What Clients Want from Their Lawyers, Part 2
- Demeter, the patron saint of sales coaches? This Greek earth-goddess taught Triptolemus the secrets of agriculture, and he in turn taught them to the rest of us lesser beings.
It’s simple. Be practical and responsive.
At least, according to a panel of managing partners convened earlier this month in Boston. The occasion was the annual conference organized by the New England chapter of the Legal Marketing Association.
Why practical and responsive? The reason they offered was just as simple: It’s what clients’ customers expect from them.
It occurred to me that this is an extension of the wisdom imparted by Laura Meherg — namely, that clients tend to want lawyers who can:
- Fix their problems.
- Make their lives easier.
- And, are nice to work with.
The challenge is how to best convey practical and responsive to your clients and prospects, short of demonstrating it. In other words, how can your marketing content reflect these abstractions.
Consider case studies. Here are a couple of real-world examples:
- A major engineering company brought John into a case after being hit with a variety of commercial and IP claims by an oil and gas equipment company in Texas. “My strategy was to aggressively develop evidence before I even asked for documents. So, I examined a key executive who had all of the information and was driving the dispute…before my opponent’s defenses were in place.” As a result, John got damaging admissions into the record early, changing the risk calculus for both sides and setting up a favorable settlement.
- When a competitor sued a global manufacturing company with a patent infringement claim, John suspected that there was another, more deadly scenario in store for his client. “My sense was that my opponent was leveraging the patent infringement claim in an attempt to get information to support a trade secret claim and get an injunction against my client. If successful, this could effectively shut down my client.” John developed a strategy based on what was best for his client in the long-term by admitting the patent infringement claims and, thereby, initially denying the competing company the ability to assert the more damaging trade secret claim and quickly enjoin his client.
Well, what do you think?
