Australian

A ‘Failure To Deselect’?

Read a fantastic rant by Barrie Seppings – Director of Creative Strategy at wordsearch, the world’s leading marketing network for architecture, property and real estate – on the Firebrand Ideas Ignition Blog yesterday titled “Copywriters: What the %$@#* are you saying?“.

Barrie’s post get my approval merely for quoting Don Watson, Paul Keating’s former speechwriter, brilliant book Death Sentence – and if you have ever written a tender and not read Don’s book, please do!

Anyhow in his post Barrie makes mention to something I had not heard of before and which he terms a ‘Failure to deselect‘, being:

“… a fear that unless we say every single thing we can possibly say about a brand or product, we therefore fail to communicate the full range of the brand’s attributes. And we therefore fail as marketers. So, to avoid failure, we use all of our words to try and say all of the things.”

Now, swap out ‘brand or product‘ and ‘marketer‘ and replace it with ‘law or regulation‘ and ‘lawyer‘ and does this sound familiar to you?

It certainly did to me. And in this time of ‘doing more for less‘ in law, it got me to thinking: are we actually suffering from a ‘failure to deselect’?

3 ways you can grow your book of business today

It’s very much been a story of doom and gloom in the Australian legal marketplace of late. Demand is down. The Aussie Dollar has fallen through the floor and seems to keep going. It’s nightmare and has been for some time.

As someone who advises law firms on business growth strategies, all this doom and gloom can be down right depressing. If, that is, you let it.

As for me, I prefer to talk things up and I enjoy looking around for the opportunities rather than dwelling too long on the negative. With that in mind, here are three ways and places you could be growing your book of business today:

1. Thailand

Rohini Kappasath (handle @TalkingAsia on twitter) recently tweeted that there are 180 Australian companies – large and small SMEs – operating in Thailand who are looking for growth and guidance.

When I questioned Rohini where these numbers came from, he told me (vid DM) they were provided by DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade).

Think about that for a second: 180 Australian companies operating in Thailand who are looking for growth and guidance. I wonder how many of these companies are currently represented by Australian law firms? Having lived in Thailand for 12 years myself, I’d hazard a guess not too many.

Massive opportunity going begging here.

2. Malaysia

Headline in yesterday’s The Star Online:

“Domestic F&B players strive to expand into Australia”

with a lead paragraph that reads:

“The domestic food and beverage (F&B) sector is striving to expand into the high-value Australian market as reflected from the participation of 18 Malaysian exhibitors at the Fine Food Australia 2015.”

18 Malaysian exhibitors at the Fine Food Australia 2015 with,

“Ninety-five business meetings with over 80 potential business partners were arranged by Matrade for the Malaysian companies during the event”

and not a single law firm in sight (from what I can see).

Massive opportunity going begging here.

3. Inbound M&A

Headline from yesterday’s Australian:

“Foreign takeovers tipped to surge”

with the following graph:

Other than, “massive opportunity going begging here”, not really sure I need to add anything to that!

So if you practice law in Australia and you are wondering what you can do about your ever dwindling revenue stream, all I can say is the work is out there: you just need to go looking for it.

* did you notice how I didn’t need to mention China once in this post… …quite clever that really.

Currency woes strike again!

It’s that time of the year again when law firms in the UK (at least those with LLP status) publish their annual accounts and, once again, it would appear that currency exchange fluctuations have played a significant part in the profit and loss (P&L) sheets of most with international operations (‘Currency woes hit growth‘ – subscription required).

As I pointed out back in March 2013, and then again in August 2014, the Australian operations of international law firms were not going to be sitting pretty when it came to reporting full year earnings in GBP or US$. At the time the experts were predicting mid 80 cents on the US$, and things can only be said to have taken a turn for the worse since then.

Failing a dramatic turnaround in commodity prices, it doesn’t take a genius to work out this will remain the same unless – or until – the Australian arm of international firms can muscle in on the [hopefully much more attractive US$] rates their offshore partners set up for them on advisory or transactional matters (see my post ‘Can a falling A$ make selling Australian legal services easier overseas?‘).

Alternatively, if you are an international firm with operations in Australia you could do what I have seen a number of firms doing during this reporting season and talk up you Australian earnings in “local currency contributions“. Because all things being equal, these firms have worked hard over the past 12 – 18 months to get their strategy on track and have most likely seen real growth in local currency contribution terms.

