Walker Clark Worldview

“Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.”

This is one of the cardinal rules of trial advocacy.

Unfortunately, this rule is foolish in law firm management.

My colleagues and I frequently hear statements such as these from otherwise intelligent lawyers and business managers:

• We can’t ask those questions of our associates or staff. That would only stir things up and make the situation worse.
• We can’t ask those questions of our clients. We must not raise their expectations.

One of the most important skills for leaders in law firms is to ask courageous that produce answers that the firm needs to succeed. Sometimes the answers are ones that we would rather not hear, but we must hear and heed them nonetheless. This is usually the only way to get the accurate and reliable information needed to make wise, fully-informed decisions.

Sometimes there is no act more courageous than asking a question.

Good leaders stir things up.

There are few, if any businesses, that are as heavily dependent on people as are law firms. People, along with their knowledge and skills, make up at least 90% of the assets of a law firm. The other stuff — some furniture, books, and perhaps a leasehold — are comparatively worth almost nothing, because without its people, a law firm has no real value at all.

Leaders of law firms need to know how junior fee earners and staff perceive the firm and its internal issues. Relying on hunches, group-think by partners (a favorite but usually worthless pastime at partner retreats), or “what it was like when I was an associate” are deadly problem-solving strategies.

To be sure, asking for opinions about sensitive issues might “stir things up;” but that is usually the only way to see and to understand the perceptions, misunderstandings, and grievances that sometimes lurk at the bottom.

And the best way to get to the bottom of an issue is simply to ask about it.

Good law firms want to raise client expectations.

Some law firms seem to have a phobia about client feedback. In some instances the refusal to ask clients for performance feedback is the result of a deep-seated condescension — or even contempt — about the client.

For example:

• “Why ask the clients? They really don’t know what they need. That’s why they hired us.”

In healthier law firms, however, I often hear this excuse for not soliciting client feedback:

• “We can’t ask anything that might raise the clients’ expectations.”

Raising client expectations is exactly what law firms should be doing in today’s highly competitive legal markets.

You should set standards of client care and service delivery that are above current levels demonstrated by your competitors. The best way to do this is to ask clients to describe what “quality” means to them. What indicators, such as responsiveness and understanding of the client’s business, are most important? Even if you believe that you are performing as well as you possibly can, ask the client how you can perform even better. You might be surprised by the answer. You might wonder why you are not already doing what the client suggests.

By asking these questions and responding to them in ways that the clients can observe and measure, your law firm can raise market expectations to levels at which few, if any, of your competitors will be able to perform right now. Some of your competitors will catch up to you eventually, but during that period when you alone are performing above market expectations, you will have an almost unchallenged opportunity to win new clients and new instructions from current clients.

Simple but sophisticated tools

The art of asking questions involves much more than asking questions.

Asking a junior staff member, “How do you like the firm?” is more likely to produce a cautious, positive response than meaningful data. Most staff members are not fools. Even the best-intentioned open-ended question often will look like a trap.

Asking a client, “How did you like our firm’s performance on that matter?”  will seldom produce the specific information that is the key to understanding a possible competitive advantage or disadvantage for your firm. Many clients have never articulated their key quality indictors. Sometimes you need to lead them there.

To produce worthwhile information, the questions need to probe specific issues and potential issues. The questions should be asked in a systematic and consistent way. This is why my colleagues and I recommend three tools above all others:

• Surveys – A well-designed survey can produce substantial volumes of data, compiled in a consistent manner, that can be very useful in understanding the seriousness and priority of an issue.  A survey is also an excellent tool for identifying potential obstacles to the implementation of a new strategy or a proposed solution to a difficult problem. Click here for more information.

• Interviews - We usually recommend that confidential interviews be used as a follow-up to a survey. However, confidential interviews can also provide detailed and sophisticated information that cannot be produced easily within the structural limits of a survey. Therefore the confidential interview is especially powerful to identify and understand opportunities or issues in relationships with major clients.

• Monitoring – Surveys and interviews are usually one-time activities.  They can produce useful baseline results, but cannot detect changes in opinions over time or in changing circumstances. For example, our firm’s Client Service Monitor is an outsourced service by which we assume responsibility for ongoing monitoring of client satisfaction and early detection of client service issues. This can help law firms to identify issues before they become crises and to minimize loss of clients due to dissatisfaction with the firm’s performance.

