I recently retained a premier law firm for some intellectual property work. As one might expect from a top shelf firm, attorneys are armed to the teeth with legal savvy and the customer service is dead-on—can’t be beat. But then I read the engagement letter….
As a legal spend management consultant to Fortune 500 companies the very first tactic I insist of any client is development and deployment of an Outside Counsel Policy. In this document firms have the opportunity to set down guidelines that clearly define the firm-client relationship. This especially includes details about billing and disbursements (i.e., overtime meals are not allowed; no first class travel; will not pay for first year associates, etc.).
The “Wicked Problem”
When I read the engagement letter from my law firm I saw staring back at me a laundry list of policies not too unlike those I urge my clients to lay-out in their Outside Counsel Policies. To be utterly simplistic: Everyone’s saying the same thing to everyone else, but is anyone listening?
• Policies
• Rules
• Billing specifications
• Relationship spelling-out
• You need this
• We do this
• We don’t do this
• all packaged into a fairly rigid document format
….required lip-service that defines our business transactions.
Here’s the irony: Everyday I bear witness to the angry brew of electronic communication in its most dastardly form: billing, the bits and bytes that get you paid according to whatever AFA du jour you’ve architected into your rules of engagement.
- Corporate legal departments, in efforts to streamline and prune costs, implement electronic billing systems with rules based on–guess what (?)–the billing guidelines they’ve written into their Outside Counsel Policy.
- At the same time outside law firms are submitting invoices to these same corporate clients and–guess what (?)–many of their invoices are being rejected because they’ve failed to follow the guidelines. Result: wasted time, ineffective communication and collaboration, delayed money in pocket.
In rejection is opportunity.
Think about it—and I know the first human impulse is to reject the rejecter, gesture wildly and mutter epithets—but a rejection, particularly in the legal industry and in my niche, electronic billing, is a red flag that your system isn’t jiving with your client’s. This breakdown in communication (which, I might add started way back with the mutual exchange of policies and engagement letters) is not a rejection, but a sign that you need to make some changes—for the better.
The legal data pipes are not just percolating with invoicing and billing, which get you paid, but they are stuffed to the gills, as well, with the messy build-up of policy and rule exchange. If you can barely keep your nose above water to save yourself from drowning in your own email inbox, then how in the heck are you really taking in the information that you need to get business done and, at the end of the day, make money?
We are in up to our eyeballs in digital communication and when done right it’s a win-win for both sides. What are we doing right and is there a real solution to tracking our seemingly opposing rules of engagement?
Bottom line = time + money. Seems like an easy equation doesn’t it….