Law Firm Sales: An Industry Overview

By Roberta Montafia

Throughout the country boutique firms and firms with full service practices are changing the way they do business.  Pressured by the need for differentiation law firms have gone in search of consistent dramatic paydays, increased client loyalty and rising retention rates.  Aided by a growing roster of seasoned professional legal sales people, they have opened a new front in the fight for the shrinking pie. 

In recent years, these firms have made strategic decisions to focus their resources on the researched and confirmed needs of their clients and design new service delivery methods to meet these needs. In these new models, law firms are embracing sales techniques previously viewed as the province of the corporate world. Rather than relying on the old model of solid legal expertise and reputation, which has proved ineffective in the pursuit of an increasingly competitive market, these firms are taking the lead by borrowing corporate sales techniques and proving that they can, and do make a difference. 

Background

To get a good picture of this development I set out to speak to the people who are effecting the change.  Beginning in the last quarter of 2003 I interviewed 11 in-house people whose major responsibility is sales (2 have since left their firms), 6 legal consultants, 2 vendors and 2 recruiters. 

The interviews represent a medley of ideas and form an intriguing collection of thoughts and insights into the development of sales in the legal industry.  You can view the work being done by these leaders as instructive and inspirational.  If you’re not looking for inspiration, at the very least it gives you a chance to be informed about the latest thinking in law firm leadership. 

While certainly not either a scientific or exhaustive study, I was able to speak with a substantial number of people who have been instrumental in shaping the movement.  From these interviews patterns and trends emerged.  The interviewees were generous with their recommendations and predictions.  These findings are clearly enlightening and law firms would be wise to listen.  This article is not about the “right way” to develop a sales function.  Rather, it is an exploration of the approaches that have been taken by a variety of firms and the lessons they have learned along the way. 

Here’s what I learned.    

Because every law firm has a unique culture, the firms that have incorporated a sales program have designed programs tailored to fit their specific strategies and goals.  I identified 3 basic models.  While each is unique, they all can be defined by a focus on clients.  As a result, these firms recognize that clients are more strident in their demands for service and are searching for ways to restyle service delivery. 

While it would be reasonable to assume that the growth of the sales function in law firms has been limited to the large firms -- they generally have more resources to fund and staff such ambitious efforts -- that is not the case. The people that I spoke with, who are all leaders in this area, are working with firms that range in size from 30 lawyers in 1 office to 800 lawyers in 17 offices.  The essential components of the programs that have proven successful vary from firm to firm, however, they share many commonalities and have faced similar challenges.

Leadership and training were found to be critically important. And the greatest similarities were in the challenges faced by these firms, such as the number one barrier: compensation systems.  This research allows a guess as to what the future holds for our industry, but one thing is for certain: sales is no passing fad.

Three Basic Models

In general, the programs that are developing can broadly be described by 3 models: (1) partner led – either by an existing partner stepping into the role or by bringing in a lateral partner, (2) hiring an experienced sales person from another industry, and (3) an evolutionary model where a professional legal marketing person, with or without a sales background, transitions the firm from marketing to sales.  All of these are viable models.  For a firm interested in developing a sales function the success of the model they choose will be dependent on a variety of factors including the firm’s culture, appetite for change, resources and commitment and engagement of the firm leaders.  

(1) The Partner Model. Mark Cowan is a partner and head of business development at Patton Boggs.  He was brought into the partnership for the express purpose of creating their business development and sales program.  Mark has taken a multifaceted approach, which has resulted in a sophisticated program that presently has 4 full time staff engaged in business development. We have been very successful on almost every measure, whether you look at production or acceptance by the firm. (M.Cowan) Mark attributes his success, in part, to the fact that he is a partner and peer, although he readily acknowledges that what has worked for his firm may be quite different than what would work for another firm.  While he is not sure whether the position needs to be filled by a lawyer, he firmly believes that the person leading the charge must be someone who has the respect of the partners – a sentiment that is shared by many of the interviewees. 

