in-house counsel

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.

“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.

The battle for Asia’s inbound investment

I was interested to see that The Lawyer has an article today [27 July] by David Rennick, the head of Pinsent Masons’ relatively new Australian outlet, on the competition between English and Australian law firms for prize Chinese’s infrastructure investment work (‘Never mind the Ashes: England and Australia are battling for the Chinese investment prize‘).

When I first arrived in Asia back in the early 1990s, most of the conversations we had with governments and businesses around “investment” in the region nearly always took the path of inbound [into Asia] investment: in that investments largely moved in one direction, from West to East, and appropriately attractive and protective legislatively schemes around those investments were always being sought.

Possibly due to the GFC, although I would be more inclined to say as the likely result of a progression in time and a growth in Asian economies post the Asian Financial Crisis troubles, a shift has taken place: today when we are in conversations around “investment”, this conversation has taken on a new life and we are just as likely to be discussing outbound [from Asian] investments into the West or into other developing nations/areas (such as Africa) as we are about inbound [into Asia] foreign direct investment.

I love infographics and clear evidence (if it was ever needed) of the shift taking place in the conversation taking place here can clearly be seen in two amazing recently published infographics: one by the South China Morning Herald (‘Chinese outbound investment to rise to another record‘) and the New York Times (‘The World According to China‘).

And while both of these show a massive increase in outbound direct investment by China and Chinese companies (and people) over the past decade, decade and half, what they don’t necessarily show is the different reasons/discussions that are taking place for/around these investments.

To be clear, while Asian (including Chinese) companies and governments are investing overseas for a multitude of reasons, they largely centre around two principal reasons:

On the one hand, the governments – including State Owned Corporations – need better returns on their investments than they would otherwise be getting at home or else they need to diversify this investment. We typically see this type of investment with Singapore’s Temasek and GIC (Government of Singapore Investment Corporation). More recently we have seen foreign pension funds investing in Australian infrastructure in this way.

On the other hand, we see investments in western businesses by Asian companies and organisations looking to purchase technical knowhow in order to up-skill themselves. An example of this can be seen with today’s announcement that: “A major Chinese venture firm has launched a US$5 billion fund devoted to buying up Western technology, internet and biotech firms that are looking to enter the Chinese market.”

And it is for this reason that unlike David Rennick I don’t believe English or Australian law firms should be strategically looking at the Chinese for inbound infrastructure investment work (with the caveat that this doesn’t include strategies around the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)), because I believe that type of inbound infrastructure investment work (once Australia can work out a suitably attractive investment vehicle for foreigners to invest in infrastructure) from Asia will more likely come from Korea, Japan and Singapore (under relevant FTA provisions with these countries).

For Chinese related inbound investment work, English and Australian law firms would do far better to be courting M&A and R&D work, and in this field they will find a much hungrier and more sophisticated competitor – the US law firm.

“Berlin is closer to Beijing than Brisbane is”

“Berlin is closer to Beijing than Brisbane is. And it will always be so.”

– Andrea Myles, CEO China Australia Millennial Project (CHAMP)

I recently had the great fortune and pleasure to attend the opening ceremony of the inaugural CHAMP. Unlike many other events I attend, this one was driven by a group of young adults looking for ways to improve cooperation between China and Australia, principally from what I can tell in the areas of research and development (R&D).

Leaving aside the fascinating work being done under the CHAMP banner, two comments that Andrea Myles, CEO of CHAMP, said in her opening remarks really resonated with me.

The first was the opening quote to this post: “Berlin is closer to Beijing then Brisbane is.”

The second was this:

“China is Australia’s largest trading partner, but also the largest trading partner of 124 other nations.”

Yep, 124 other nations can claim that China is their largest trading partner.

So if Australia isn’t geographically closer to “Asia” than Europe is (and flying time from the UK to Thailand is roughly the same as Sydney to Bangkok), and if economically (from both a trade and investment perspective) Australia isn’t streets ahead of the rest of the world in the eyes of those conducting business in Asia, why in the world would so many law firms be “Driven here by the lure of Asia” – as the Australian reported last Friday (3 July) [“International legal firms see Australia as a hub for Asia” NB: subscription may be required to read this]?

