For what is too long of a story to tell here, my father does not have a picture of his mother. I realized earlier this year that I am partially to blame for that and I went on a mission to find a picture of this woman who has been dead for 30 years. I knew it would most likely be impossible, but I decided to give it my best shot. My grandmother had no siblings and my father was an only child. My grandparents had divorced when my dad was very young, and my grandmother’s second husband died more than 20 years ago.

But I was determined to not let the seemingly impossible hold me back.

Against the odds I started taking actions. I checked the historical archives to see if there was a photo of her in an old high school year book. Nothing. She was an actress in the 40s, so I called SAG. They couldn’t find anything. I started calling some of my dad’s cousins to see if there might be a photo of her in their family albums. Still no luck. I called others whom I didn’t even realize were still alive. Still nothing. But, I didn’t stop trying. I kept putting it out there. And then I got back to work.

So what does this have to do with the business law?

We so often focus on the “low hanging fruit” that we ignore or put off the seemingly impossible.

How often we are confronted with the challenge of a partner whose practice has dried up? Or a firm culture or compensation system that doesn’t support cross-selling? I know I’m not the only one who has received an RFP request on a Friday night that’s due on Monday.

In many ways this links back to Liz Pava’s article and my CMOs – Tactical v. Strategy post from last week. I hear the complaints from marketers about our job being too tactical and not focused enough on strategy. But, rather than move forward, acting as if we had a seat at the table, we update our resumes and move on for “a better opportunity.”

On Friday afternoon our managing partner sent me an e-mail about ALM’s Best Litigation Boutique. He wants to go for it. Ugh. I took one look at the questionnaire and thought: We’ll never pull this together by September 1st. We don’t have the data at our fingertips. Half the partners will be on vacation at some point over the next three weeks. What about my vacation? This is impossible. I can’t do it. Why even try?

Why try indeed. Because. If we do not try to accomplish the seemingly impossible we are guaranteed to accomplish nothing.

So, I’ve printed out The Best Litigation Boutique Questionnaire. I’ve sent an e-mail out to the litigation attorneys. I’ve met with the managing partner. I’ve got a plan. I’m going to take this challenge straight on. I don’t know how complete our submission will be. While we might not win ALM’s Best Litigation Boutique for 2008, it won’t be because we didn’t give it our best shot.

As for my grandmother. Some cousin I didn’t even know we had in Charlotte, SC sent along a batch of photos on Friday. Tucked in amongst the pictures of my dad as a kid was one of my grandmother, Darl (on left) with my great-aunt Alice.

The seemingly impossible was indeed accomplished.

I’ve had a couple incidents over the past few weeks that really got me thinking about client service, how we approach people, how we sell ourselves and our services.

First impressions count.
What I learned from the Facebook/high school incident is how first impressions, even 25 years later, count. The photo on my profile, the pictures in my album, the posts I write, the connections in my LinkedIn, all of this gives you an impression of who I am without ever having to meet me.

Bill Flannery and I were talking about this yesterday and he pointed me to some great articles. One in particular really stood out by Malcolm Gladwell which goes into detail about how we make snap judgments, well, in a snap.

A person watching a two-second silent video clip of a teacher he has never met will reach conclusions about how good that teacher is that are very similar to those of a student who sits in the teacher’s class for an entire semester.

p. 70, The New Yorker, May 29, 2000

What judgments can be made about you in 2-seconds? Will your client see or read what you want them to? You have control over much of this information. How much time and effort are you putting into you?

Stalking is never attractive.
You will never bully me into buying your product or services. I recently returned to the office after a holiday weekend to find I had over 600 missed calls. Seems I made the error in judgment of donating to a political campaign. So, in addition to the 600 calls, I’m now getting 1 to 2 mail solicitations a day. Ugh. Enough already. No more money for you!

Are you stalking your clients or prospects?