Davis Wright & Tremaine has taken a slightly different approach in the development of their program.  Milt Stewart has been a partner at the firm since 1990 and has been chair of their client relationship team for the last 6 years.  In April 2002, he took on the role of Business Development Partner -- the first time the firm has moved an attorney into a non-direct revenue-producing role.  Milt actually began planning for his new role in 1999 by researching how other professional service firms treated business development.  He used the information he gathered to craft a job description that would complement the firm’s culture.  Milt’s focus on the culture and the fact that he began with a pilot program has proven a successful formula for his firm.  My most important mission is cultural; creating a culture in which individual lawyers, practices and offices accept it as their responsibility to aspirationally market. (M.Stewart)  Milt now spends approximately 60% of his time on the position and expects that to increase over time, as the efforts have proved successful.  Like Mark Cowan, Milt isn’t sure whether the lead role needs to be filled by a partner, and agrees that the culture of a firm will dictate what model will be successful, but he has serious doubts whether his firm would support a sales professional in the role. 

The sales effort run by a partner will appeal to many firms as it could well be viewed as culturally “safe”.  The partner, who will be regarded as a peer, will have an easier time gaining acceptance and should be able to minimize cultural trauma.  But, there are downsides.  If the firm has not been through the experience of moving a partner from production to a non-direct revenue-producing role and if the compensation system relies heavily upon origination credit, tensions could create serious impediments.  In addition, institutionalization of the process will probably take longer as the partner will be sensitized to cultural obstacles and spend significant time on gaining consensus before taking action. However, the majority of the issues can be avoided if the position and expectations are clearly defined, quantifiable measurements are put in place and the firm’s leadership is staunchly committed. 

(2) Sales Professional.  Several firms have determined that their culture can support the leadership provided by an experienced sales professional from another industry.  This is perhaps the most widely recognized as well as controversial model.  All evidence points to Steve Bell as being the first person to have “sales” in his title when he was hired as Director of Sales by Womble Carlyle in 2001.  The firm had invested heavily in training for a number of years, was working with an outside consultant and spent a considerable amount of energy in self-examination.  They had done the groundwork and were culturally prepared for acceptance.  As Director of Sales, Steve works closely with the firm’s Director of Marketing and Strategic Development.  We have a good functional personal relationship and our philosophies are very much in harmony. We both understand what the respective roles of marketing and sales, and we know how marketing qualifies and advances targets to a point where sales take over. (S.Bell)  As with many of these programs, Steve’s focus is on top clients and accountability for the sales force – the lawyers.  Other examples of firms that have followed this approach are Pillsbury Winthrop, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, and Duane Morris, LLP.

Thompson Hine’s approach is an interesting variation on this model.  In February of 2001 they hired Alvidas Jasin as their marketing director, but with the understanding that his role would change. Alvidas was charged with the mission of growing the business of the firm.  His 15 years of experience in professional services marketing made him well placed to tackle the firm’s transition from marketing to sales.  Alvidas spent his first year solidifying the marketing infrastructure and developing the tools required to support the business development efforts.  We restructured our department so we were able to service the offices and the practice groups on a firm wide level – and we developed all of the basic materials, tools and databases needed by a firm of our size [360 lawyers]. (A.Jasin)  Once Alvidas was satisfied with the infrastructure he turned his focus to business development, launching major programs aimed at growing the business of the firm.  The partners at their last annual meeting recognized his hard work and celebrated the formal name change of the department from marketing to business development.   

The sales professional model carries the highest financial costs and risks, but also has the potential for delivering the highest rewards.  The advantage is that the firm gets the expertise of a sales person with proven ability who will be able to efficiently craft a program.  If the program is well resourced, well supported and the sales director is given adequate time to implement, then the rewards will be great.  The weakness in this approach stems from the reluctance on the part of the attorneys to place their faith in a non-lawyer.  If the firm has not done the work required to set the stage for acceptance, then the program will most probably fail.  A sales director who has come in from another industry without law firm experience will find themselves in an alien environment that they may, or may not be able to successfully navigate.  Professional sales people are used to an organization that provides them with a certain amount of autonomy and authority allowing them to focus on strategy, which is then implemented by a skilled sales force.  Entering a law firm the sales professional is met with an untrained sales force as well as the real possibility of a segment of the partnership resentful of the effort.  Thus, the firm runs the risk of the position failing as the sales professional becomes frustrated at their inability to produce and either leaves the firm or is asked to leave.   