Personally I’m not 100 per cent sure I understand the need for global firms to be in Australia if the only reason they are doing this is to create a hub for entry into the Asian market more broadly. I rather suspect better cases to that type of strategy could be made for Singapore (which historically it has been) and even Hong Kong.

Nonetheless, Patrick Sherrington, Hogan Lovells’ regional managing partner for Asia and the Middle East and author of the said article in last Friday’s Australian sets out his case for why he thinks this might be so.

These include:

“The Australian legal services market is characterised by its concentration, innovation and sophistication. Although globally the sector is generally characterised by low concentration, the market shares of the major players in Australia have been and remain particularly high, especially compared with the US, where no law firm accounts for more than 1 per cent of the industry.

This concentration yielded high levels of competition between those leading firms, which spurred innovation and sophistication throughout the market.”

Sorry, but having worked in the English, Asian and Australian legal markets during the course of my working life I can categorically say that the Australian legal market is no more innovative nor sophisticated than any other. While this might have been the case in the 1990s, I would venture that the US market is probably more innovative than the Australian market is at the moment and the stuff that the likes of A&O, Lawyers on Demand, Eversheds, and Riverview Law – to name but a few – are doing in the UK is streets ahead of where the Australian market currently is.

Sherrington then goes on to write:

“More critically, it [the GFC – my comment] affected the faith many leading national firms had in their business models. The hitherto boundless belief in the limitless growth of legal services in a country accounting for nearly 40 per cent of the Asia-Pacific legal services market was lost to the existential and strategic dilemma of how and where Australian law firms should operate in an increasingly global market.

Suddenly, market entry became a practical proposition for the major international firms. Since then we have seen the large national firms scramble for Asian and global exposure through alliances and combinations of varying intimacy.”

I’m of the view that flat, depressed markets in the UK and Europe more widely made the bigger English firms look up and think of other markets where they could still get growth. The mining boom that was going on in Australia at the time, plus historic highs of almost parity in exchange rates between the Australian and US dollars, meant that the Australian market looked very attractive at the time.

Ironically, a shift in the sands have now made these much less favourable reasons to be in Australia (the Australian dollar has fallen off to somewhere in the region of 75 cents now) and one has to wonder if the internationals would still be clambering to get here if the current market existed then.

Sherrington also notes that:

“We [Hogan Lovells] concluded that not having a focused high-end legal practice in Australia would be strategically detrimental to the ambitions of our long established practice in Asia and would have an impact on our ability to service global clients.

Australia is uniquely positioned to assist international law firms achieve growth in Asia. With the third largest pool of investment funds under management in the world, the largest stockmarket in Asia (ex-Japan) and the fourth largest economy in Asia, as well as being the single largest beneficiary of Chinese foreign direct investment since 2005, Australia is an integral part of the Asia region and also a global player.”

I think there is a lot to be said for the second part of this quote. Much less so for the first part. Having an Australian practice is one thing; having an Australian presence as a hub to Asia is a completely different issue.

If you have an Australian practice for all the reasons Sherrington sets out in the second part of the quote above, and you have a core client-base operating in Australia, then I commend you and wish you well.

But if what you are saying is this [Australia] is your hub for Asia, then I ask: “where does your senior Asian management sit?” Because one firm aside, nearly all of the senior “Asian” management teams I’ve seen sit offshore (ie, outside Australia).

A final comment of Sherrington’s is that:

“While the manner and mode of market entry will continue to differ between international law firms, it is a trend that will not be reversed.

The regional and global economic case for an Australian presence is too strong. It remains to be seen whether the flood of international entrants will reduce the concentration of the Australian legal service market.”

Sherrington and I will have to disagree on this one. I think it is a trend that could very easily be reversed – and to some extent already is.

And we should always remember that law is a very fickly business – who knows what might happen if you had a downturn in the Chinese economy and a European nation that was refusing to pay its debts.

Oh wait…

What law firms can learn from Taylor Swift

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, or living in a world of news blackout, you’ll of heard about Taylor Swift’s 21st June open letter (via Tumblr) to Apple (‘To Apple, Love Taylor‘).

As you will also undoubtedly known by now, the Tumblr post is Taylor’s way of explaining why she will be holding back her album – 1989 – from the new streaming service Apple Music (an album I understand she also doesn’t permit to be on another music streaming service, Spotify). And while I don’t particularly like Taylor Swift’s music (nor do I really participate in music streaming services), I have to applaud the reasons she outlines for her decision.