If they’re not returning your calls or acknowledging your e-mails, they might not be that into you. Take a look at your recent actions. Are you providing value in your interactions with them, or are you calling to see what they can GIVE you? What are you doing to make sure your calls get answered, your voicemails returned, and your e-mails are opened? Next time you call, have something of value to give them. You’ll be amazed at what you’ll take away.

Don’t diss me.
Please don’t try to impress me by ripping apart my website, brochure, practice description, SEO results or disclaimer. Oh, and if you do, don’t do it publicly. I really don’t like that. Enough said.

Give me a sample.
If you really want me to hire you, give me a sample of what you have to offer. I might not hire you today. I might not hire you at my current firm. But, some how, some day and in some way, I will repay the favor.

On your website, give me some tools that I can use. Fishman Marketing and Kohn Communications do this so well. Kohn Communications is doing some work for me right now, and someday, I will get a chance to hire Ross Fishman and his team. In the meantime, I am grateful for the resources that they supply. And, while I’m at it, thanks to Jayne Navarre for going over the fine art of SEO with me yesterday. I still don’t want to HAVE to understand it, but I have a whole new vocabulary. Thanks, Jayne.

What resources are you providing on your website or through your blog? Are you only providing recaps of all of your awards and press recognitions you have received? Or are you writing detailed analysis of how current events, business trends, pending litigation or court decisions will affect your clients and their business?

Treat me right and I’ll keep you top of mind.
At the end of the day it’s about how we are treated. I might not be in a position to purchase your product or service today, but I’ll remember you when I can. In the meantime, I want you to be a resourse I can call when I need help. And I promise I’ll do the same for you. That’s how you will be and stay top of mind with me.

The marketing umbrella is broad, providing shelter to a diverse group of functions, including: PR, business development, competitive research and analysis, strategic planning, client services, not to mention MarComm, and the list goes on. Throw into the mix some new technology, a new managing partner, offices in 8 different time zones, a merger (or lay-offs), budget constraints, diverging departmental needs and not enough resources, and that’s a day in the life of the law firm CMO.
And yet, every law firm I know of is challenged by the role of the CMO and how best to balance the tactical v. strategic aspects of the job. The turnover continues, at a loss to not only the firm’s finances, but to its overall culture. Not to mention the toll on the the marketing department and personnel. Oh, and did I mention the client?

As a provoker of conversation, I’d like to bring to our collective attention Liz Pava’s article that was posted in today’s Law.com Newswire, How to Get the Most From Today’s CMO.

I thought the article was superb in framing the law firm culture/dynamic, along with the challenges faced by CMOs. Liz rightly points out that firms need to strike the balance between the functionality of the CMOs position, and the strategic leader he or she needs to be:

“The more clearly firms can articulate the balance in the CMO role between 1) head of an administrative/support function, and 2) strategic adviser helping to frame and then direct execution of growth strategies through the marketing department and its resources, the more likely the firm will align the right skill sets to the job and benefit accordingly.”

There’s a lot in the article, and I encourage everyone to read it through, but I wanted more at the end than what follows:

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

“The current war for and high cost of CMO talent, in conjunction with an increasingly challenging marketplace, is driving law firms to rethink what they need, and can get, from CMOs and other resources to help them succeed. New approaches are in the works. For example, firms have tapped director-level marketers to take on more “builder” and “steward” operations to free up the CMO for additional strategy work. And new, nonpartner positions for director of strategic planning and chief marketing strategy and business development officer are being created, with Cravath and Orrick two recent examples, respectively.

“There is no one right job description, title, reporting structure or pay scale for today’s law firm’s head marketer. What matters most is that the responsibilities for the various elements in the marketing mix are aligned with authority, all are clear as to who in the firm is accountable for what, and the structure facilitates forward movement as defined and measured by the particular firm.”

What are the possible solutions?? And, what can we do to move the ball forward on this today? While Cravath and Orrick are going the way of freeing up the CMO to focus on strategy, Drinker Biddle and Buchanan Ingersoll are doing the opposite, foregoing a CMO (at this time).

