which free the lawyer to do the lawyering and it’s here my interest is piqued !
As for listening not talking, I keep practising this virtue in an attempt to be a better lawyer ….
Hi Louise
Thanks for your comment and kind words.
I don’t think the Borders analogy is definitive but it helps me break through how the world changes in markets. The key shift was not actually the books, the DVD’s after all vinyl was replaced by CD, video by DVD. The big change was the way ‘content’ (music, film books) was distributed.
I can see your point though. Perhaps the analogy I made regarding Andrew’s point is more relevant. Think of the myriad of various investment funds, very complex, for many of us we need an expert to help us choose and select the right fund. The IFA uses online platforms to purchase the 5,000 units of x fund. This is process. Doing it online is so much more efficient. This is different to the IFA deciding which fund is right, whether the client is risk adverse or risk receptive, whether they need income or capital growth, which sector and from that deciding which fund(s) are best to match the clients need. That is intellect and that is very hard to systemise. Again we can do this all on our own, some will but not all.
Thinking it through Louise I think the IFA fund platform analogy far better than the Borders one. I think there is a much better professional services fit. Thanks for the inspire Andrew and Louise.
Jon
Jon/Louise,
Interesting points.
As an outsider to the legal profession I see there is a risk of certain legal services becoming commoditised (will writing etc) as witnessed by the arrival of online systems from the US.
The value add is in the service provision and ‘know your customer’ as we refer to it in the financial planning world. This provides the opportunity to up-sell (horrible phrase) more valuable and profitable services that benefit both parties because the greater need as been identified; a more complicated will to continue the comparison.
I like the IFA comparison too. The use of platforms is widespread and the adviser/planner can help the client cut through the myriad of information and recommend a portfolio of funds using quantitative and qualititive anlaysis that the client would not have the time, knowledge or resources to apply themselves.
Whether we are lawyers, financial planners or accountants if we can provide clarity of the services we provide and charges that we apply the clients can make an informed decision as to whether we add value.
Best,
Andrew
Andrew
Thanks for your comment.
The critical thing to me is the unbundling of the legal service. At it’s simplest level there are two parts; process and intellect. Lawyers are very protective of the intellect bit, and rightly so, this is their value, this is what they trained for and in many cases this is why we need a lawyer. But this is hamstrung by the other bit, the process. This is inefficient and this is where technology can help.
I am always intrigued by the word commoditisation and the instinct of many is that wills are the obvious starting point. I agree but this was my point about being more imaginative, We can go much further, much faster these days. Think of the tech start up. Does he (or she) want to go out of their way to come in and fill in forms to get their shareholder agreement started? Or do they want to come in and talk about more complex things. I suspect it is more the latter.
So to cut a long story short
it is about commoditising process, not commoditising intellect.
Jon
Hello all,
Louise, you make an interesting statement – “I still cannot correlate provision of legal services with sale of goods.”
To me this is the nub of Jon’s article, as us non-lawyers see little difference in how we ideally should be purchasing goods or services.
Every solicitor I have ever worked with uses their receptionist &/or secretary/pa to carefully filter potential clients so that they can cost & time-effectively work with those that fit their practice area. Why not use techonolgy and a series of well written yes/no gateways to provide a similar service?
Thanks Robin.
I think the key is the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what.’
Typically we see lawyers send out an electronic questionnaire prior to a pre arranged meeting say a week later. They do this already in a paper based form. The difference with an electronic questionnaire is that a) the client does the input (nil cost to the lawyer) directly into the lawyers initial draft and b) there is a no duplication or error of data input. That data input drops straight into the initial draft, which at this stage the client can’t see. The lawyer is more prepared and time is saved prior to the valuable face to face meeting.
Of course this route is only suitable if the client wants to go this way. Some may not, it all depends on how the lawyer educates their client and the willingness of the client to see value (save time, do it similar to input elsewhere etc). If the client doesn’t want to do this then just input directly into the draft via your laptop when sat with the client. This has to be better than writing it down on a pad, dictating it and then having it input.
Sure time saved may only be say but 30 minutes per client but do that 5 times a week and you are saving billable hours, charging the same so making more margin.
Jon
Thanks for further comments. Robin, do you really see little difference in the way you purchase goods & services ? I personally see a huge difference & not just as a service provider but from a personal point if view as a purchaser.
With a service it’s about the person every single time. Hairdresser, FA, accountant, beautician, doctor, dentist. I would travel further, pay more, fit in with their diary, all because I like dealing with them.
Not the same for goods. Cost, speed & convenience of delivery key with goods.
I suppose the point is that some clients may see a will, for example, as a product. It isn’t. It may be marketed as such, sold as such & bought as such, but it is not.
Entirely see the efficiency point, see that the model you discuss Jon is the future. Cost of purchase v return I am not sure on, but only through lack of knowledge/research on my part.
I also agree the IFA comparison is closer. Pondering my initial thought that the customer is still ultimately buying a product which is compared to others by platforms. Not sure this is the same as a Lawyer advising a client on their personal affairs. Here a human opinion/decision is needed. See the process might be separated but actually the process is a small part of the job. Isnt it?
Yet more food for thought for me – thanks Jon!
I think what you are saying is interesting Louise. The key here is the perception of service v product. You and I may see lawyers providing a service v a product. What is key though will be the client/customer perception.
Brands will market it as a product.
It is not my role to say whether that is right or wrong. My role is to enable lawyers to deliver the same high value more efficiently because delivering it inefficiently is simply unsustainable.
Jon
Louise/Jon
this really is a nice measured discussion, unlike many on this subject.
As an example of the the point that I’m trying to make. I have engaged my IFA for many years, and have even moved firms with him, because it’s him and his knowledge and personality that I’m buying. However, if God forbid, he let me down or keeled over tomorrow and there was no one in his firm that I felt comfortable with then I would need to look around for a replacement.
This is when the kind of services that Jon’s firm offers could make a difference to who I engaged with in future.
I agree with you 100% that “With a service it’s about the person every single time”, that said if that person makes it easier for me to work with them at the first point of conatct they’ll have the edge for me.
Robin
Thanks Robin.
Not sure what I can add really at the risk of repeating myself. The key is shifting the routine bits, the data inputting off the law firm cost base and over to the client. I often hear the argument that “our clients won’t do that” which is an odd one. These are the same lawyers (not all) who have little or no contact with their clients, so my argument would be “how do you know that?” We shift 60,000+ docs per annum through our platform and know the profile very well and can say they are absolutely a typical law firms clients.
Final thought (for now) I am not suggesting radical shifts or dramatic changes in behaviour. I am advocating an evolution not a revolution. Much of what technology can do is the bits you are doing now, but done for less and easier. It won’t work for all, I have never said that, but it will work for some and in time as the market becomes more educated, many.
Jon
Jon,
final point from me on this thread – The Effort Metric: http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/analysis/features/is-effort-the-new-loyalty?/3031721.article
Robin