Survey: One in four Australian law students are not sure about their future intentions

We often talk about the lack of opportunities that current Australian law students face when looking for work in what counts as the ‘New Normal’ in the world of legal in Australia.

It was interesting to read, then, in a recently published survey of the 1,403 law students undertaken on behalf the Women Lawyers’ Association of NSW that:

“One in four law students were not sure about their future intentions, and one in ten intended not to practise as a lawyer.”

Of those students who did intend to practise as a lawyer (61%), only half (both female and male) anticipated working as a solicitor in private practice; while close to one third intend to work as a government lawyer, in-house corporate lawyer or as a barrister.

Those law students who do not intend practising law after graduation said they anticipated working in banking and financial services, government/politics or in corporate strategy.

Interestingly, given the cut backs in this area, one in five law students were proposing to work as a community-based legal service lawyer, with female law students the more likely to be studying law for altruistic reasons; including “having an interest in social justice“.

Less surprisingly, male law students were more likely to cite “a good income that a career in the law offers” and “the prestige and status that a career in the law would bring” as being their main drivers for studying the subject. Which probably proves beyond any reasonable doubt that females are smarter than males!

All in all, I’m not sure the outcome of this survey would have varied dramatically in my days studying law at university 20 years ago. That said, I know that my aspirations – in studying the subject – were to be a lot more like Geoffrey Robertson QC than the partner of a Magic Circle law firm.

As it turns out, I ended up being neither. Which is why survey’s like this are important in reminding us that we probably need to hold off telling law students that it’s all doom and gloom in the world of the “New Normal” and start with actually asking them what they want to do with their lives.

3 more surveys on the state of the legal market were published this week

Hot on the heels of a post I posted two weeks ago summarising three reports on the state of the legal market, the last week of August has seen the publication of a further three survey reports.

1. The US Survey Report

The first survey report (Surveys Find Mixed Demand, Moderate Pay for Corporate Counsel) is out of the USA and summarises the findings from a questionnaire sent to 1,300 chief legal officers (CLOs) of the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) – who now have a Chapter in Australia.

This ACC survey covered wide ground, including pay rises (3%) and areas of in-house recruiting growth (compliance, contracts and corporate generalists), but probably my favourite take-out was the following two paragraphs:

“Organizations are looking for corporate counsel who can facilitate the business process, according to Peters. Counsel should become familiar with what the company does, take an interest and act as a support, instead of simply focusing on the legalities of whatever is presented to them, she said.

For example, corporate counsel might tour the company’s plant and observe the manufacturing process to better understand how the company works, according to Peters. This might allow the lawyer to help get the product to market quicker. “It behooves the lawyer to be involved and become an integral part of the company. Partnering with the business, you add and keep value,” she said.”

Private practice lawyers could move a lot further along the trusted advisor paradigm just by following that piece of advice.

2. The UK Survey Report

The second survey report (Mind the Gap: GCs, Firms Wide Apart in Perception) is actually a one-page infographic [downloadable here] done by the team at Briefing Magazine in the UK and provides further evidence, if ever we needed it, that there is a growing ‘value gap’ in the perception of the relationship between in-house counsel and their outside law firms & law firm managers.

This survey polled 125 GCs, 67% from companies with more than £1.1 Billion in revenue a year and more than 1000 employees, along with 86 managers (NB: Briefing Magazine‘s target readership is law firm leaders and managers) from the top 120 law firms in the UK.

Two take-outs from this survey of note are:

on whether the process of buying legal services had moved to the in-house legal team’s procurement department, 80% of in-house GCs said they – and not the procurement department – had the say on who to send legal work to, whereas almost three quarters (74%) of law firms said exactly the opposite (ie, procurement had the say here).
on the issue of AFAs (alternative fee arrangements), 76% of law firms believe that in-house GCs want to move away from the billable hour, whereas only 58% of GCs said they do.

Interesting as they are, both of these responses really highlight to me that most law firms out there are not having proper conversations with their clients around how legal services are being procured and, importantly, paid for.

3. The Australian Survey Report

The third survey report of the week was the most comprehensive.