In particular, I like – and 100 per cent agree with – Taylor’s remark that:

“Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing.”

Taylor’s right on the money there – so to speak, three months is a very long time to go unpaid.

But wait: what’s your law firm’s average lock-up days?

If you firm’s average lock-up days are anywhere near the industry average, then your firm’s lock-up is going to be somewhere between 100 and 120 days. Which means your firm typically gets paid 100 to 120 days after you have done the work for the client.

Aside from being a period of close to four (4) months to go unpaid for your work, you are also providing your client with an interest free working capital loan during this time – a period you will likely be paying interest to your bank on the working capital (overdraft) facility it has extended to you (otherwise known as a double-whammy)!

Simply put, that should be unacceptable and it is time law firms took a take a leaf out of Taylor’s book and started to tell clients (and some law firm partners I might add!) that four months is a long time to go unpaid!

Not possible? Will likely kill the client relationship?

Well, interestingly, in this case the giant corporate might of Apple has listened to Taylor’s complaint and has decided to back down. And I suspect your clients would be more than willing to listen to alternatives you could offer too – but you won’t know unless you have the conversation.

Wikipedia killed the #BigLaw firm star

Reading my notebook from 2013, to check if an industry statistic has progressed from a fad to a trend, at the weekend I came across a note to myself that reads:

“The Googlification of law: The belief that everything is on Google and is free.”

Although it clearly meant enough to me at the time to write it down (and apologies if this belongs to you as I didn’t write a credit in my notes – which usually means I thought it), as I didn’t end up writing a blog about it I must have been trying to process this idea/thought.

Anyhow, the note and a print by Hugh that was on special – which I ended up purchasing – on the Gapingvoid Art website (‘Information / Knowledge‘) got me to thinking:

‘Open source law’ – as some people are calling it – is one thing, but information and knowledge are not automatically one in the same. As such one ought to tread carefully if one is merely buying information, without the accompanying application to turn this information into knowledge.

Indeed, one could go further and as to say that the era of the “knowledge economy” is about the application of knowledge, rather merely knowing. And this will require professionals – including lawyers – needing to move the conversation forward from a belief that I can find the information for “free” (or at least “cheaper”) elsewhere and to start demonstrating [via the application of knowledge] that the solution they are providing to clients’ problems is indeed a better solution than the “free” or cheaper alternative.

The two crucial elements here are:

demonstrable evidence that your experience, service or product offering is of benefit to the purchaser’s problems – i.e. not just a capability statement saying how wonderful you are, but a story with real evidence showing how what you do can be of real benefit to the target/client, and
demonstrable evidence that you are acting in the best interests of the client and not merely a wishy washy statement to that effect.

It won’t be easy, and it will necessitate a move away from technical brilliance and towards commercial excellence.

In short, the legal advisor of the future will be one who is adept at finding solutions to client problems – even for those that haven’t arisen yet – rather than merely highlighting that a problem exists.

But, crucially, it is no longer the role of the client purchaser to consider this ( – are the days of Caveat emptor over?), but rather it is the role of the law firm seller to demonstrate it.

Are law firms going to replace Client Account Managers with Client Project Managers?

Law firms have had, for some time now, a Client Account Manager support role within their Business Development and Marketing teams. Typically reporting to the Head of Business Development and the Client Relationship Partner, these roles have historically been focussed around a number of “key” client programs (aka Key Account Management programs or “KAM”) and can also be sector specific – for example, financial services, energy and resources and government. In the larger firms, the Client Account Manager may be required to look after up to three to four large client accounts, but normally the role is inward looking with little (in real terms) direct interaction with the client themselves (although in some cases you do find the law firm CAM and support personnel at the client talking to each other regularly).

There is little doubt these roles have served a significant purpose. One could even go so far as to say they have increased cross pollination (cross selling) among practice groups significantly. But, in these changing times, with law firms having significantly increased their investment in Client Relationship Management (CRM) tools and software, the following question does need to be asked:

is it now time to move on from the Client Account Manager role?

I recently watched an interesting video (27 minutes and 2 seconds) of a panel discussion filmed at the Briefing Operational Leaders In Legal 2014 conference (November 2014) that talked about, among other things, “client-facing account managers and better management information“.

