Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone

WHAT DID NOT WORK

By Allan Colman, Managing Director, the Closers Group: www.closersgroup.com

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article

WHAT DID NOT WORK -

1. Offering to handle and manage what inside counsel already have the skills to manage.

2. Relying on good results but not working on the relationship.

3. Offensive humorous comments.

Conducting comprehensive research on your clients and prospects, both as individuals and on their companies is one of the single most important components to successfully closing a new engagement. Yet it is one of the major reasons in-house counsel do not retain firms. Sure, winning a major piece of litigation, completing an acquisition, settling a strike are all positives.

But if you ignore continuing to build the client relationship, you will face "I just won a major victory for my client. Why hasn't she called me?" So do your homework. If you do have services which can replace those currently being conducted by in-house counsel, offer to do so only if you have previously learned that they want to contract them out. Don't independently offer to handle and manage what they can already do.

The third failure may occur when a completely innocent humorous comment is made by a colleague during a pitch or presentation meeting. You must know who will be in the room from the in-house group and learn enough about their backgrounds to avoid the problem. This is one of those areas where you may not get the work and never be told why.

In the next blog column, we'll discuss additional foibles committed by attorneys when trying to win more business. Allan Colman acolman@closersgroup.com.

Comments

Be the first to comment on this post using the section below.

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIST

A Blurry Distinction with a Huge Difference: Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Speech

Imagine the following two scenarios, and try to figure out what the real difference is. First, your competitor blatantly lies in its advertising about the effectiveness of its products; second, your competitor blatantly lies to a reporter about the effectiveness of its products, and the reporter publishes the lies in an article or in a magazine. It seems like the same situation, but it is not. With the first, you could sue for false advertising because the advertisement is “commercial” speech, whereas with the second, you cannot because the magazine article is “non-commercial” speech. A similar difference is presented if a newspaper uses a picture of a celebrity without the celebrity’s consent to highlight a news article, as opposed to a company using the same celebrity picture in a print advertisement, in the same newspaper, to promote the company. A breach of the celebrity’s right of publicity claim is not available against the newspaper because the news article is “non-commercial,” but is available against the company because the print advertisement is “commercial.” The rationale for both is that while the First Amendment fully protects “non-commercial” speech, it protects “commercial’ speech in a significantly limited way.

THE MATRIMONIAL STRATEGIST

PA Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships

Although same-sex marriages and divorces can now be granted anywhere in the country, there are a few unanswered questions in Pennsylvania regarding how legal relationships between same-sex couples — that are not marriages — should be treated.

Tweets