Thanks for "No" thing

James Srodes's book review of 52 TRUTHS FOR WINNING AT BUSINESS WITHOUT LOSING YOUR SELF by Alan M. Webber (of Fast Company fame)contains the following statement, which is enough to make me want to read the entire book:

"Perhaps," the reviewer writes, "the most important rule for these perilous times is, 'Learn to take No as a question.' As he (Webber) says, 'The correct response to a no is 'thank you.' (Webber) adds, 'Take notes. If the person telling you no offers an explanation, listen carefully, listen respectfully, listen to everything he or she says - without agreeing or arguing. ... You may have come for money, but these words can be precious gold. You're getting something rare: honest feedback.'

"No" is not easy to hear for those of us with fragile egos who nonetheless provide professional services and who earn the opportunity to do so by "doing sales." While it's not easy to hear, "no" represents crystal clear communication between buyer and seller. Too often, buyers and sellers dance around the issues and just aren't straight with one another. Consequently, our worlds get wrapped up in "maybe's," which occupy our emotions and brain cells, and very often preclude us moving on to the next opportunity. As I have grown, ahem, more mature, I have come to appreciate a good solid "no" almost as much as a good solid "yes."

Here's a link to the review, found in today's Washington Times: http://tinyurl.com/pfhtz8

Clients Need To Win On Every Fee!

Been absent from the blog for awhile -- accommodating all the changes in the legal profession resulting from the meltdown, which I track to September 15, 2008 or so.

Whatever else it has done, the meltdown seems to me to have made buyers of legal services more serious than they have been to date about evaluating the possibility of engaging firms other than CYA ones. We are more active than ever in discussing the array of possibilities with inside counsel and other legal buyers. I am proud of my partner Rob Fields, who, during a LegalBizDev - West LegalEdCenter webinar phrased it about as well as I have seen it phrased. This Fields' quote from the webinar, as reported by Jim Hackett (CEO of LegalBizDev): "....Some large firms are beginning to embrace this philosophy. According to Rob Fields from Womble Carlyle (over 500 lawyers), “The client needs to win on every fee, every time, even though at larger law firms, it’s difficult to wrap our minds around this.” He described a large project Womble Carlyle recently started in which the client can choose whether to pay by the hour or to pay one of several predetermined fixed fees. At the end of each matter, the client gets to pick the lowest price. Of course clients love this, but it imposes significant demands on the firm. “We have to manage our staff closely and focus our resources on what the client values.... It gives you incentive to focus.”

Read Jim Hasslett's Commentary here:
http://adverselling.typepad.com/how_law_firms_sell/2009/05/alternative-fees-part-12-whats-different-for-big-law.html

Steve Bell

How many law firms are really making changes to reflect the new reality?

Wonder how many in the legal profession have noticed that as of September 2008, the world is totally different than it was only a few months ago. How many law firms are really making changes to reflect the new reality?

In recent days, we have responded to two enormous RFPs with striking and novel alternative fee and alternative service approaches that are in tune with some of the premises of the Association of Corporate Counsel’s Value Challenge. Having listened closely over the last three or more years to the concerns of inside counsel like FMC’s Jeff Carr, Wal-Mart’s Miguel Rivera, and Clorox’s Laura Stein (not to mention sourcing professionals and nonlawyer buyers of legal services) we have redirected our approach to RFP responses to create alignment with buyers’ definition of value. Obviously, the baseline for us is providing high quality legal services; without that, we are nowhere. But now, after three or more years of continual internal dialogue about what value means to clients, some of our lawyers who are in charge of large accounts are enacting changes.

In one recent instance in one of our markets where we have far fewer lawyers than other firms, we competed with 14 other large “name-brand” firms to be the sole (or nearly sole) law firm for a publicly traded company with a legal spend of approximately $7 million. Prior to preparing our submission, we invested an incredible amount of effort understanding why the company was issuing an RFP at all – where had the incumbents not delivered value, and what really is of value to the company going forward. We nailed it, and as a result we are one of four finalists and the only nonincumbent still at the table. In another response to an RFP for a large organization that is an existing client, we proposed to provide tens of thousands of hours of legal service for a fixed fee. The inside lawyers were stunned that a law firm has matched its actions with its words about value. Hopefully, we will win both of these big gambles, but win or lose, the market is noticing, which is a big part of the game.

The key in both instances is absorbing our share of the risk, not expecting inside counsel to manage our affairs, and taking responsibility for our own efficiency. In these two instances, at least, the themes of Value Challenge have gotten the attention of the folks paying the legal bills.