Moving on

I have spent the last two and a half years working as a consultant, specialising in working with law firms and sets of chambers, both in the UK and in Europe. In January next year, I will be taking up a new challenge as Chambers Director at 2 Hare Court, a set of chambers which has long been recognised both nationally and internationally as one of the UK’s leading sets of chambers specialising in criminal law, fraud, professional discipline, regulatory work and other related fields

I have enjoyed my time as a consultant, and have met a good number of interesting people, but one of my main learnings has been that I am more suited to working inside an organisation where I can work, day on day, to get the firm running as efficiently as possible. I have missed the confusion of general management within an organisation, I missed having to think strategically and operationally at the same time, and I have missed working with people - people for whom I am responsible. I have particularly missed working with barristers - they are wonderfully intelligent people who make sure that I am at the top of my game (and not difficult at all - no, no...).

So the time has come to stop shouting from the sidelines and get back into the game.

With wonderful synchronicity, 2 Hare Court, have been looking for a new Chambers Director. After a number of meetings, we have decided that we suit each other and so, from January 2012, I will be taking up the challenge of working with a set of barristers at a difficult time.

I am looking forward to it greatly. I will have a steep learning curve as I get to know the members of chambers, the support staff, and our clients - as well as getting up to speed with the details of the industry.

I hope to keep up with social media - but I'm not sure whether I will have time to blog. If I do, it would not, in any case, be appropriate to do so through this blog. So this will be my last posting from Mar-aon Consulting.

Thank you to all my clients; thank you to those that read this blog; and thank you to all those commentators, writers, and bloggers who have inspired me.

More details about 2 Hare Court can be found here. I'll post my new contact details as soon as I have them. I hope that I can keep in contact with those bright people I have met through blogging and tweeting, and of course I'd love to hear from any of you who might need the services of world-class barristers!

Thank you all.

The Pitch Team

I have been working on pitches recently - the sort that involve trying to win business rather than those associated with balls... These have been pitches for my own business, pitches in conjunction with other consulting firms and in offering advice to other business either about their pitches or about immediate post-pitch client service.

I've been surprised by two simple things. The first is the number of organisations both large and small who have a dedicated 'pitch team' - i.e. a group of often senior, experienced, high-flying members of staff who secure business for the firm. The second things is how often these same organisations are surprised that, as the contract starts, the client is unhappy that they don't seem to be working with the high-fliers and that they don't recognise anyone they are working with.

I completely understand the point of having a pitch team - and I think that having a few members of the team who may work exclusively on pitches is a fine thing. The team should, however, also have members of the service team who will go on to work with the client. This is vital so that the client can see who they are working with and so that the staff can properly understand the client's requirements.

By doing this you avoid my second point above. I'm amazed that businesses will go to great lengths to win business and then upset the client in the first week of the contact by having a bunch of strangers interacting with the client.

Only last week I was speaking with a large advertising business who had spent five months travelling the world to woo an international client. They had wheeled in all their big guns - global specialists from their business and a couple of consultants who gave the impression of being staff. They duly won the business although at a price they are already regretting (bad pricing and chasing turnover at any cost is a regular theme of mine in this blog that I will, I'm sure, return to soon). Five days into the contract, they received a call from the client essentially saying "Who the &*%$ are these people and where are the guys I was speaking to during the contract pitch".

So overall the pitch was a bit of a disaster. They now have an angry and upset client who is already, only a couple of months in, trying to find ways to terminate the contract - and the firm is irritated that it is servicing a contract with almost no profit in it (as they said to me "what does the client expect at that price").

As I said - I'm surprised. Surprised that the advertising firm doesn't realise that it needs to please its clients and surprised that such a large firm can get its pricing so wrong and then try to take its frustration out on the client.

The lessons are simple. Have a pitch team that includes the people who will work day-to-day with the client in the execution of the contract. Work to please the client. Talk with the client regularly to make sure they are pleased. And price your work properly - don't just chase turnover.

As with most things in management - it may sometimes be difficult but it certainly isn't complicated.

