Too often, it seems, we are reminding lawyers in law firms to be client focused. Not this time.
This one is for the clients.
One of the recent, complaints I've been hearing (loudly) from our law firm colleagues is about responses to RFPs. It was bad enough when prospects and clients began using procurement folks (who haven't a clue or don't seem to give a hoot about the relationship aspects involved in the delivery of professional services) to write their RFPs.
Now, RFPs are coming in - and I mean voluminous things - that demand a 3-5 day turnaround.
Why? What purpose does this serve? To see how many law firms have staff who are willing, loyal or silly enough to stay awake for hours on end creating materials and putting these things together for the lawyers to review and approve? How does this facilitate any client's ability to assess a law firm?
It would be great if law firms would, just once, say NO. Wouldn't it turn the industry upside down if firms banded together to stop this obnoxious practice? What if they all responded: "We respect and appreciate our staff and our lawyers as much as we do our clients. This means that we expect to go the extra mile for our clients. It does not mean engaging in activities that, by design, cause inefficiencies, disruptions and hard feelings in our firm. While we would love the opportunity to work with you, the approach that is being taken at the outset of (or during) our relationship implies that you do not share this core value. We respectfully decline to respond."
Dream on, right?
The Legal Sales and Service Organization (LSSO) is the legal industry's first and only organization focused exclusively on sales, service and quality issues in law departments and firms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Agreed, we say RIP to the RFP unless the client had your firm write the specs. Take the time necessary to respond and use it in the marketplace! Far better results.
RFPs will never slow down: strict legal services will be viewed as commodity spending and subject to a legal budget from now on. What incentive is there for business executives to derail this practice?
Thus, the key is in evaluating the RFP and having firm management support in doing so. Evaluation should not equal refusing to undertake the RFP, lest Marketing lose the credibility to offer strategic advice.
I tend to agree with anonymous. Clients are firmly in the driver's seat and know that there are countless other firms in line eager to jump through whatever hoops are necessary to get a piece of the ever-shrinking pie. It is easier for them to have the RFP process in place.
One of our biggest issues is making sure the RFP does not sit on John Doe attorney's desk for 2 weeks and then make it's way down to marketing with only 3 days before the deadline.
Anon #2's issue is not a new one. In a perfect world scenario, the attorney would then have to take more responsibility for helping to churn out the final product. Although I find some attorneys are willing to take up the oar, they are generally the exception to the rule.
I don't mean to suggest that such behavior is right, but we can't be surprised by this: our lawyers are constantly having to perform at high levels under similar circumstances or risk losing business or, in some cases, clients.
Post a Comment