Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone

Client Retention - A Gap in Attorney Marketing

By allan colman

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article

CLIENT RETENTION - A Gap in Attorney Marketing

Why is it that lawyers are so resistant to marketing and business development? According to our recent U.S./Canada Client Retention Survey, the most frequent answers were:

* No training; * Failed once - why try again; * Fear of the process; * No time: * Not compensated.

The approach we utilize is to teach professionals to sell using tools that are relevant for the legal profession, listen to and solve their sales problems,and add innovations where appropriate.

But there is only one way to succeed -- get out there!

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

From Our Blogs

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIST

Internet 2.0: Jurisdictional Risks in Today’s Cyber World

With the explosion of the Internet in the last several decades, courts have struggled with whether tortious conduct on a website is expressly aimed at any, or all, of the forums in which the website can be viewed. Two recent Ninth Circuit cases expanded the reach of Internet jurisdiction and may carry significant implications.

THE CORPORATE COUNSELOR

Sarbanes Oxley And The Non-Public Subsidiary: A Non-Sequitur?

By now, corporate counselors are well acquainted with the fact that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and its whistleblower protections apply to publicly traded companies. What is less well known is that the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protections can also apply to non-public subsidiaries of publicly traded companies. Although the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board noted that it has not addressed the issue at the appellate level, a number of OSHA Administrative Law Judges (who hear SOX whistleblower cases at the trial level) have done so, and their decisions uniformly hold that SOX can protect the employees of non-public subsidiaries of publicly traded companies under certain circumstances. Those decisions also provide practical guidance for corporate counselors who want to limit SOX coverage strictly to the publicly-traded parent.

Tweets