Authored by Joel Barolsky and published by The Melbourne Law School and Thomson Reuters Peer Monitor, the 2015 Australia: State of the Legal Market report sets out the dominant trends impacting the Australian legal market in 2015 and the key issues likely to influence the market in 2016 and beyond [a copy of which is downloadable here].

As you would imagine, a survey report of this nature (15 pages) packs a punch and there are way too many take-outs to summarises them all here so if you are interested in the finding of this report, but don’t have the time to read the whole thing, I would like to suggest you take a look at Joel’s post on LinkedIn – Key takeouts from major new legal market report – summarising the findings.

For me, it was interesting to see the survey confirm a trend I identified last year in the market, namely that the biggest competition private practising lawyers have these days is actually in-house counsel. I think this is further evidence that private practice lawyers are not doing enough to explain to their in-house counsel the benefits of using outside counsel.

In short, to my mind the conversation should not simply be: “I’m spending $150,000 on external legal each year, I can hire a lawyer and bring this work in-house“. Although I very much fear that is exactly the conversation that is taking place. And when you keep in mind that the two principal areas of concern for in-house counsel are compliance and risk, you’d think this provides external legal with exactly the right platform to have the conversation around why taking work in-house should not be a growing trend.

#BigLaw is far from dead

Has the death knell of #BigLaw been rung too early?

Despite all rhetoric to the contrary, three reports published within the past week would suggest that the business model of #BigLaw is far from dead.

1. Citi Private Bank’s Law Firm Group report*

The first, published in the American Lawyer, was Citi Private Bank’s Law Firm Group‘s quarterly report on financial performance in the legal industry.

While this report headlined as ‘Despite Growth, Law Firm Forecast Dims for 2015‘, it is worth noting the following three paragraphs from the report:

“Looking at the results by firm size, the Am Law 100 firms saw demand and revenue momentum build. For the Am Law 1-50, part of the positive momentum is due to some moderation in 2014 results from the first quarter to the first half. The Am Law 100 firms are also better poised than smaller firms for near-term revenue growth, given that they had comparably larger inventory increases (especially in accounts receivable) at the end of the second quarter.

The Second Hundred was the only segment that saw a drop in demand. It also had the lowest increase in inventory (2.3 percent), so the third quarter will likely be particularly challenging for these firms.

Despite the momentum generated by the largest firms, it was the niche/boutique firms that had the strongest first half overall. Revenue was up 7.0 percent on the strength of a shortened collection cycle (compared with a lengthening for the Am Law 100 and Second Hundred segments), as well as modest increases in demand and rates. The niche/boutique firms also posted the smallest increase in expenses, 1.9 percent, creating a substantial widening of the profit margin. Because of the accelerated inventory turnover and only modest improvement in demand, however, inventory for these firms was up only 2.8 percent. These smaller firms may therefore find the second half of the year more challenging than the first half.”

So, while mid-tier firms appear to see revenue in decline, the top-end of town was actually seeing demand and revenue momentum build.

[* The results of this report are based on a sample of 177 firms (83 Am Law 100 firms, 45 Second Hundred firms and 49 niche/boutique firms)]

2. BTI Consulting report**

The second report is a snippet from BTI’s Annual Survey of General Counsel and goes under the bye-line: ‘Large Law Edges Out Mid-Sized Firms for New Work, with Higher Rates‘.

Here, BTI Consulting’s research found that:

“60% of law firm hires went to larger law firms (650 lawyers or more) in the last year. Clients report hiring large law as a result of increased and more pointed attention—think industry knowledge and more specific discussion of company issues. Think less about your firm statistics and more about the people to whom you are talking.”

Possibly more damning, however, was the observation that:

“The onus is on mid-sized firms to do better. Clients expect mid-sized firms to bring more client focus and more business understanding than large law—but are not always getting what they expect. And, mid‑sized firms have to demonstrate vastly better understanding of their potential clients’ targeted objectives than large law.”

[** Research is based on 280 in-depth interviews with corporate counsel at companies larger than $750 million in revenue as part of BTI’s ongoing Annual Survey of General Counsel.]

3. CommBank Legal Market Pulse Conducted by Beaton Research + Consulting

The last report is a little closer to home, Q4 2014 results from CommBank’s Legal Market Pulse conducted by Beaton Research + Consulting.

