By: Nina Cunningham, Ph.D., President

QUIDLIBET RESEARCH, INC.

The law firm today has many of the same challenges as other businesses—competitive forces, cost increases, security in its IT systems, and the like. In most thriving businesses, service and manufacturing alike, all aspects of operations are dedicated to putting out an end product. At the end of the year, costs have to be justified and the proverbial business development cost line shows up—often without much business to show for the expense. Today the pressure to justify costs is greater than ever.

Capable marketers want to know how to influence what services sell as well as to respond to the signals of the market for legal services. Business development should be included in the marketing budget with an explicit plan to evaluate these costs and schedule time to carry out the plans. This time would be excluded from billable hours.

The law firm convention is to transfer business development to the attorneys in a practice group and let them carry out projects on their own. But without budgeting, business development is not encouraged. Lawyers shy away from incurring business development expense and allocating time for these important efforts, because they cannot allocate billable hours. Perhaps this is too important an area to give to the lawyers alone, as they also are responsible for the product that goes to market. The product here, of course, is the unique legal work product. Put into a little more perspective, if a company that manufactured widgets depended for customers on its design engineers, the marketplace might never see these goods. The answer is to budget for the business development activity and provide the assistance and time to make it cost effective.

Increased competition among law firms, often for the same core business, along with the resistance of clients to billing for line-item costs with no visible benefit, forces firms to struggle, first, with creativity in pricing, and then again, with justifying costs. Creativity should be market directed if the firm is to grow in this highly pressured atmosphere. But to grow should mean an increase in revenues not an increase in the number of attorneys on the letterhead, even though this is the convention. The best firms are not those with the largest number of attorneys. They are firms which understand the market for legal services. They remain open to learning about the marketplace, regularly survey the needs of existing clients, gain new clients within that market, and create long-term clients through quality service. The best firms are dedicated to client retention.  They develop clients by anticipating needs and staying armed with resolutions to problems they uncover. Quality service and continuous assessment of client needs will generate loyalty.

All firms are interested in cost reduction. This is a topic for another discussion. Cost reduction exercises serve as one important incentive for change, but alone such exercises often cause firms to skimp on valuable resources in favor of penny-wise, but thoughtless, policies. Firms need to seek cost-effectiveness in operations and limit cost reduction to areas where clients will benefit. These are the areas in which clients receive bills for line-item charges, such as computerized legal research, overnight shipping, and record storage.

Every law firm can combine cost reduction and business development to focus on more and better client services. While management handles the evaluation of long-term vendor contracts, for example, individual practice groups can take charge of business development. Delivering legal services is the business of the firm. Attorneys can assess the competitive marketplace. That is how they learn. They also can understand that a client’s motivation rests on the value derived from the firm’s legal services and how well that firm justifies factors of cost and efficiency, or practice and procedure.

Among potentially cost-effective policies would be to separate and remove to the extent possible costs that do not contribute to client service from those activities that do.  Client service is rarely a wasted expense, although business development resources can easily be squandered.  Bringing in the firm librarian can reduce the time to discover resources and time to understand the practice.  Often practitioners, even in a well-functioning practice group, do not have the technical expertise to go after opportunities that are spelled out clearly in news items and resource pages.

Research and reference experience can go a long way to serve and rationalize business development activities. The librarian can coordinate the marketing function, serve as a liaison with the practice groups, and help analyze the market research results. To assist the librarian in performing the dual role, non-client directed library activities such as loose-leaf filing can be outsourced to an independent company that specializes in this work.

Business or client development actually begins with academic skills: research, observation, analogy, and organization. Librarians with these skills are invaluable to a law firm. Their capabilities can be attached to individual practice groups who, themselves, can work together to elect a representative to work with the librarian. The librarian thus becomes both reference professional and business development assistant.