Barristers - the case for change

I've heard from a number of barristers lately and a surprising number seem to be of the opinion that the structural changes to the industry will have no or little impact on their life and business. I'm not sure I agree.

As with all change, there are opportunities and threats. The threats to the bar come in a number of forms. The first is that the changes to the industry are built around efficiency (or at least they are supposed to be). Efficiency of process and efficiency of price. To that end, a set of chambers and its clerks will need to be able to demonstrate both. This will require a good understanding of their own processes, those of referring solicitors and those of their clients, whether coming through direct access or not. Efficient connections between processes will be vital.

This understanding of their own systems will then need to lead to an improved understanding of the prices negotiated and the client-value of the services provided. The next threat will come from ABSs. I'm still unsure what these will look like and exactly how they will work, but there is a threat there to the traditional referral model. As such, chambers need to be keeping a close eye on the Market. The latest great wheeze for chambers is the move to a "ProcureCo" model where chambers establishes a limited company to procure business and to enter into contracts with large entities. I spoke with two sets last week on this subject and sadly neither was clear about why they wanted to move in that direction. The most usually reason is so that chambers can bid for large panel work. What must be understood, however, is that pitching for this work requires some considerable investment - certainly in time and usually in reporting and communication systems. Once won, servicing these large clients is a considerable task requiring yet more time, trouble and technology. I do think more chambers should use this model - but only after some careful consideration of why they are doing it, the development of a plan, and wthe recognition that considerable investment will be required.

All of these issues are, of course, also opportunities. Chambers are, in general, already leaner than law firms in terms of their support costs and so are well placed to "steal" business. Barristers have spent generations working on a fee+refreshers basis - something that clients want and something that many are pushing law firms to adopt. When most clients talk about fixed fee work, they understand that contingent pricing is required - i.e. that an agreed fixed price is only agreed if the discussed perameters hold good. If more work is required (for good reason and explained in advance to the client) then most clients accept that an addition payment is required. This is the fee+refreshers model - or close enough that barristers and clerks should recognise it.

The real advantage for barristers comes from "lean" working. With fewer support staff and no atrium to support, barristers can be cheaper, or certainly more cost effective, than law firms. I was told a story recently about a commercial client who needed advice about a complex tax matter. They approached a large law firm who proposed an hourly rate in excess of £300 and suggested that a three person team would spend a week or so on the matter before reporting. A set of chambers was also approached. The clerk suggested that one of his tax Silks could examine the matter over the course of a weekend and offer an opinion on the following Monday, at a fixed fixed cost of £14,000. Cheaper and faster - now there is an advantage...

Changes are coming and I'd be much happier to be a barrister than a solicitor (so long as I wasn't trying to establish myself as a junior at the criminal bar - but that's a different story altogether).

Action before Strategy

One of the joys of working with lawyers and schools is that there is little reason to be in London in August since there is almost no-one to see. My last week, therefore, has been engaged in throwing myself back into the joy that is "sales" visits with clients. Sadly it didn't take long for me to have my head in my hands...

I was asked to speak with a small-to-medium sized set of barristers' chambers (and that's my description, rather than theirs) who were planning to establish themselves as an LLP and to set up a ProcureCo. This does seem to be the 'sexy' topic at the moment.  As is my way, I started the discussion by asking why members of chambers wanted to change structure. To my slight astonishment (well I have been on holiday), the response was "What do you mean. We're not really changing anything".

Ten minutes in, and I was still not sure what their strategy was - they seemed to be changing (and it is a change, as I kept trying to tell them) because they thought they should. So instead of plotting their LLP structure for them, I outlined some thoughts about how they might discuss and discover their strategy.

That didn't go down well...

They wanted action not, and I quote, "all that strategic nonsense". They wanted to do something - and an LLP and ProcureCo seemed to be the thing to do. Never mind that they were unsure about the need for a ProcureCo, how it would work, who it would employ, and what business it would bring. Never mind that they hadn't thought about - let alone discussed - funding the LLP.

Sadly I did not impress them - talking, as I did, "all that strategy nonsense" rather than about their cunning plan for an LLP. Oh well - there will be other clients, I'm sure...