So Coolerites, what does happen next? How do we influence up, provoke change, or nudge our firms to that sweet spot of distinguishing between the task/operations function of the CMO, and the strategic advisor? I have heard from several firms that are just plain tired of the turn-over of their CMOs to the point that they just don’t know what to do next. So, what can we do to increase the tenure of CMOs? How can we participate in the conversation of solutions?

(cross posted, in part, at the Legal Marketing Association Listserv)

On a daily basis, I continue to uncover, discover and appreciate all the benefits of e-communication.

I started the Legal Watercooler for two main reasons: 1) to provoke conversations that I just don’t see happening anywhere else in the blogosphere, but I know we’re all having off-line; and, 2) to understand how blogging works so I can walk my attorneys through it later this year. All it took was a little encouragement from Jayne Navarre and a really slow day to get this started.
What I didn’t expect would be the strange feeling that somebody’s watching me. A lot of my musings are just my thoughts, which are now broadcast out to God only knows who. It’s bizarre to bump into someone at an event, or answer the phone, and realize that you’re picking up a conversation in the middle, because they already know what you’re thinking.

But, it’s not just the blog. It’s rolled over to LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Legal OnRamp and my newest social network, Triiibes. These networks are all coming together seamlessly and providing the “plan” for my personal marketing endeavors. These on-line tools are providing me the means for my “know, like, trust” model.

So, not knowing who is watching me keeps me on my toes. And while my my Facebook and Twitter are personal, I keep them professional. This is a place where my business contacts can get a more holistic view of who I am. No “mom’s gone wild” here (sorry). I can never let down my guard so far that I forget that someone I work with, someone who might hire me, someone who might refer me to something beneficial has easy access to this information.

At the same time, I cannot censor myself to the point that I paint a false portrait of who I am, or am not true to what I believe.

And, while I begin adding my personal friends and family to my social networking, I now need to keep in mind that they will be exposed to my professional colleagues, and vice versa. When I update the photos in my Facebook or play some silly game, I think about my professional colleagues. When I post a Twitter update or a question on LinkedIn, I keep in mind, my professional colleagues. When I accept a new friend I keep in mind everyone.

This became crystal clear to me when I received a Facebook invite over the weekend from someone I went to high school with. Ugh. Does anyone really want to get an e-mail from some random guy from high school? Nevertheless, I took a look at this guy’s personal profile. Who knows? Maybe he’s now mature and a professional, career focused guy who would make a great addition to the conversation. Let’s just say I immediately deleted the invite to be friends. It was wrong in sooooo many ways.

Larry Bodine wondered out loud this morning on his Law Marketing listserv if a new website, www.WhoCanISue.com is the worst idea ever. The discussion focused on whether or not this type of advertising gives the profession a bad name.

On the “lawyers acting badly” scale, I’d argue that a lawyer taking a summer associate to a strip club after hours, a senior partner under indictment for wiretapping, or lawyers bribing judges are what gives the profession a bad name, rather than these folks.

We are so quick to view legal advertising and marketing campaigns through our own experiences, which, for the most part, come from corporate law America. You know. The folks who bring us legal books, globes, city skylines, drops of water, and smiling attorneys for inspiration. (My firm’s site is the legal books, by the way).

So, is this the most “offensive” advertisement out there? I’ve seen worse:

  • There’s the Top Gun DUI defense attorney here in L.A., tagline of “Friends don’t let friends plead guilty.”
  • Larry H. Parker might have gotten the guy $2.1 million, but he kept failing to show that the guy was in a wheelchair.
  • And, one of my favorites: “Life’s short, get a divorce.”

While these ads make me cringe, the names of the firms and the service they are selling stick in my head. Which is the point.

Seth Grodin, marketing guru, recently posted the following thoughts:

It’s not something you think about very often, is it? (Not my tooth, your tooth).