(3) Evolutionary.  There are many examples of the evolutionary approach both from firms where the marketing person has been well established and from firms where the marketing person was brought in specifically to transition the firm from a marketing/communications focus to business development.  This model is arguably the most prevalent, as well as the most difficult to identify.  It might well be called the “quiet revolution” as the firms that are employing this model are typically not promoting the transition in the industry. 

Our industry has a solid number of seasoned, highly skilled marketing professionals, many of whom have prior sales experience.  Joe Melnick, for example, joined Butzel Long in 1992.  He is presently their Chief Marketing Officer and Director of Planning.  Joe’s background not only includes experience in marketing professional services in other industries, but in sales in consumer products.  His sales orientation meant that Joe actively began building a sales culture the day he began working at the firm.  The most effective demonstration of the value I add to our firm and to our attorneys is when I am able to create the opportunities for new work, whether through positioning, coaching or other contributions. It has always been my marketing philosophy that a critical part of the marketing director’s job is developing a strong business development and sales effort. (J.Melnick)  And, Joe is not alone in his long-term efforts.  Catherine Alman MacDonagh, Director of Marketing and Client Services for Ruberto, Israel & Weiner also began building a sales culture when she began with the firm in 1997. I started thinking about sales during my interview at the firm, as I understood the process, how to measure ROI and how marketing exists to support sales.  I wasn’t interested in working for a firm that didn’t understand that – if not overtly at least intuitively. (C.MacDonagh)  Catherine, like Joe and many others in the industry has formal sales training from earlier in their careers. 

In my opinion the evolutionary model will become the most popular.  In this scenario the firm has the advantage of working with a known entity; someone who has already demonstrated an ability to be successful in the firm.  The marketing director will invariably be a senior level person who has earned the trust and respect of the partners, which will result in the partners accepting the sales process more quickly.  Having gained an intimate working knowledge of the people and culture, the director understands how to introduce new concepts and effect change in the most efficient and least painful manner.   

One thing that is abundantly clear no matter which model is adopted -- the partners cannot abdicate responsibility for sales.  The lawyers are the sales force, they must be intimately involved and they must be fully committed.  If your attorneys believe that a sales director is the “magic bullet”, someone they can hire who will do the selling for them they are seriously mistaken.  Sales is a team effort.  The sales professional can do the training, they can do the individual coaching, they can do the prospecting, they can do the qualifying, but the sale has to be made by the person who is delivering the service.  If there is a disconnect between the sales person and the person providing the actual service (the lawyers), then failure is inevitable.  Firms have realized business development is important and are willing to bring in a business development person and make them responsible for the sale effort.  But, it can’t be done with one person responsible, it has to be a collaborative effort.  If firms delegate the responsibility to one person they are in danger of misplacing the trust they are trying to establish with the client. (M.Kerrs) 

Sales — Something New?

There has been a fair amount written about sales in law firms over the past 24 months.  Certainly, the overt signs of the movement have received attention.  Womble Carlyle generated significant buzz in the industry and attracted media interest when they announced in August of 2001 that they had hired Steve Bell as Director of Sales – the first law firm business director to have ‘sales’ in their title.  Although, it would be another year before the recruiters would begin receiving instructions to search for candidates with sales backgrounds.  I first heard some of the words being used from partners of June 2002.  Through the process of interviewing and being introduced to professional services business development executives they educated themselves as to specific processes and what a department should look like. (B.Crooks)  The number of requests has continued to build. 

