Tough Love; just say no!

Think they'd get the message if I sent some of these?

Our Customer Relations Manager has been on a bit of a client care bender recently. What he has been pushing is client care 101 - the stuff drilled into you on the LPC that I have to say most of our fee earners know inside out. As with all initiatives coined by marketing, its dressed up in jargon. One thing that came across in our 'Becoming the Trusted Advisor - a different approach to client care' training sesh is that we are expected to do whatever we can to achieve the client's goals, be that being available at any time of the day or night or agreeing to impossible deadlines or even knowing the client's hamster's birthday to send flowers (Ok, I may have exaggerated the last one, but seriously, we are supposed to remember the client's kids birthdays). Essentially the only word coming out of a lawyers mouth is 'yes'.

A matter I have been doing a little bit of work on has made me question this approach. Our client is a neutral third party in a case that can only be described as a ridiculous waste of money. The claimant company has launched a side attack to the main application that is literally impossible. Not only has it no proof, the people it has issued against are not sufficiently senior in the defendant corporation to carry any responsibility even if they had done the acts in question. Despite this, the claimant has not only has accused and issued in court but is refusing to settle. To top it off, all of the evidence showing the claim to be nothing but spurious was submitted to court in the main claim and circulated to all parties. The solicitors acting for the claimant really dropped the ball on this one. Or did they?

Having read the correspondence there is a definite sense of reluctance on the solicitors part, as if they were pursuing the claim half-heartedly, hoping we would give in to save costs. Almost as if they knew it was ridiculous but had to go along with it anyway. The company is a big company, no doubt their solicitors act for them in a general way, not just for disputes. A major client. Telling a big, money spinning client the claim won't stick might seem like bad client relations. The client is unlikely to be happy about it short term. Maybe the retainer is coming up for review. Perhaps there are is a large amount of WIP to be billed and the solicitors want to keep them sweet. Maybe the client is a bit of a bulldozer.

Whatever the difficulty, all they should have said is NO. A solicitor does his client no favours by running up fees on all sides and exposing their client to a potential costs order. It might keep the client on side in the short term but when it all back fires down the road do you think the relationship will be a good one? A lawyer should act with the best interests of the client in mind and that includes telling them when they're wrong. Good business men value a truthful advisor more than one that simply does what he is told. Ultimately your client will realise when you play the yes man. That is not what he is paying you for.

So I am not going to listen to the 'never say no' strategy marketing has been dishing out. A blanket yes approach is not what I would want from a solicitor and I bet it's not what the clients expect. I will be giving honest advise, especially when I need to say no and hope that my clients realise the value in this approach. It is more likely to generate respect and a good client relationship than pandering to needs.

It is also worth remembering the clients that aren't happy are the ones who are likely to turn nasty. After all, after the claimant in my case has a giant costs order awarded against him, who do you think he will be suing to foot the bill? The solicitors who didn't stop him look like they might have a target on their chests........

'Dealing with Difficult Situations'. Or not.

He's a lot cuter than my boss.........

Today I was party to a training session with an external trainer on 'Dealing with difficult situations'. I thought it was a particularly good session actually. Unlike the generic delivery of standard role play scenarios and regurgitation of psychobabble that training on similar topics tends consist of, this session was tailored, insightful and useful to those who attended. I am not really writing about the session itself but something that was shared during it.

I found out that two of the most senior partners cannot stand each other. Further more, their 'issue' has meant they sit on opposite sides of the building despite being part of the same team.

I was shocked! I have always thought it odd that they were so far apart, I just assumed it was something to do with the senior management team spreading out amongst the firm. As a result the rest of their team is spread out in little hot spots with support staff and other specialist teams in between. Their secretary is never at her desk as she is always running between one end of the office to the other and it is rare to see a team discussion anywhere other than in a formal meeting. One thing I have learnt as a trainee is that being near to a team means you can learn and contribute from each other. In a knowledge based, fast moving discipline such as law this interaction is crucial.

Call me naive but I can't understand how two grown up professional people could let a personal difference go so far to the point that it could affect their team's performance. These people are supposed to be not only heads of departments but are directly involved in running the Firm. Feuds are for your personal life, if you are that stubborn, it has no place in the work place.

Of course I am assuming it is a personal difference. There is a possibility it is a work problem; everyone has that person in the office they think can't do their job. If that person is in your team it makes it more difficult. I can't imagine what the response would be to a request to sit at the other end of the office to avoid an annoying colleague. Your desk certainly wouldn't go anywhere, although you might.

What concerns me is the acceptance of the segregation. It is such an institutionalised position that it seems only those who work or have worked within the team know about it, although it isn't hidden. The rest of their team, and probably the Firm, have simply learnt to work around them until now it is as if it is normal. The work might be getting done, I just can't shake the idea that it could be done better if the team was close enough to talk to each other!

I wish there was a big law firm mother figure who could come and clunk their heads together. A childish issue needs a childish solution. As is I guess I shall just have to learn the lesson for them.