After reading Heather’s great post, I decided I should respond since I have an interesting perspective. You see, I have worked on the inside of law firms buying software as well as on the outside selling software to them. There is a consistent theme I have seen at hundreds of law firms where I have been sitting at the big-decision, conference room table:

“That thing might mess up our XYZ system. No way are we going to combine the two.”

The CIO says it. The VP of HR says it. The Marketing Director says it. And, heaven knows, the finance department? Fugeddaboutit. All are concerned about the same thing: if my software system blows up, I will be out on the street before lunch.

Each department has its own budget, power base, information control and collective a** to cover. Finance gets the bills out to clients. HR keeps track of past and present employees. IT keeps the emails flowing and the documents able to be found. Marketing needs to find relationships and execute on the firm’s growth strategy.

When it comes right down to it, all software systems should be designed to address one or more of the following goals:

  1. Make more money (measured in profits per partner)
  2. Keep existing clients happy (increase realization and retention)
  3. Beat the other firm down the street (gain a competitive advantage)

Frankly, some software companies take advantage of this segregated decision tree by targeting departments and offering tactical tools to make their functional jobs easier. I suggest that all firms take a holistic approach to software selection by including the same partners who are the designated champions of the strategic plan. They have the most at stake, and they should help make decisions based on achieving the aforementioned three big goals. The department heads are better suited as functional experts to give advice.

A strategic software approach will allow you to target alumni who are now general counsel at current clients who you charged less than $100,000 last year in a particular industry. To do so, you need financial, HR, CRM and external data sources to work together. You own most of this data, and now you need to put it to work.

So, demand that your vendors offer total solutions to your firm’s big three goals. Assemble line partners to participate in selection. And, demand that your vendors get in front of such partners, with expert guidance from administrative department chiefs, to make their case from a strategic, not tactical, point of view.

That was the challenge posed by Charles A. James, General Counsel of Chevron, Inc. in his keynote address at last week’s LegalTech conference here in L.A.

Mr. James’ comments were directed at software that is not compatible, yet marketed to legal departments (and I would presume law firms as well).

I’d like to echo those remarks here.

Why is it that, when it comes to law firm technology, our administrative departments (marketing/business development, HR, finance, IT/systems) are not coordinating? And, in many of the firms, are competing against one another.

I understand that there are a finite amount of resources, from dollars to people, but rather than work together as a team, prioritizing projects, we all seem to work independently, jockeying for the attention of the managing partner or CEO to green light our project at the expense of someone else’s.

  • LMA’s technology vendors are limited to marketing software, CRM, web designers and the like.
  • At last week’s LegalTech there were no marketing/CRM, HR or finance vendors?

However, I saw a pretty sweet case/matter product there that could solve one of marketing’s biggest headaches – the RFP and all those pesky little questions they ask. This product was a calendaring system, document management system and a pretty sweet case/matter tracking system – all in one. Wow. Something we can all get behind!

I’m now motivated to get to ALA’s national conference to see what they have to offer.

Which raises the question: Why is it that there is not one place where all the vendors come together? Why can we not have a legal technology conference that targets all of us: marketers, business developers, HR, Finance, IT/systems?

Oh, and let’s not forget about the lawyers.


Starbucks has a community Web site that looks a lot like the future direction of all corporate (and legal) Web sites. Though it gets criticism for being too unfocused, “a slush pile for customer generated ideas,” they are definitely taking the best that Web 2.0 has to offer seriously and trying to build buzz around their offerings.

But, the real news is that there is an unofficial Starbucks site, Starbucks V2, which is a networking site that promotes volunteerism with customers and employees. It can only be accessed by invitation, so you can’t see what’s going on, but you can get an idea from their landing page. www.v2v.net/starbucks. According to John Moore, Brand Autopsy Blog, on Starbucks V2 participants have profile pages, which makes the V2 more personal than the official Starbucks community site, and on V2 you can post a cause, event or activity and have others join you. It’s very community focused and very international. It actually began in Brazil. Starbucks also has an alumni site on the drawing board. And it will probably be successful as they have evidence that their constituency is already active in online communities. And that is the rub when considering 2.0 for your law firm. Law firms and their constituencies may not be the most forward thinking when jumping into new technology, (e.g. Web 2.0) but perhaps they should not be too quick to write it off either.