I’ll most likely review the findings of this report more closely in a post later this week – and it may even be interesting to compare them against previous Q2 & Q3 reports – but for the purposes of this post I believe we don’t really need to go past the following infographic from the report:

which would certainly seem to indicate that “top-tier” firms are far happier with overall FY2014 results than their “mid-tier” cousins.

Bringing it all together

So, what does this mean?

To my mind what these three reports cumulatively evidence is this:- while #NewLaw may have arrived, and while it may be here to stay, what is increasingly clear is that #BigLaw is not the market segment that needs to be concerned with this development.

Nope, dig a little deeper and I think you’ll find that it is actually Managing Partners in firms with revenue in the A$20-A$70 million range who will be having a lot more restless nights sleep…

“… we are being asked to do less with less”, Ann Klee of GE

Work in the legal profession for more than 5 minutes and you’ll hear someone say that clients today are asking the law firm to do “more for less“. It is probably one of the fastest terms to become a cliché in the English language.

So imagine my delight, when watching a video of a presentation given by Ann Klee, VP of Global Operations — Environment, Health & Safety, at General Electric Company at the recent Big Law Business Summit, in describing how (in part) GE managed to reduce its outside legal spend by $60 million in a year, she says that the bottom line is that the role of a lawyer today is about managing more risk, it’s not about just being asked to do more for less, it’s being asked to do less with less (see 16 minutes and 15 seconds into video).

This absolutely spot on.

Law firms today need to:

partner with the business to empower their clients,
always be looking to deliver on outcomes, not to be following procedure for procedure’s sake (or, worse, following procedure to blow out legal fees),
through the use of legal project management, agile or some other mechanism that works for you: identify and eliminate any workflows that are adding no value to the deal/advice.

In short: we need to be doing ‘less for less‘, but we need to be doing it in such a way that is “faster, better, and smarter” for our clients.

At the end of the day, clients like GE are already doing this – so law firms today can either get on board with solving their clients’ problems from their clients’ perspective, at a standard of accountability that their clients are being held to; or they face the very real prospect of becoming irrelevant.

Loyalty programs revisited

Back in March of this year I blogged that loyalty programs were likely an under-utilised means by which Australian law firms could differentiate themselves in a highly competitive legal market. I was, then, particularly happy to see that recently Australian Government Business (www.business.gov.au) blogged on a similar issue – ‘Customer loyalty or reward programs‘ – which looked at, among other things:

What customer loyalty programs are.
The benefits and risks of a customer loyalty program.
Tips when implementing a customer loyalty program.
Legal and compliance issues for customer loyalty programs.

A lot of which is directly relevant to law firms looking to implement a customer loyalty program.

Why you should think of implementing a customer loyalty program in your firm

As far as law firms are concerned, the perennial question has been:

How do we make sure that our customers [clients] understand the benefits of being exclusive to our brand?

Here, while we have known for a long time now that the ‘customer experience‘ has been the bedrock of customer loyalty, it has only been in recent times that we have been able to show that loyalty programs can, and do, add to this overall customer experience.

But customer experience isn’t the only reason why law firms need to think carefully about implementing a loyalty program. Other benefits include:

gaining a better understanding of the customer buying behaviour – which practice groups are they using, when, how often, why? Are they using more than one partner in a practice group or the same partner?
increase you brand recognition within your existing customer base – putting in place a formal loyalty program should go some way to helping you promote you law firm internally within your client’s business; if for no other reason than water-cooler chat.
increase your word of mouth referrals.
provides an added incentive for clients to give you work rather than a like skilled and experienced firm (i.e., all things being equal).
can be used to help recognise referrers to the firm – if you include referrers in the program, all things being equal they will more likely refer clients to your firm than a competitor.
it can help you implement formal and informal customer listening and feedback programs (as part of the program offering).
it will help members of your firm get to know who your key customers are and what they do.
it should provide your firm with a platform to cross pollenate into other service areas without looking like a hard sell.

You could also find that putting a customer loyalty program in place leads to greater use of your much underutilised CRM systems!