The important point is this:  regardless of which tools you use, a key tool in successful law firm management today is asking courageous questions. Ask them frequently. Ask them of your own colleagues and staff and of clients.  Ask them even when you do not know — or do not want to hear — the answer. To be sure, sometimes a courageous question might involve risk; but that risk is no greater than the underlying risk that already lurks, undetected and out of sight of your current knowledge and understanding.

Norman Clark

While attending the mid-year officers meetings of the International Bar Association last week in Copenhagen, Denmark,  I had an opportunity to conduct my informal, unscientific semi-annual survey of some of my  colleagues in the IBA Law Firm Management Committee. I relied on the time honored methodology of casual conversations among professional friends.

Although it was expressed in a variety of ways, the top concern of these law firm managers and leaders was how to protect — and maybe even improve — the profitability of a law firm’s internal operations in increasingly price-sensitive markets. This concern prevailed among law firm managers and leaders from law firms on every continent, from small firms to some of the largest in the world, and in a broad range of practice specialties.

There was also a recognition that one of the most cost-effective methods of managing the profitability of internal operations is through an increased emphasis on quality assurance. This was expressed in a number of interesting and insightful ways.  For example:

Clients are no longer willing to pay us to fix our own mistakes.

Clients won’t subsidize our learning curve.

We have to start looking inward to improve our profitability; continuing to raise fees no longer works.

We have to find a way to avoid making mistakes in the first place, rather than relying on fixing them after we make them.

We get only one chance to get it right.

Quality assurance is Walker Clark terminology for the application of Total Quality Management to the practice of law. It affects both back-room and support operations, such as clerical support and billing, and the actual delivery of legal services by lawyers and paralegals. Members of our firm, including me, have been advising and assisting law firms, corporate law departments, and government legal agencies about quality assurance concepts, tools, and methods for more than 20 years. Our experience demonstrates that quality assurance is the most cost-effective profitability tool that a law firm can use; because it works in the core operations of a legal practice, where the great majority of waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary costs are to be found.

For more information about quality assurance programs, please contact me by email or telephone at +1.239.466.8370.

Norman Clark

This is the final posting in a series about the characteristics of successful quality assurance programs in law firms.

How does one measure the success of a quality assurance program? When Walker Clark advises a law firm, we tell the partners to look for these indicators:

• Improved productivity by fee earners — because they can spend more time on billable work and less time fixing mistakes and responding to client complaints
• Higher collections realization rates — because the firm now manages the major reasons for fee write-downs and write-offs
• Higher levels of client satisfaction – because the firm meets or exceeds client expectations and gets things done right the first time
• Competitive advantage – because the firm can demonstrate quality, rather than just mumble slogans about it

As the previous parts of this series suggest, serious quality management is a challenge for most law firms.  People have to discard bad habits.  They have to sharpen their thinking about the routine work that they do every day.  In some instances, lawyers need to change some of their long-held, fundamental ideas about what constitutes quality in a legal service.

Quality management often involves a set of discrete journeys that a law firm must make…

• From considering errors and mistakes as failures to be hidden — to viewing them as data-rich opportunities to reduce or eliminate them in the future
• From assigning blame — to finding solutions
• From viewing quality in legal services as something that only a lawyer can define — to understanding quality in terms of the client’s needs, expectations, and perceptions

Each of these requires a profound cultural change for most law firms. It is a necessary change, as well; because law firms that are unable to manage serious cultural change are doomed to declining competitive performance and, eventually, irrelevance in the fast-changing, highly competitive legal markets of the 2010s.

The “quality assurance” culture also requires a seriousness of purpose and an ongoing commitment to the procedures and methods. Partners must be highly visible in their support for, and compliance, with the quality assurance program. They must reinforce among junior members of the firm that quality assurance is everyone’s job and is important to the business success of the firm.

Like most worthwhile investments, quality assurance sometimes is not easy, especially because of the cultural changes that it sometimes requires. But that effort produces profound and positive results that are:

• Long-term and sustainable
• Beneficial to almost every aspect of law firm operations
• Measurable in terms of dramatic improvements to profitability and financial performance.

Norman Clark

This is the fifth in a series of posts about the characteristics of successful quality assurance systems in law firms.

Previous posts outlined three important points that distinguish quality assurance from crisis-to-crisis after-the-fact improvisation:

1. Quality assurance is a firm-wide issue and everybody’s job.
2. The people who are best able to improve the work are the people who perform it everyday.
3. Quality assurance focuses first on stopping the pain — reducing or eliminating the problems that are weakening productivity and undermining profitability.

