Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone


By allan colman,

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article


When was the last time you asked clients for new business? On the surface, that question may seem a bit silly. After all, asking for business once a company has signed on with your firm may feel a bit redundant. But consider this: asking for more work on a regular basis is a solid client retention tactic that could lead to botton-line dividends.

Think business generation and value. If the new project involves work in a fledgling practice area your firm wants to promote, use warm relations with your client to persuade them to take a chance on your firm. Sweeten the deal and negotiate a lower fee for a set time period - perhaps three to six months -so the client can gain confidence in your firm's ability to handle the project.

Next column will discussing aligning your interests with the client's.


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

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment


Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration

From Our Blogs



Using Relativity As an Information Governance Application

Using Relativity to gather, review and produce documents in response to discovery requests has historically been its core use. However, one of the most effective ways in which Relativity can be creatively used by competent operators is as an Information Governance (IG) application.


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.