One of the first barriers to business development is the lack of clear direction and formal budgeting. Another barrier is the fear of the line-item costs associated with the research. However, there is no greater reason for a firm to absorb additional costs than in seeking additional sources of revenue. This is particularly true if a client relationship is formed. Cost reduction in legal research should be a priority.  Often an outside expert can help here, with the savings in research expense far exceeding anything spent on an expert’s services.

Using conventional legal research tools, a firm that is in control of its legal research expense can substantially discount its own online legal research costs. Further, an effective reference librarian can use multiple resources that reduce or eliminate some of these costs altogether.

So where does a practice group begin? The first step is to select a practice group representative to work with the librarian. This can be anyone comfortable in the role. It can be a senior partner or a paralegal. The important knowledge this person should have is an understanding of the group’s current specialties and current clients. The most important personal qualities are commitment, persistence, and enthusiasm over information gathering.

An effective business development project should begin with a brief discussion or survey of current clients that meet particular criteria and end with a practice plan.  There should first be a plan for the group; then one for each individual lawyer. To improve the chances of implementation, these should be narrowly-focused short-term plans.  An example of a single entry might be:  Schedule a Wednesday dinner talk with the Rotary Club about the difference between conventional and Roth IRAs.

Practice plans can turn research into clear direction and direction into implementation. The on-line research costs attributable to business development can be reported periodically to the group. Each research task can be connected to a business development activity and the group can vote to pursue the client or not. This will help the group stay on track. They can use reported information to determine the effectiveness of its methods or test its ability to turn plans into practice. Assigning tasks to members of the practice groups according to interests and abilities often works. Some lawyers love to evaluate the research; others love to make contact by phone.

Step two is practice planning itself. In a large practice group spread across multiple offices, planning might be confined to attorneys specializing in the same type of work or serving the same type of clients. In an Intellectual Property group, for instance, trademark attorneys working on domain names and Internet security may direct their attention in a similar way. They might meet with the librarian to come up with a general list of client characteristics. They might indicate their personal preferences in contacting potential clients. Some may prefer to create a brochure, others to gather an interest group to give a lecture, others may be to network to find a luncheon date. These factors are important in the business development planning process and no method is superior to another. The more methods used, the better the penetration of the marketplace.

Firms often overlook their own client base as a resource for new business. Asking which of existing clients might be candidates for their services is an important client-centered device. Finding a number of potential clients would lead to contacting the client’s primary attorney and covering the subject of existing and, subsequently, prospective services. This also can foster collegiality, something missing in contemporary firms. The ability to serve one client with different practice groups is the reason lawyers formed larger firms in the first place.  It defines a firm and distinguishes it from a hotel for lawyers.

From this stage, a list may be generated of all external and internal candidates for additional services. It may only be three. But from this three, the librarian can compile a list of competitors and similar businesses, creating a potential client list for both the original practice group seeking to provide expertise in domain names and Internet security, and also for the attorneys with the internal client candidates.

Organized business development thus can generate a chain reaction. A librarian is in a position to organize the activity, quantify its results, and help the attorneys gain as much knowledge about the potential client as they wish to absorb. The representative of the practice group and the librarian can create a quarterly or annual report to the practice group to aid in creating practice group plans and individual business plans. Records of successful implementation, a prospect list, and an enrollment of one or two new clients can prove a vital aspect of justifying costs and reporting to the full partnership at the end of the year.

Law firms searching for new ways to provide quality, reduce costs

An article on Open Sourcing the law and discussing access to legal research tools, appeared in the June 30th issue of Forbes Magazine. It has caused quite a stir in the legal community and, after so many years of silence on the subject, it certainly should cause a stir. While not all resources are justifiably open sourced, certainly free access to public information is part of the meaning.

I have been helping law firms battle the high costs of electronic research services for more than 20 years. Our efforts include leveraging technology, eliminating duplication, renegotiating contracts, etc. 

It is clear that this new stir and the inquiries posed reflect a combined awareness of low-cost and high-quality sources of legal information and an unprecedented interest in cost reduction on the part of law firms.