Moderated by Julia Chain of JSC Associates, the panel included Jonathan Beak (chief counsel – legal, UK and Ireland, Thomson Reuters), Sarah Spooner (head of legal, Vodafone), Angela Williams (head of legal, global cash management and debt advisory, Barclays) and David Symonds (VP, regional general counsel EMEA, Tyco International).

The whole discussion is extremely informative and if you are a business developer looking for insight into how the leaders of some of the biggest in-house teams out there think, then you should watch it.

But, for the purposes of this post the most crucial part is the commentary by David Symonds who, discussing why Tyco appointed the law firm Eversheds as sole legal provider (in the now famous annual fixed fee arrangement tender), states that Tyco instigated what he calls certain grounds rules with Eversheds, including that only one lawyer acted for them and that the work was carried out at the appropriate level depending on what the matter is.

Nothing ground-breaking there. Until you get to 11 minutes and 53 seconds into the video. Here a general discussion is going on among the panel about what law firms do (or need to do) to differentiate themselves (the Holy Grail) and Symonds states that Eversheds were the only firm to offer a full time dedicated Project Manager to manage Tyco’s caseload.

Very interesting, but all the more so given today’s exclusive in The Lawyer by Tabby Kinder that Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) (the merged international firm of Herbert Smith and Australian firm Freehills) is to “roll out legal project managers across firmwide practice groups this summer.”

Now this really is big news, because it cannot be long now before the rest of the international firms follow suit (Clifford Chance and Linklaters are already being mooted as implementing legal project manager roles later this year and, in addition to Eversheds, Hogan Lovells and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer are understood to already have these roles in place).

So, what can we expect from a Client Project Manager?

According to The Lawyer article:

HSF project managers will work with project teams and be involved in pricing negotiations with clients as well as providing coaching to partners on efficiency and best practice when managing complex cases.

which doesn’t sound all that different to the Client Account Manager role.

But, according to the team at The Project Management Hut, in addition to monitoring client matters against acceptable outcomes and strategy to ensure the relationship produces substantial benefits to both side, your typical Client Project Manager should also provide your law firm with the following five (5) sources of competitive advantage:

a better client service
better time management
better people management and supervision skills
better profitability, through project management (LPM) and process improvements (LPO), and
provide the team with client-based business thinking.

and it is #3 and #4 in that list that law firms really could benefit from.

Now all we need to decide is: do these roles sit in the finance department, the practice groups, or marketing and business development?

National survey finds that there are 66,211 practising solicitors in Australia

The ‘2014 Law Society National Profile of Solicitors in Australia’ report was released this morning on the NSW Law Society website.

The first time this report has been updated since 2011, key findings include:

there are now 66,211 Practising Solicitors in Australia – a 12% increase since 2011.
of all practising solicitors in Australia:
- 34,10 (51.5%) were male, and
- 32,110 (48.5%) were female.

This represents a significant increase in the proportion of female solicitors since 2011 – when the percentage number ratios were 54.6% male to 43.4% female.

while the mean age of Australian solicitors has remained roughly the same at 41.9 years – compared to 42.0 years in 2011, interestingly the largest proportional growth age bracket is occurring in the over 65 years age group (with a 38% increase in this group since 2011).
as at October 2014, the majority of practising solicitors in Australia were private practitioners – 70.2%; with the percentage numbers in other major sectors of the profession in Australia remaining fairly static since 2011 – 15.8% were corporate solicitors and 9.6% worked in the government sector.

Most interestingly, while overall the Australian legal market remains represented by small practices – 2,155 firms (17.3% of the total) had 2 to 4 partner and 514 firms (4.1% of the total) had 5 to 10 partners:

there are now 77 law firms across Australia where the number of partners exceed 40 – representing a 300% increase from 2011, and
there are now 74 law firms across Australia where the number of partners range from 21 to 39 – representing a 111% increase from 2011.

In addition to potentially showing significant consolidation in the Australian legal market over the past three years (the overall percentage representative number of sole practitioners is actually down roughly 3% in 2014 from 2011), these numbers would appear to indicate that the slow death of large law firms, and the professional more generally, is being greatly over exaggerated in the Australian legal press.

Indeed, one could argue that now more than ever the market in Australia is highly competitive and that it is becoming increasingly important that you and your firm be able to communicate what differentiates you from the crowd.