I have found a number of corporate sponsored philanthropic communities online in recent months. (Yokohama (the tire company) sponsors a site ecotreadsetters.com that is an environmentally focused site.) Typically law firms are very generous with their contributions and non-profit involvement as it is viewed as marketing and public relations tactics in many cases. So, this “for a cause” approach to Web 2.0 may be a valid entry point for law firms to experiment, draw in new friends and maybe drive some new business. The cost of entry is not all that expensive, but there are a few things that need to be in place to make it successful. You need to ascertain that your audience (or some of it) is participating in the social web to some degree. You need to set realistic expectations and invest accordingly. You need to care for it and nurture it. Online communities are not just build it and they will come sort of tools.

What do you think? I think an online community with a cause could differentiate your firm, build search engine attention, and oh, yes, build a community of support around your favorite cause or non-profit causing it to raise its profile and funding.

Have you or your law firm considered an online community in your charitable program? Do you know of any? Do you participate in an online community that has a charitable focus?

Several years ago the trend in law firm circles was to promote the executive functions at law firms — marketing, administration, IT, HR, finance, etc. – from director to chief. According to Korn/Ferry’s Michael DeCosta:

Moving from a director to chief title typically suggests a move, albeit subtle, from a tactical to a more strategic approach to a function — and almost always, with the title change comes increased responsibilities. In some circumstances, the title is irrelevant in terms of scope of duties. Either way, one can anticipate expectations around your performance and contribution to notch up with the new title.

Yet, the “value” of the title is being weakened by the new trend of presenting C-level titles to tactical, non-strategic employees in law firms, as DeCosta references in his article: chief receptionist officer, chief of business continuity, chief of client excellence and chief ambassador.

These roles are important in the firm, but they do not rise to the level of senior, strategic or executive.

In the flat business structure of law firms, titles, size and location of offices speak volumes to lawyers. A CMO with an internal office will not be perceived as highly, by the lawyers, as a director with a partner office and a view.

According to Wharton management professor Sarah Kaplan, a chief title should:

“signal the importance of that particular issue to the corporation. So you have a chief diversity officer because the company realizes that diversity is an important initiative. And the way to signal that is to create a C-level job to implement it.” In addition, “it might also be signaling that the job is more than just an operational one, that there is something about it that is strategic.”

The trouble is, when everyone has a title that evokes importance and strategy, how do you differentiate between those who really are important and strategic, versus those who are tactical and administrative? Where will you find a conference room table big enough for all the chiefs to gather? What will you call the chief of the chiefs?

He [Chris Matthews, Orrick’s newly appointed Chief Marketing Strategy and Business Development Officer] will lead our talented senior staff of Jolie Goldstein, Chief Client Relations Officer, John Hodder, Chief Marketing Officer, and Allan Whitescarver, Chief Communications Officer, and their teams in executing an integrated approach to supporting the firm and our partners.”

I’ve blogged here and here about the importance of avoiding career redundancy and remaining relevant, tough economic times or not. Whether on LinkedIn, at The Legal Watercooler, or the exhibit hall floor of Legal Tech, I have been asking many of you “What are you doing to avoid career redundancy?”

For me it comes down to a few key points. I MUST:

Understand my clients’ business, and their clients.
My “clients” are the in-house lawyers at my firm. I need to know how the economy, the news, legal trends, and, yes, legal gossip affects them, their business and their clients. In addition, I need to know the same for their clients, as this impacts how my lawyers remain relevant to their clients.

Know the latest in technology.
I need to be able to recommend new or different technology solutions. If I am not staying open and current to the new products on the market, how can I make thoughtful recommendations to my attorneys? I want to implement blogging at my firm, so I started a blog so that I could learn and speak from a position of knowledge.

Be perceived as a thought leader and as a professional.
My relationship with my attorneys must begin with respect. I might not be a lawyer, but I know the business of law and how my attorneys practice law. I am knowledgeable about what keeps them awake at 3:00 a.m. My conversations with them center on the business of law, the economy, politics, marketing and business development. I dress professionally at work, every day. Even on Fridays.

Be open to learning more, even if I have to pay for it.
Most firms will pay for a reasonable amount of continuing education. I make it part of my compensation package, and I actually attend the conferences/lunch programs.

Right now I am investigating GWU’s Master of Professional Studies in Law Firm Management. The program falls outside the scope of what I currently do, but it would provide me with a higher level of understanding as to the business side of a law firm. If I decide to do it, it will be on my dime, but I’ll negotiate the time.