These recent external signs would lead us to believe that law firm sales is a relatively new phenomenon.  But, is it really?  My research and experience tells me that the move towards sales has been developing over the last 2 decades.  The reality of the matter is that there have been many people, on many fronts, laying the groundwork for many years.  As mentioned, in-house people like Joe Melnick and Catherine Alman MacDonagh have put in substantial efforts in what they recognize as a natural evolution from marketing to sales.  While they, and others, agree that law firm sales is immature and will readily tell you that there is still much work to be done, a great deal of work has already taken place. 

The person who has been working in the area the longest is Bill Flannery.  (In fact, one consultant identified Bill as the “father of law firm sales”.)  Bill, drawing on his 20 years of experience with IBM as a law account manager, has spent the past 16 years helping law firms raise profits per partner by training client relationship managers for the law firms’ key clients. Bill believes that law firms have now conquered marketing and image building but that the sales front remains undernourished.  He recommends to his clients that they focus on key clients while stressing skill building for the attorneys.  And, he is a firm believer in coaching.  If you don’t believe your top people need help, talk to Tiger Woods – he has a golf coach. (B.Flannery)  Mike O’Horo, a consultant who specializes in sales coaching, agrees.  I’ve been training lawyers for 12 years and am just starting to see a change in the market. (M.O’Horo)   Ann Lee Gibson has been a consultant since 1997.  Her expertise is in helping her clients find out where the money is, crafting a solution and then winning the business.  My focus has always been on business development, both in-house and out.  There are a number of marketing programs that have focused on business development since day one. (A.Gibson)  

Whether you view the sales movement as a new development or as an evolutionary process that has been ongoing for several years, you will probably agree that change is coming and it is coming fast.  When I began the research for this article in the fall of 2003, I found 12 in-house sales professionals.  By the time of publication I have reason to believe that this number has doubled.

Essential Components

The essential components of a sales program will vary depending on the culture of the firm. Yet, when queried about the elements they consider critical for a successful sales program the interviewees quickly identified leadership and training as two key essential components. 

Leadership was the unanimous response for the most important element and considered to be mission critical.  This is culture change at its peak as law firm leaders are being asked to examine basic and complex issues such as compensation systems. To develop a successful sales program the firm’s leadership must have the trust and confidence of the partners.  They must have the clout to stop the interference from naysayers and to make the tough calls that will invariably arise.  For even the most progressive law firms sales will be a threatening process to some of the partners, and that perceived threat must be managed.  Leadership must be able to impress upon the partners that business development is required as a core competency. 

In addition, the people who are charged with leading the sales effort must have the resources, tools, and commitment to deliver the desired results. They can only do that when there is commitment and endorsement from the top of the firm.  

While leadership topped the list of essential components, training was a close second and an aspect where many firms continue to devote considerable resources.  Training is viewed as essential as it is widely recognized that there is a general lack of understanding of what sales is and that the attorneys need to build new skill sets to master sales.  They need education on the difference between selling a service and the value of providing a service that the client needs to advance their business.  We will see in-house professional development programs becoming increasingly more important as attorneys realize they must learn to listen and react to clients to keep the firm on the winning side. 

Law firms have been investing in training to develop rainmakers for years.  Yet, the majority of firms that employed training did not (and still do not) provide the next step.  They did not invest in the internal structure that allowed the lawyers to practice their newly learned skill sets.  Typically, after training the attorneys would go back to the office and it would quickly become business as usual.  Now that gap between training and implementation is closing.  Firms are tying training systematically to the sales process and have created the internal infrastructure that allows the attorneys to put their newly learned skills to work immediately.  They struggle to balance time and resources, but they have on the ground support and individual coaching available, which greatly enhances prospects of success. 