Today’s post points out a necessary element that is common to all three of these principles: data.

The accurate diagnosis of quality assurance problems and their causes requires accurate and timely data about the functioning of the processes that produce and deliver services to clients and internal customers.  What are the mistakes that are being made? What are the nature and causes of the rework needed to fix errors that we actually observe?  What are their practical results? Simple, but highly effective, reports such as missed deadlines, document errors, and service standards discrepancies, are critical.

The actual experiences of law firms with credible quality assurance systems have been quite consistent. Collecting data on the nature and causes of quality problems is not complicated, time-consuming, or burdensome. In legal service organizations in which I have actually measured the time required to complete and submit reports, the amount of time per fee earner has always averaged less than 10 minutes per day.  Over time this average investment of time usually decreases.

This is due to two reasons

1. People become more alert to problems and more efficient in reporting them.
2. As the firm collects this information, it begins to correct quality problems, thereby reducing the frequency and number of error reports.

Without this information, however, you are only guessing at quality, rather than managing it.

Norman Clark

This is the fourth of a series of posts about the compelling business case for quality assurance in law firms.

The third characteristic of successful quality assurance programs in law firms is that they focus on the greatest risks and attack the biggest quality problems.

We favor a practical approach.  The best methods do not seek to perfect each and ever task, function, and process in the firm.  Unlike methods such as ISO 9001, we do not recommend detailed documentation of each and every process.  However, we do recommend intense focus on the ones with the greatest risks. In law firms, most quality assurance issues can be isolated to one or two critical weaknesses. Our approach focuses on these “significant few” issues, rather than every possible one. In particular, we recommend that a firm start by improving the processes that are currently causing the greatest problems. Focus on problems that annoy the clients the most, such as missed deadlines, errors in documents, and untimely or inaccurate bills. In our experience, most of these problems can be mitigated substantially, and sometimes even solved entirely, with relatively simple, low-cost improvements.

Norman Clark

The people who do the work are in the best position to improve it.

This is the third in a series of posts about the characteristics of successful quality assurance programs in law firms.

Many law firms assume that the installation of an effective quality assurance program will require hiring a platoon of expensive external consultants to set up and administer the system. Actually, this is the wrong way to do it.

Law firms already have the internal quality assurance “experts” that they need — their own people.

Quality assurance requires a firm-wide approach and enthusiastic executive-level leadership. However, the “real work” is done by fee earners and support staff in the practice groups and project teams. Most risks arise from a relatively small number of specific weaknesses in the way that work is performed every day.

The people who do that work every day are usually the ones who can best diagnose the causes of problems in work processes. Therefore, a major component of a successful approach to quality assurance is to provide knowledge, tools, and methods to people working in departments, practice groups, and teams. This empowers them to take responsibility for improving the quality of their work.

Although we recommend firm-wide infrastructure and consistent procedures to manage quality, the intense focus must be at the working level. The key persons in are the lawyers who are managing client matters day to day. This working-level approach is almost always more successful and less expensive than solutions imposed by senior management or outside consultants, who arrogantly believe that they “know the business” better than the people who work in it every day.

When Walker Clark, LLC, assists a law firm with the development of a serious quality assurance program, we contribute tools, methods, measurements, and program management structures. The real improvement comes from the people who do the work.

Norman Clark

It only takes one hole to sink a ship, not a hole in every compartment.  If one practice group — or even one lawyer — has a vulnerability, the same or similar weaknesses probably exist elsewhere in the firm. A firm-wide approach to quality assurance therefore usually produces the best return on the investment of time, resources, and attention.

To carry the maritime analogy forward, we observe two principal types of “leaks” in law firms with poor quality assurance. Like many leaks, each one can go unnoticed for months or years while it does major damage to a law firm’s financial seaworthiness.

Reduced productivity

“We can always find time to fix our mistakes, but we can never find time to prevent them.”

Most law firms rely primarily on after-the-fact inspection to catch and correct mistakes, particularly in documents. Such rework can consume as much as 40% of the time of fee earners and staff. Since most clients are unwilling to pay the law firm to correct its own mistakes, every hour spent in rework represents a revenue-producing opportunity that is lost forever.