When you have a toothache, on the other hand, it’s all you think about.This is a double-edged sword for dentists. On one hand, dentists have no trouble whatsoever getting business from people with toothaches. They hardly have to try. Just show up, I’ll find you. On the other hand, when my teeth don’t hurt, you’re invisible. No amount of signs, service and wonderful marketing is going to get me to pay you to drill my teeth when they don’t hurt.

There are two challenges for toothache marketers (dentists and non-dentists alike). 1. Figure out a cost-effective way to be there. A way to gently be in my face so that when my toothache shows up (in whatever form that takes) you’re the obvious choice.2. Create new products and services that build engagement and possibly revenue among members of the population that aren’t in pain. That, of course, is why teeth whitening services are so smart. You can sell to people who didn’t know they had a problem until they met you.The worst thing you can do is get frustrated when the population (which is very different from the market) ignores you. I’m not in your target market until my teeth hurt, right?

PS: No, this isn’t a marketing post for dentists. There are toothache marketers in just about every industry. Realizing it is the first step to dealing with it.

—————

You may be thinking, how does this relate to the practice of law? It’s actually relevant to any business. It’s about marketing when you don’t need the business, reaching out to cleints even if you are not currently working with them, sending a thank you note or birthday gift and most importantly, creating value. While your clients may not always need your advice, you want to stay in touch with them so when they do need you, such as when they have a tooth ache, your firm is the first place they will turn.

While so much of the gossipsphere is devoted to the Cadwalader layoffs, I can’t help but be mesmerized by what’s going on over at Akin Gump.

We keep hearing about groups of partners leaving; Twenty-one in the past month alone. And now this article comes to us from the Legal Times: “Akin Gump Restructuring to Increase Profits.” I’ve pulled a few quotes to make my point:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld‘s chairman says that while some recent partner departures have been unexpected, the firm is committed to a restructuring plan aimed at increasing profits and giving its New York office more clout in deciding the firm’s direction.

The changes haven’t sat well with everyone. Over the past month at least 21 partners have departed or said they will leave.

(skip)

The changes at Akin Gump are part of a drive to increase profitability. The firm was 29th on this year’s Am Law 100, reporting firmwide gross revenue of $752.5 million — a 3.5 percent increase from last year. But profits per partner fell, dropping nearly 7 percent to slightly more than $1.2 million. That puts it below many players in the key New York market, including players like Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe ($1.66 million) and White & Case ($1.67 million). Increasing that number would make it easier for the firm to attract laterals and keep talent there.

(Emphasis added)

My comments below are to be taken generically as Akin Gump is not the first firm to adopt this strategy of transitioning power and profits to a New York-focused model. My points are:

  • Does this strategy benefit the client? Or is it being driven solely by the need to increase revenue and PPEP?
  • At what price are firms willing to pay for the benefits of implementing this type of strategy?
  • How willing are these firms to lose long-term partners and clients for the sake of this strategy?
  • While this strategy will “attract laterals and keep talent” in New York, what about the other offices? Can they sustain the hourly rates necessary to hit these numbers?
  • Is this strategy sustainable over time?
  • As a GC or CLO, how happy would your board be to read the headline: “(Insert name of your firm) Restructuring to Increase Profits.”

Look, we’re in business to make money, otherwise we’d all be working for a non-profit somewhere and traveling via public transportation (I’m in L.A.). My concern is that the “product” of our business is a service. Legal Services. I just find in this ever more addictive pursuit of the AmLaw 100 ranking of your choice, we are losing sight of the client and of the service.

After I posted The AmLaw 100 is Crack for Attorneys I received the following comment from an in-house counsel:

I’d like to see just one law firm merger justified on the basis of a reduction in costs to the clients — as opposed to increased hourly rates and hubris-induced rapture from climbing the Amlaw 100 ladder.

I’d also like to see the same for a law firm strategy.