Awareness comes in the wake of mounting costs and creative new pricing models from the primary commercial database competitors, affectionately nicknamed Wexis.  While the resource producers seek growth and profit, as do all companies, neither the costs nor the pricing models make sense with what we know about computers and information today. We know growth has been led by acquisition of other publishers and database producers.

At the same time, law firms and their clients are much more sophisticated and cost-conscious, finding or creating Wexis alternatives.  There are web-based tools and services that help control client costs. Regardless of how acceptable the convention of charging for line items has become, lawyers face resistance from their clients for this type of billing for legal research and often cannot collect.  

The information industry has changed a great deal in the past two years.  The attitude of law firms has shifted from fear of challenging the high costs of resource giants to recognizing that alternatives are available. Lawyers need not be held hostage by the benefits of one-stop shopping when customer satisfaction pays the bills.

I began a consulting practice after first creating a legal research brokerage service. This was almost thirty years ago. I was in a good position to learn how to use Lexis which, at the time, was the big innovator. With the advent of electronic publishing, West began to compete. In the early days they were considerably behind, publishing their proprietary headnotes before publishing full-text judicial opinions.

As a person in charge of negotiating research arrangements at many different firms, I quickly became aware of innovative pricing strategies. For most of this decade, I have been serving law firms as they struggle to understand their intricate contracts and pricing arrangements.  While an argument for free resources has existed for some time, aggregators and developers argue they should be paid for their creativity, much as happens in the entertainment industry. But in legal research there is choice, and the very same resources are available in multiple forms and formats, many of which are free of charge.

Old publishing houses with unique publications no longer make a difference.  Michie, Callahan, Clark-Boardman, and Prentice-Hall have all been taken over by Lexis or Westlaw.  Today, however, pricing is what matters.  And it is no longer clever or classy to buy up small private services to avoid competition. Lawyers themselves are raising the red flag.

Lawyers use Google as well or better than the average searcher, and many lawyers who work solo are on constant search for affordable resources.  Wexis still tries to justify its pricing, and their leaders continue to press profitable pricing models down to their sales organization. But customers are doing less to capitulate. They have become hostile to customization; customization just opens doors for Wexis to introduce novel pricing.  In some instances, they extract information from the law firms, only to charge them to feed it back in database format.  While they should be paid for their services, law firms now are finding their voices and resisting the outrageous. 

I am one of those building access to free resources, much as the lawyers have who started FastCase, discussed in Forbes. Their firm, Covington & Burling, was among the early firms to manage their legal research costs and they were forward looking in the efforts to reduce and control operating costs. Watch my website at www.quidlibet.com for more information on legal research cost reduction, propriety notes, and access to free resources from KeyCounsel.

In the meantime, take note of a primary cost reduction technique for your firm or library: Get Rid of Law Books. And here are the reasons why:

• While many lawyers love the feel of the real thing, sources of law now duplicate the online services and because of manual updates are far less reliable; 

• Many law books that line shelves and provide the important backdrop in TV commercials and movies with lawyers are filled with legal opinions handed down from federal and state courts which are free and in the public domain;

• Cases are compiled on a chronological basis and finding a case requires a legal citation. This means it requires other resources or online access;

• Print compilations of cases range in the $100 a volume level. Recognizing the litigiousness of our great people, the number of volumes produced a year has increased enormously;

• Maintenance of law books require manual labor; 

• Books require a great deal of shelf space, taking up valuable firm square footage;

• Costly staffing to maintain books is a misuse of the expertise of trained law librarians;

• A book off the shelf is not available to another user, and frequently cannot be found; 

• Most law books require subscription services to updates to remain current;

• No client value is served by creating catalogue records;

• In some areas, failure to file new additions means a hopelessly out-dated product that may create a malpractice issue.  

As an excellent source of a wide variety of resources, take a look at The Legal Information Institute (LII). Before exiting the site, don’t forget to click on Donate.

 © 2008 Nina Cunningham PhD., Quidlibet Research, Inc. All rights reserved.