Pull away from my day and show up for my continuing education.
We are all busy. But whether or not my firm pays for me to attend a conference/lunch program, or underwrites my time, it is my responsibility to find the time and show up. Period. No excuses. While on maternity leave at a prior firm, I attended the Marketing Partner’s Forum, newborn and all.

And, here’s why:
At the Legal Tech show in Los Angeles today I was one of only a few legal marketers listening to Charles James, the GC of Chevron talk about his relationships with his law firms. Looking around the room, I believe I was the only in-house legal marketer there, although I did recognize a few consultants. I now know Chevron’s legal department budget, legal spend for outside counsel, what percentage of cases goes to the primary law firms (and how many there are). I know how many law firms they use all together. I also know how his department functions across the country, and how they came together. I know his marching orders from his CEO when he first took the job. I even know what type of motorcycle he rides.

I know what is keeping Charles James awake at 3:00 a.m.

It was well worth the hour of my time.

On the Legal Marketing Association’s listserv there is chatter as to whether or not a business development program is eligible for CLE credits.

On his Lawmarketing.com listserv Larry Bodine began a thread with “Law Firm Marketing’s Academic coming of age,” referencing the launching of a graduate seminar in professional services public relations by Kent State University in Ohio.

Then, this morning, I read the Altman Weil summary of their 2008 Chief Legal Officer survey where 49% of those surveyed are planning on increasing their in-house staff, and decreasing their use of outside counsel.

All three of these issues would seem to point the way towards the acceptance by lawyers (and the state bar associations) that in addition to being really smart attorneys and understanding the application of the law where their clients are concerned, they also need to embrace legal marketing, business development, communications and PR in their efforts to remain relevant with their clients.

And while receiving validation from higher education that what we do has merit is nice, and offering CLE credits to attorneys will get more of them to show up at business development programs, I question how any of this aids a lawyer in becoming a rainmaker or more business development savvy.

When I offer business development and marketing programs for attorneys there is no CLE credit provided, but I do serve great food and the rooms are usually full. Looking around the room, I am more concerned at who did not show up as opposed to who is there. I can always count on those who make rain, and those they shower upon, to be there. They are self-motivated. For everyone else, if there are no CLE credits attached it’s a waste of their time. They could be billing on a matter for a client someone else brought in the door. If in the rooms, these are the same people who will be on their Blackberry or marking up a document, but never listening or paying attention to the speaker … but they’re getting CLE credits!

How short sighted of them, and of us. Rainmakers cannot be developed with CLE credits alone. There has to be a measure of self-motivation that we can then develop.

I very much agree that lawyers must value what we do in order for us to be successful and to assist them in being successful. I also believe that lawyers need to be taught the elements of business, including business development and marketing. I also believe that we should reward them with a number, including CLE credits … if that’s what it takes.

However, until law schools change their curriculum to include professional services marketing courses, and state bar associations recognize that the fundamentals of business administration are as necessary to the practice of law as understanding recent case law and legislation, it will remain up to individual attorneys to take responsibility for their personal and professional development, no matter what type of incentives we provide. After all, the L in CLE is for legal.

Those were the words that became the mantra of Paul Tagliabue, former commissioner of the National Football League. He now serves as senior counsel at Covington and Burling, but he recently addressed a large audience at the 20th Annual GC Conference. His message? Get used to, and comfortable with, the changes coming to the profession. You can read the full recap online at American Lawyer.

Paul is a reformed member of the bar. Reformed in the sense that he welcomes conflict, risk, and innovation. He also is a believer in conducting preventive “medicine” for a business or law firm instead of rushing it to the ER (stat! Get me an CBC, Chem7 and an IV of D5W with ringers!) when things, that many outside the industry could have predicted, go terribly wrong.


Joining the news of U.S. law firm layoffs that seem to mesmerize us all, I read today how UK firm Howard Kennedy has launched a redundancy campaign within their firm, and they are not alone.

Howard Kennedy has launched a redundancy consultation that could affect up to 20 fee earners.

The 30-day consultation was kicked off yesterday (19 June) and will see up to 20 fee earners involved in the process alongside as many as 30 further staff in support roles.

(Skip)

Howard Kennedy joins firms including McGrigors, Bevan Brittan, Halliwells, Challinors and TLT in announcing redundancy consultations in recent weeks.

I have to tip my hat to Howard Kennedy. By getting in front of the news, they are better able to control their message. They will be able to avoid the “law firm layoff” headlines that have plagued U.S. firms like Sonnenschein, Heller Ehrman and Dechert.