All of the firms represented in this survey have formal training programs, some of which are mandatory.  They all rely heavily on training to create a common language and skill set.  All of the programs use a mix of in-house and outside training in varying degrees.  There are a lot of excellent examples.  Goulston & Storrs has created the award winning GSU (Goulston & Storrs University), which uses a mix of in-house and outside trainers.  Silvia Coulter, Chief Marketing Officer at Dorsey & Whitney, does basic training in-house and then offers three outside training choices for their attorneys as she recognizes that not everyone responds to the same training.  Mark Cowan at Patton & Boggs has designed a 3-day selling skills program he offers 4 times a year as well as ongoing training and coaching sessions.  Benesch Friedlander has created a Rainmaker University for their associates as they believe it is to the firm’s benefit to begin early in the attorney’s career to develop mindset and train associates as business developers. 

Consultant Michael Kerrs best explains the value and importance of training. Implementation is only as good as the training commitment.  You can’t implement until you have common language and skills. Without an integrated model and the training and coaching needed to implement it, change becomes fragmented and ineffective.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

It should be self evident that a random approach to sales will not be sustainable.  Most of the firms I spoke with have created formalized major account teams that are centered on the clients and their business needs, versus what the firm may want to do or happen.  The teams are made up of both partners and associates who meet recurrently and are committing to action. 

In addition, firms are talking to their key clients to gain input on the process.  From general client satisfaction surveys these discussions have evolved to include not just the CLO, but also CFO, CEO’s and other key business people.  These talks result in compelling messages and concrete suggestions for action that can be brought back to the firm.  The result of such deep client involvement ensures that teams are defining goals, roles, responsibilities and creating actions plans that provide mutual value. 

Womble Carlyle has borrowed from the corporate model and created sales clubs, each comprised of 10 or so lawyers with a strong partner leader.  They meet on a regular basis to provide the attorneys with the help they need to identify and achieve the next right step.  Yet, the primary focus of the sales clubs is accountability.  Without this structure we’d have a Tower of Babel.  It’s our means of organizing and mobilizing our sales force.  (S.Bell)

Many of the sales programs that are firmly in place today were founded through pilot programs.  Programs that identified individuals or groups that had a high potential for success.  With a pilot easy wins and low hanging fruit are readily accessible and will generate encouragement to those involved as well as generate enthusiasm within the firm for the project.  There was a danger that the firm could have rejected our efforts if we hadn’t made it an experiment.  I now know that I could have ramped up much more quickly.  But, I think we did it the way we had to considering our culture. (M.Stewart)  Attempting to roll out any program firm wide, particularly one that has the potential for causing unease by forcing people outside of their comfort zone, runs a high risk of failure.  

A pilot program doesn’t have to be strategy on a grand scale.  It can be as simple as a series of action steps that work towards cementing and enhancing relationships.  Starting small and then broadcasting success allows the culture to absorb change in a manner that is comfortable for the attorneys while it builds the groundwork for larger and more complex strategies.  Actually getting business and seeing some results sells the value of putting the time into the program.  They see results and know that this really does work and there is a reason to do it.  Seeing results causes people to be more focused which leads to more results.  It also builds camaraderie in the office.  This actually gives them a reason to work together.  (S.Coulter)

Performance measures are what make the concept work and prove success. Yet, metrics is a concept that law firms have struggled with.  As an industry we tend to focus on new clients and the measurement of new revenue, but have neglected the next step of measurements at the matter level.  Added to this is the need to be measuring client satisfaction and loyalty as well as partner performance in the management of relationships.  Measures need to address and compensate team behaviors and business development skills.  If not, then individual, self-interest behavior will dominate.  If the team doesn’t have goals, specific action items and a timeline then how do you know what success looks like?

Some of the best practices revolve around education on service and the value of everyone in the team.  Right now the rainmaker is king. While rainmakers will always be important, the future will recognize the equal value of other team members. When you consider the 80/20 rule – 80% of revenues come from 20% of the clients – the value of the client relationship partner becomes evident.  The person who services the client, ultimately grows the client by deepening relationships can, in fact, provide more monetary value the rainmaker who originally brought the client to the firm.  Client service and retention remain huge issues for law firms.  All of the surveys that have focused on the buyers of legal services plainly tell us that clients are not satisfied with the service from their legal providers.  A sales program will not by itself cure the issues that clients have with the delivery of legal services.  The challenge of creating a sales program is embedding it with service, which requires listening to the clients and then incorporating the lessons learned into the sales program.  This is not an easy task, as it requires time, commitment, resources and the right people.    