Law firms that have introduced serious, systematic quality assurance systems and procedures have found that the resulting improvements in productivity can produce substantially increased fee revenue without proportional increases in staff. This results in dramatic improvements in profitability.

Loss of clients

“We get only once chance to get it right.”

This comment by one of our firm’s clients, a practice group head in a mid-size firm in the United Kingdom, summarizes what law firms everywhere are experiencing.  Clients today have decreased tolerance for poor quality. By the time the client actually complains, it might be too late to save the firm’s credibility with the client.

This leak is more subtle than the client who fires the law firm midway through a case or matter. One of the most important diagnostic indicators of a systemic quality assurance problem is the relatively low percentage of clients who return to the firm for subsequent legal services.

Interestingly, there also appears to be a correlation between poor quality assurance and poor recovery. Firms that lack a quality assurance system also tend to be inept at responding promptly to client complaints. At best they tend to placate the unhappy client for the moment, but do little if anything to prevent the problem from arising again.

Norman Clark

Quality assurance will be one of the most important factors in law firm business strategy in the decade of the 2010s. It will have profound effects on law firm profitability by reducing the causes of poor productivity. Law firms that do quality assurance well will also have a powerful competitive advantage over those for whom “quality assurance” is little more than crisis-to-crisis improvisation in response to client complaints.

The current state of quality assurance

As my colleagues in Walker Clark, LLC, and I work with our clients in law firms, we observe six serious deficits in quality assurance. These are particularly acute in small and midsize law firms, but they can apply to law firms of any size. They also appear to be worldwide.

1. The lack of a consistent, firm-wide quality assurance infrastructure in the firm and in practice groups
2. Little or no awareness of the basic principles of service quality in the delivery of professional services
3. Inadequate data upon which to make risk management decisions
4. Inadequate practices and procedures to delegate legal work and manage its quality
5. Over-reliance on after-the-fact inspection of work product as a quality management procedure, rather than reducing or eliminating the causes of error
6. Inconsistent project management skills and practices

In tomorrow’s post, I will begin a six-part overview of the core elements of an effective quality assurance program.

But for now, ask yourself: “How many of these six deficits exist in my law firm?”

Norman Clark

Once upon a time, only 15 years ago, law firms could learn many valuable lessons from all aspects of the Toyota management model. Toyota showed us how to identify and focus on our core business, understand how internal business systems operated, and — above all — the importance of quality management. Law firms that adapted principles of total quality management from Toyota and other leading Japanese companies saw remarkable improvements in client satisfaction and long-term profitability.

Now Toyota has another important lesson for law firms everywhere — the importance of not sacrificing quality to profitability and growth. To do so is a fool’s choice, as the recent Toyota debacles demonstrate. For every thousand dollars saved by cutting corners on quality assurance, a business can ultimately lose millions of dollars in customer goodwill and market reputation.

An article in this morning’s Washington Post provides interesting insights about what happened inside Toyota to produce the recent quality fiascos. As Blaine Harden points out in his article “‘Toyota Way’ was lost on road to phenomenal worldwide growth,” the blunders were not isolated mistakes, but the natural result of a long-term deterioration in the quality mind-set that accounts for much of Toyota’s success in the 1980s and 1990s.

But now, as the company recalls millions of flawed cars around the world, there is an expert consensus that growth itself derailed the Toyota Way, blurring its focus on quality, thinning its stable of expert mentors and undermining its capacity to respond to consumer complaints.

This one paragraph presents an excellent checklist for law firms of any size:

• As your law firm has grown, have you blurred your focus on consistently delivering “best-in-market” levels of professional quality and client service? Quality assurance is not “nice to have” or a sideline. It should be at the core of your operations.
• Are you making a serious resource commitment to quality assurance? Quality assurance is more than having “spell check” on your computers. It requires probing into the operations of your firm to identify and prevent the causes of errors, rather than trying to catch them and fix them after they happen.
• How do you respond to client complaints? The real test of a law firm’s commitment to quality is not their slogans, but how they respond to client complaints. Unfortunately, most law firms do not have any systematic procedure to address client complaints, but instead rely on crisis-to-crisis damage control, which is much more expensive and usually much less effective.

Harden’s article also reminds me of something that a senior partner in a large, international law firm in London told me about 12 years ago, as his firm was embarking on a campaign of dramatic international expansion:

No matter how big we get, we still get only one chance to get it right with our client.

Norman Clark