If you haven’t heard, a 5.4 earthquake struck Southern California today just before noon. If you were in the area, you probably tried to call out on your cell or landline and I’m guessing you also experienced congestion. In a disaster, immediate communication with loved ones is a top priority. Today’s quake rendered two-way speech based communication devices (outside of CB radios and Walkie Talkies) a waste of time. The tech savvy instead opted for text based communications including Facebook, Instant Messages (IM), text messages, email, and Twitter. These alternatives proved to be very valuable backup communication tools.

As a native Angelino, I know that after an earthquake hits the drill is to check in and report your status to your loved ones. When everyone I needed to call was within 50 miles of the epicenter, the drill quickly became tricky. Calls to family members from my cell and landline were highly unsuccessful. As I listened to repeated busy signals, it was clear my first response was failing and I required reinforcements.

That’s when I decided to broadcast my status on Facebook and share with others the facts I had collected – “…felt the earth move. That was a long one! 5.8 – Chino Hills.” Within minutes over 20 similar updates followed that friends and family were OK. Including “…shaken not stirred despite being on the 38th floor in downtown LA.” Another said “Thank god for twitter. Can’t get on cell phones. Wish all family and friends were on twitter.” Even our own resident “Pollyanna” reported that she was “…shaking and baking on the 47th floor.”

Next, my IMs began to pop up on my laptop screen. Before I knew it, I was typing away details with additional friends and family. Then the cell phone that was rendered useless for phone calls began to beep to alert me to new text messages, more good news. I continued to let my fingers do the talking and thankfully, within the hour, it was clear that everyone was fine. Even though it was in text form, the stories, updates, and insights made the whole experience less lonely. I’m glad to have availed myself to so many channels of communication because currently there is no one size fits all solution.

Today was a reminder that emergency communication needs to be quick and reliable. We may love our Blackberries, iPhones, landlines, wireless networks, and social networks but we can’t trust them 100%. When everyone reaches for the same default communication device, the resources of the network are bound to be strained. A variety of distribution channels are needed to broadcast our messages effectively, meaning we need backups to our backups.

If you have not yet explored the alternative quick, and inexpensive communication options that text based technology offers, I suggest that you make them a part of your family, personal, and company emergency preparedness response so that you are not left out of the loop when it matters most. Taking the time to audit and research the best solutions for your family, friends, and coworkers will provide valuable peace of mind in the future. Perhaps it is time to take Russell’s advice and become a follower.

Lastly, please let this be a wake up call and take time to review your disaster preparedness plan. For more information visit: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/preparedness.php

OK, tell me this isn’t just a perfect example of how lawyers must not be thinking (but ought to) about public relations while they do their jobs. Yesterday Legal Blog Watch reported on the dismay of an Alaskan artist whose “Got Breastmilk?” t-shirts and onesies promoted infant health, when she received a cease and desist order from the California Milk Processors Board’s law firm pointing out the potential infringement of the “Got Milk?” slogan.

The woman had sold six items. Couple of years ago. Lord only knows how the Board found out, maybe someone saw a t-shirt recently on a local street or beach. Maybe the lawyer took it as another opportunity to prove his value-add when, on sighting the shirt, he managed to find out who had manufactured it and how to contact that person. Seems like that must have taken a bit of effort, after all, two years had gone by since the original painted lettering of the clothing. Was the corollary information about the sales too much of a step to take? Was the principal of health promotion too difficult to see as a valid public interest? Was it too hard to get the joke?

Working in the interests of a client requires lawyers operate with a wide view of the world, without blinders. Every act of imitation has its own context. Is this a company deliberately stealing the intellectual property of the CMPB for its own profit and gain? Write the letter and pursue the claim. Is this a gentle parody for the sake of nursing an interest in healthy motherhood and babies? A thank you note would be appropriate.

Doesn’t take a lot of effort to imagine the public relations benefit of that.