If you haven’t already, I’d like to recommend that you take a look at the report – it contains some very interesting statistics; including, for the first time, statistics on the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

A quick test to help determine if you’re providing value to your client

In today’s legal world you often here people talking about “doing more for less” and/or that they are providing “value” to their clients, without much of an explanation as to what constitutes “value” – with the best shot usually being:

“value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder“.

Indeed many thousands, if not millions, of words have been written about making sure you “add value” – not to be confused with “added value”, which is a whole different subject – but very few of those written words have made any real attempt [from what I can see] to try and nail down a definition of “value” from a client’s point of view.

And while there is little doubt that every single person’s definition of value will be different – and in many cases, each individual person’s definition of value will alter depending on the circumstances they face at the time they are asked to define “value” to them – the following two-part questionnaire suggested by Nathaniel Slavin (of Wicker Park Group) in his recent post on the Bloomberg Big Law Business website, ‘The Perception of Value Differs Among Clients‘, probably goes closer than anything I’ve seen so far to answering this conundrum:

Does my lawyer understand how I define success and all the myriad components that impact that success?; and
Do they accomplish that goal in a manner, financially and otherwise, that helps us further our business goals?

And if, as a private practising lawyer, you can answer “yes” to both those questions – while you cannot be certain you are delivering “value” – you can be pretty sure you are delivering overall client satisfaction levels that are going to get you as close as you can possibly get to a modern day definition of “delivering value to your client“.

How about applying the “Moscow” process to your next costing letter

Over the weekend I read a post over on the www.pmhut.com website by Chuck Snead – An Agile Primer: Agile Estimating and the “MoSCoW Process” – which contained an interesting process that I would like to share with you today.

Although the www.pmhut.com website (the “pm” here standing for “Project Management”) doesn’t do posts that relate directly to either law firm business development or marketing, I enjoy reading their posts as I find many of the concepts they cover can easily be applied to the industry. As was the case this weekend, with a guest post by Snead which threw up a very interesting acronym and concept that I had not previously heard of – the “MoSCoW Process” – and which I now believe should be tailored to form part of any law firm costing/engagement/fee proposal letter process with your client.

So here goes.

Snead stipulates that:

MoSCoW is an acronym for prioritizing feature development along the following guidelines:

MUST have features that are required for the project to be called a success.

SHOULD have features that have a high priority, but are not required for success.

COULD have features which would be nice to have, but are not high priority.

WON’T have features that stakeholders agree should be in a future release.

Now let’s apply this to the law firm costing/engagement/fee proposal letter process you go through with your client and agree that your next costing/engagement/fee proposal will include the following:

a section in the letter setting out all of the actions/tasks that MUST be done in order for the client’s objective to be met [Category 1 critical]. Here, assign who will be given the task and either the fixed or estimated cost to achieve these tasks; next
a section in the letter setting out the actions/tasks that would it would be ‘nice’ (SHOULD) if they were done, but they are not critical to the achievement of the client’s objective(s)[Category 2 critical]. Again, assign who would be given the task if there is sufficient time/budget/desire, etc and either the fixed or estimated cost to achieve these tasks; next
a section in the letter setting out the actions/tasks that are [remote] ‘possibles’ (COULD) that may arise out of the client undertaking the action they are planning to take. It should be noted that this should be remote variables/possibilities [Category 3 – variables]. Again, assign who would be given the task if one of these remote variables were to arise and wherever possible attach a fixed fee or estimate against the task; finally
set out clearly in the letter those actions the law firm WON’T be taking (is not instructed to take). Now it could be the case that these actions are still needed in order for the client’s objectives to be met, but they will be undertaken elsewhere (eg, in-house or through an LPO) [Category 4 – won’t dos]. Note, this is not a ‘disclaimer’ or limitation on liability section per se, but assigning tasks so that each party knows exactly what is and what is not required of them.

Anyone else out there think we may just have a few less angry client complaints if we went through a process like this each time we took on a new matter?

This process might not be perfect, and it could well need a tweak here and there, but I do think it will go a long way to helping lawyers fully understand the scope and nature of the instruction(s) they receive from their client(s) and lead to less misunderstanding in the industry.

And if that’s the case, the result is a win-win all round.