All that said, a word of caution for those who are intending to implement a customer loyalty program in their firm:

customer loyalty marketing must start with the law firm demonstrating loyalty to the client. Much like the trust it is built on, you cannot expect loyalty from your client if you are unwilling to offer the same type of loyalty to your client,
the foundation of a customer loyalty program is a promise. If for any reason whatsoever you are unable to fulfil on that promise, then you shouldn’t implement the program, and
always keep in mind that while the lawyer inevitably gets the credit when things go well, it is the brand that gets the blame when things go wrong – so make sure that at the heart of you customer loyalty program is always a dialogue between you and your client.

Get it right though and a well implemented and executed customer loyalty program could be just he thing your firm need in order to differentiate itself from the market.

Is a law firm in your pocket the next big thing?

A 54-page report out last month [July 2015] by UBS analysts in London, New York, Hong Kong and Japan, working with consultants at KPMG, titled “Is a bank in your pocket the next big thing?” (extracts of which have been published in today’s Sydney Morning Herald), that surveyed 67 bank management teams in 18 countries, predicts that as much as 11 per cent of Australia’s bank branches are threatened by closure over the next three years as a result of the proliferation of mobile banking.

According to numbers cited in the article, on the latest data available from the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (the relevant governing body), an 11 per cent closure of local bank branches would amount to circa 603 branches closing.

Thinking “this is banks, what have they got to do with law?“; or “law is different“?

If so, take a second to process this: we are no longer talking disruption of an industry here, we are now talking about transformational, fundamental technological change in society.

As the UBS report says:

“Going forward, emerging technology and innovation will further enhance mobile banking functionalities that aim to develop deep customer relationships and superior mobile banking experiences, such as communication enrichment, a comprehensive ‘mobile wallet’, and content monetisation, (for example) revenues related to music and e-book downloads.”

… not seeing it?

How about this quote from Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) chief executive Ian Narev at a lunchtime function in July:

“These days, you have to understand in real time what your customers are doing and react in real time,” Mr Narev said. “And that aspect in the use of technology to drive customer engagement will be our number one priority.”

For any doubters out there, the final nail in the coffin for me was this:

“The report also showed how the mobile channel is catching up to the internet channel, with mobile expected to be used by more customers than internet web pages in three years.”

So, how are your customers buying your legal services? And how confident are you that they will still be doing the same in three years from now?

Because you never know, your law firm could very well be the next app in your client’s pocket…

“A bridge too far” : When international law firm mergers turn sour

“There were a lot of people who thought there wasn’t a very deliberative process around the decision, and a lot of people wondering how it would help us,” one partner said. “And when it didn’t go well, there were a lot of people who thought it was a bridge too far.”

The above quote is attributed to a K&L Gates partner in a recent Above The Law post by David Lat (‘Barbarians At The K&L Gates?‘), which was then linked to in Bloomberg BNA’s Business of Law overnight (‘Wake Up Call: What’s Going On At K&L Gates?‘), and is said to relate to the firm’s biggest single merger to-date, its deal with Middletons two years ago, which, apparently, has “has failed to bear fruit.”

First off, I don’t think K&L Gates’ merger with Middletons is alone here. Market chatter would indicate that a number of partners at international law firms who merged with prominent Australian law firm brands have since wondered what they got themselves into. On the flip-side, a number of the partners in the prominent law firms who merged with the international firms have felt likewise and since moved on.

So while not unique, what probably differentiates the K&L Gates situation is also, in my opinion, one of its greatest strengths – its transparency and openness.

In any event, to my mind what this story highlights is two issues:

mergers between international law firms are akin to the courting stage in any joint venture arrangement: a lot of trust is given on both sides without much due diligence.
when things turn sour in international law firm mergers, lots of reasons get cited by all parties; but rarely, if ever, is the reason that they hadn’t discussed the merger properly with the clients of both (all) firms to see if the client had any perspective on this merger (e.g., commercial conflicts, lack of trust, etc.) and whether they would support (financially) the merger.

I will add that it would be a great shame if the K&L Gates / Middletons merger turned into a public spat, because I really liked the legacy Australian firm of Middletons and given Australia’s interaction with the US market I believe there is a place for K&L Gates here.

That said with the A$ tipped to go below US70¢, its lowest level since the merger, the partners on both sides of the Pacific need to:

reiterate why they merged,
communicate this with their clients,

and move forward on that basis.

And do this quickly [preferably at, or before, the next global partners’ meeting] – something law firms are not known for!

Again though, I doubt very much that K&L Gates will be alone among international law firms in Australia having these discussions.