Challenges

Perhaps the greatest commonality amongst the firms can be found when the interviewees talk about the challenges they have faced and the obstacles they met along the way.  Topping the list, not surprisingly, is compensation systems – the number one bar to success in developing a sales function.  Even for those firms where the sales efforts are succeeding an outmoded and ingrained compensation system can remain a problem.  Sales is all about teamwork and if the compensation system does not reward the necessary behavior you are in trouble.  You must have systems that reward team behavior; and that means one that rewards all the activities around the sales process and not just closing the sale.  Most firms reward on origination, but that does not incent others to grow a business.  If you want them to attract new clients, work and sell in teams then the systems needs to encourage that behavior. (J.Durham)

One firm that has not suffered from the compensation issue is Goulston & Storrs, whose business development efforts are directed by Beth Cuzzone.  Goulston is unique in that its compensation system is, and always has been, totally subjective with teamwork being a strong component of the system.  Because the Goulston culture has been built around cross-selling and business development, it has been far easier for Beth to integrate the processes the firm needed to take them to the next level.  The firm has had client teams for decades and I have never heard the words ‘my client’ spoken by an attorney.  Clients are clients of Goulston & Storrs. (B.Cuzzone) It would appear that a compensation system that is designed to encourage and reward team behavior and business development skills – the skills necessary for sales – would go a long way towards ensuring success of a sales program.   

One of the methods to avoid the obstacles that may be caused by a compensation system is by creating a separate trial compensation system as part of the sales pilot program.  By employing such an experiment on a small scale you can test the waters and make necessary adjustments as the program develops. As success of the sales program is demonstrated, the acceptance of a change, which would otherwise have been deemed heretical, will be at least tolerated as a reasonable business decision.   

And then there’s the tension that exists between the billable hour and the business development or investment hour.  Law firms have not done a good job at measuring non-billable time in a meaningful manner.  When they do collect the data they typically focus on the quantitative aspects and not the qualitative.  In the legal industry we have consistently rewarded attorneys for providing services and have not placed a high value on other efforts that may lead to the development of new work.  This is what Steve Bell from Womble Carlyle calls the ‘nth billable hour syndrome’.  As long as there is a billable hour to be done it’s hard to get people to do sales.  (S.Bell)  Well-reasoned, purposeful and rewarded measurement of the non-billable hour should be a priority for all firms. 

Another major problem encountered by most is resistance to change, which can come at any stage in the process.  For some early adopters resistance occurred at the outset requiring education on the very concept of sales and the role of a sales director.  For others it was more a frustration with the challenges brought from transitioning concept to reality in the sales program.  There will always been resistance, even when the change is perceived as being for the better.  The only way to counter the resistance is through abundant communication, education and demonstrable results. Anecdotal evidence tells me that approximately 25% of law firm partners still believe that all the business development you need is to do good work.  You may not be able to get the 25% in your firm on board, but through persistent communication you can at least get them to keep quiet and not interfere. 

Is Your Firm Ready for Sales?

When the concept of law firm marketing directors took hold in earnest in the early 1990’s many law firms were quick to jump ahead and hire marketing professionals.  Most started with communications, public relations, display advertising and the hosting of events – all at substantial investments of money.  But many did so without solid strategy or mechanisms in place that would allow them to react to the firm’s culture and client concerns and frustrations.  As a result, a great many of the efforts turned into negative investments.  When the promised payoffs were not realized, the partners were disappointed and efforts were abandoned.  Trying to regroup and restyle the marketing programs became increasingly difficult.  A pattern emerged with many firms going through multiple marketing directors before they were able to institutionalize marketing as a business discipline.  Today, we find ourselves in similar circumstances with the sales function. 