On our side of the pond, there never appears to be a shortage of firms, in any key marketplace, hiring senior marketing professionals. I’ve never been concerned that if I were to lose my job today that I wouldn’t be able to line up several interviews within a week. I’m not certain if that is true today. I know of several firms that are in hiring freezes for most marketing positions; firms are making due with what staff they have.

While my firm is increasing our marketing and business development spend, many firms are shutting down their budgets for the year. Maybe it was the $5.07 for premium gas I passed yesterday at Olympic & Grand, but I have been obsessively wondering what would happen if I too was determined to be redundant in these economic times? What can I do today to increase my value, and strengthen my position, within my firm? Do I have updated contact information for Bill Crooks, Sally Schmidt and Jennifer Johnson?

So Coolerites, what are you going to do today to avoid being seen as redundant?

I was reading Bernard Goldberg’s OpEd piece in the WSJ remembering Tim Russert where he quotes from Russert:

I am for having women in the newsroom and minorities in the newsroom — I’m all for it. It opens up our eyes and gives us different perspectives. But just as well, let’s have people with military experience; let’s have people from all walks of life, people from the top-echelon schools but also people from junior colleges and the so-called middling schools — that’s the pageantry of America . . . You need cultural diversity, you need ideological diversity. You need it.

While Goldberg is focused on media bias in the newsroom, his points resonated with me on so many different levels and I began to ponder how we, as legal professionals, view law firm diversity programs.

At the start, what do we mean by diversity and what are we trying to accomplish? Are we looking to mix up the photos on our websites, increase our stats for an RFP, and perhaps win an award or two? Or are we trying to infuse different perspectives and ideas into how we and our firms view a client’s problems, issues or challenges?

One of the newer trends I am seeing come from our industry (law firms, bar associates and industry groups, etc) is to participate in programs that increase the pipeline of minority students who will eventually attend law schools, thereby increasing the minority candidates to recruit.

This is a great beginning. But, where do we go from there? Will all of those students end up at Harvard, USC or University of Chicago? What about the kids who end up going to 2nd Tier schools like Southwestern, McGeorge or Howard University? How many AmLaw 100 firms have tables set up there?

The question I have is: will we continue to limit our recruitment efforts to the Ivy Leagues and other top tier schools, or will we open it up to the middling schools?

I want to be extremely clear: I’m not saying don’t actively recruit women and minorities. I applaud those efforts. I’m just saying we should not close our eyes to the economic, cultural and ideological diversity that exists as well. At the end of the day, diversity is more than just a color, it’s the way our varying and diverse life experiences, beliefs, attitudes and opinions come together to create a masterpiece.

A recent article in the Washington Post, Why We’re Gloomier Than The Economy, addressed the interesting phenomenon where perceptions of a slow down in the economy are much greater than reality. While consumer confidence is at 30 year lows, the traditional metrics used to measure misery are not in the basement. In fact, they are at mere fractions of what they were in 1979, 1991 and 2001.

I have been running into this recently at a number of law firms I have been visiting. In fact, back in March, I actually had an AmLaw 50 firm ask for a pricing discount on a contract due to "the economy". I guess looking down at your shoes glumly while walking the marble floored halls of your Park Avenue law firm can be depressing.

I am not buying it. It is just another excuse for inaction and preservation of the status quo that is rampant in many risk averse law firms.

There have been changes in the level of business to be sure. In fact, some people are complaining that the typical counter cyclical practices like bankruptcy and litigation are not picking up like they usually do. Well, news flash folks, the leaders in these areas are doing just fine. Which ones? Hmmm, maybe the ones that have invested in their brand, people, client service initiatives and infrastructure during the boom years.

Look how smart you marketing people are.

Those firms that have not done the things I mentioned above are going to find this next two years a bit rough. It is not that many of them will go out of business from lack of work. However, they may lose a number of key partners who defect to the forward thinking firms that continue to grow profits per partner (PPP) in a downturn. THAT might knock them out of business.

In a world characterized by access to anything you want to buy via the Internet, instant answers on Google and endless supply of viable choices for legal expertise, choosing to do things the way you always have is just not a rational option. Taking a break when it is tough is not an option. And, using a "slowdown" as a reason for pulling back instead of grabbing market share is shortsighted (to put it nicely) from firms still boasting a PPP that would make their own mother’s blush.