TinkerX

I’m putting this one in the "rant" category because I just can’t figure out where else it should go. As a marketing adviser for law firms and a frequent writer and speaker on legal marketing topics, I’m often asked, "What’s the single best thing I can do to help improve my law firm’s marketing?" Any of you who have followed my work at all know what’s coming:   

Exactly not meaningful…

The Hildebrandt advisory speaks very authoritatively about mid-size firms. Until you check the footnote:

We should note that it is impossible to define precisely what constitutes a "mid-sized firm" as the definition will vary depending on the areas of a firm’s practice, its geographic location, the number of offices that it has, and other factors.  Generally, however, we would regard a firm as "mid-sized" if it had a minimum of about 50 lawyers and a maximum of 250 to 350 lawyers.

Er… ah… Sure.  You see what I mean about "measurement" issues? "Mid-size" is a quantitative measurement. "Size" being generally a measurement of, well, size. And in the world of law firms, "size" means "how many lawyers work here." I’m not familiar with any legal publisher or survey that measures, say, the combined or mean height of weight of firms’ lawyers. So… size means how many people work there who are engaged in the practice of law.

Why am I making a big deal out of this? Why is this categorized as a rant? Doesn’t Andy have anything better to do on a Wednesday morning than jump all over Hildebrandt about a wheezy little definition of "mid-sized" in a footnote of a report?

Listen closely, campers. I have been trying for years to get clients, other consultants, lawyers, and the industry as a whole to wake up to the foundational truths of goal based, measurable marketing programs. The bedrock at the bottom of that foundation is that you must have good measurements in place, and that they must point to clearly stated goals. Just like I said in the intro to this rant.

How can we expect our client firms to move towards an efficient legal marketing model, when one of the largest and most widely read consulting firms in the industry cannot put forward a clear definition of "mid-sized firm?"

It’s not a big deal in and of itself, but it’s so bloody indicative of the way everyone in this industry behaves. Nothing is solid. Everything has to sort of seep around corners and flow like syrup from one point to the next.

…And precisely not helpful

Now, besides the fact that Hildebrandt doesn’t want to actually stick out their necks and (gasp!) suggest a number (if you want to know why I think they won’t do that, send me an email and I’ll tell you in private), their definition itself — loose as it my be — is, frankly, unhelpful. The difference between a 50 lawyer firm and a 350 lawyer firm in terms of logistics, operational issues, HR issues, facilities requirements, etc. is staggering. To group them together in terms of any kind of suggestions as to business strategy is like putting a local chain of three or four restaurants in the same category with a regional fast-food franchise. They just don’t work the same way.

Which is another problem with business strategy and marketing consulting in the law firm world. Because the same kind of work can often be done by a sole practitioner as a 1,000 lawyer firm, industry pundits seem to think that those two outfits are always in competition. Guess what? They’re not. Which leads us on to the next portion of this advisory.

Hunh? Mid-size did which?
And were struggling with what?

So what are the "trends" and "recommendations" that this advisory spies and advises?

• Some mid-size firms are merging to become bigger.
• Some of those mergers mean that firms that were local are now "regional"
• Some of the business that mid-size firms used to get is now going to large firms
• Mid-sized firms "struggled" with rate disparity

OK. That last bullet is actually a pretty solid point, and one that should have been covered in more detail. It’s an interesting topic for a blog post, actually, and one that I’ll shamelessly steal.

The problem with all theses points, however, is that none of them are endemic to mid-sized firms. There were mergers in large firms. Some large firms went from being regional to becoming multi-regional. Some work that the smaller of the large firms did is now going to the mega firms. And some of the work that the small firms did is now going to the mid-sized firms. And all firms, from sole practitioner to giant multi-national, will "struggle" with rate disparity as long as they don’t have (here it comes again) a good, solid, goal-focused marketing program in place in terms of their pricing plans.

Do you think GM "struggles" with the "rate disparity" between Pontiacs, Cadillacs, Saturns, Chevys, Oldsmobiles, Buicks and Hummers? No. They do not. They put lots of work into their pricing programs. They do research. They do consumer studies and competitor analysis. They balance profit vs. costs for all their models. And they don’t expect their customers to pay the same rate for a low-end Saturn SL as for a tricked-out Hummer. Why do law firms "struggle" with rate disparity? Because (third time’s a charm… or is this the fourth?) they don’t approach pricing strategies with a measurable, goal focused marketing strategy.

And advisories like this one aren’t helping.

Go thee forth and… do the… good… things.

[Warning: sarcasm ahead] The last point Hildebrandt makes in the mid-sized section of the advisory provides a wealth of actionable data for those firms that may or may not find themselves in the somewhat nebulously defined state of mid-sized firm:

The key… is to have a clear understanding and agreement among its  partners about the strategy the firm has adopted.  As we noted in our Client Advisory last year, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a successful mid-sized firm; indeed, there are many benefits in terms of lifestyle and personal relationships.  But being and remaining a mid-sized firm often involves a set of trade-offs   personal and professional   and it is important that all of a firm’s partners understand and accept the choices that they and their firm have made.

Cool! Once again, in 2005, it’s OK to be a successful mid-sized firm! I’d been  holding my breath, worrying that maybe this would be the year when being successful was going to be unhip. Or that maybe success wasn’t even a measure of success anymore. Perhaps successful mid-sized firms, in the future, won’t be successful, according to Hildebrandt.  Watch out, firms with roughly 50 to maybe 250 or 350 attorneys… Your success may not assure your success in 2006.

But what is the secret to continued success, even if success may not be, next year, enough to guarantee your success? The key is to have "a clear understanding and agreement among partners about the strategy the firm has adopted… and it is important that all of a firm’s partners understand and accept the choices that they and their firm have made."

I’m not sure what the difference between "the partners" and "the firm" is, such that we need to have both listed in the ritual "understanding."  I suppose Hildebrandt could be suggesting that associates and staff might be involved in the strategic decisions about firm management.

As Bill Cosby says, "Riiiiiggght."

So. The secret to success? Clear understanding of strategy, agreement, acceptance.  As far as that goes, I guess I agree. I mean, if everyone is arguing about that stuff, you’re pretty much guaranteed to fail. But saying you need those things is like saying your boat needs to be lighter than water in order to float.  As far as a goal goes, it’s pretty flimsy. If my clients asked me for an advisory, I’d try to dig a bit deeper. Heck, I’m digging a bit deeper in this dang blog post.

So. What’s my take on mid-sized firms? Here’s my number, and I’ll stick by it: any firm with more than 100 lawyers is a mid-sized firm. Period.  Why? Because I said so.  But if you’ve got 92 lawyers and want to call yourself a mid-sized firm, you go right ahead. Where I come from, we call that "marketing."