There is a lot of talk about law firm sales and a great deal of curiosity and enthusiasm is being generated.  However, if firms are not cautious about moving ahead we will see firms repeating the same mistakes they made with marketing and, as a result, will put themselves in a position where it will be more difficult to pursue endeavors in the future.   

Implementing a sales program is a very big step.  If your partners still recoil when they hear the word “marketing” it’s a good bet your culture will not be supportive.  If a sales program is something you are contemplating you would be wise to begin with an internal assessment and a generous amount of discussion.  One of the major questions you need to answer is why?  The decision to implement any kind of business development or sales program should not be a reaction to a single event such as the loss of a major client or partner, or the fact that other firms have done so.  Rather, it should be the logical next step in the maturation of your business process.  You will need to resist the impulse to abandon the marketing work you have done before and jump on the sales bandwagon.  A formal sales program demands a solid marketing structure for support.  Our industry has a history of embracing trends without full appreciation of the complexities of the business process and lack of investment to ensure success.  More importantly, we are far too quick to mimic what others have done without an assessment of what is appropriate for the particular circumstances. 

To create a sustainable sales model in your firm it needs to be culture specific and the expectations need to be clear – make sure you know what you’re getting into.  The model you choose will likely be a variation of one of the 3 models described above.  If you examine the alternatives and measure them against your culture you will be able to tailor the solution that is appropriate to the culture, history and appetite of your firm. 

A good place to begin is with and a precise explanation of what success means to the firm and then drafting a detailed job description.  If you plan to hire a sales professional you should understand that you are hiring a strong spirited person who is used to being successful and not taking no for an answer.  Accept that you will have to pay the person as a high level executive and be prepared to take their professional advice.  Recognize that this is not easy and that it is a long-term project and you must be ready to invest for the long haul.  Success will be attainable if you take an analytical approach and use pilot groups to demonstrate results. 

What’s in our Future?

The pressures that are being brought to bear are unrelenting – continued consolidation among law firms, increasing level of competition for every client, and historic relationships that are at risk.  It is pretty clear that business as usual just won’t cut it anymore.  But that doesn’t mean you should consider a sales program a panacea.  The challenge is to institutionalize a formal program that is based on the clients’ needs - one that provides skill training and contains processes that have flexibility to craft specific solutions to client problems. Will a formal sales process provide all the answers?  No, but it does move a firm toward centering their philosophy on the client and their business needs as opposed to what the firm may want. 

The sales directors in place now are in a similar position to that of the marketing directors in the early 1990’s.  And, just as marketing has matured in the legal profession so will sales.  Evidence exists that the development will parallel that of marketing, although at an accelerated basis as the sales efforts have a much more demonstrable impact on the bottom line.  Invariably, we will see firms bring in sales professionals before they are culturally ready and the experiment will fail, just as they did with early marketing efforts.  But, the acceptance of sales will be expedited. 

I have heard some say that sales is simply another passing “fad” that will soon lose favor, not unlike TQM or branding.  I disagree that sales is a fad, rather I see it as a trend and predict that over a relatively short period of time we will see firms that have recognized sales is a discrete business function.  These firms will exploit it to differentiate themselves in a big way.  They will have respected sales directors who will be leading the efforts.  And, over the short-term, 2 to 5 years, whether the director is a lawyer or not will not be as relevant as they will have the training and skill sets to manage groups of lawyers in the sales process.  They will become leaders in their own right and oversee the firm wide marketing and sales functions.  The organizational structure will follow that of the corporate world and marketing will report to sales.    

Considering the pressures that face our industry today changing the way we do business is not an option.  If you are not prepared and if you don’t look to change how you work, you won’t be able to compete effectively in what is becoming a highly charged, highly competitive future.  Of course, all this change means that there will be a lot of pain.  But, the smart firms will succeed by placing their trust in leaders who are not afraid to make difficult decisions. 

Roberta Montafia
Strategy Consultant
rmontafia@ameritech.net