Selling and Listening and Meeting With Clients, part 367

If I were half as eloquent as Gerry Riskin, I would have posted his comments (reflected on the Law Firm Business Development blog) on my blog yesterday, instead of this.

NOTE: Accountants, please substitute "CPAs/accounting" for "lawyers/law" as you read.

Gerry discusses his perspective of client visits comparing it to the Womble Carlyle sales campaign approach. Of the views of Steven Bell (of Womble) and himself, he writes (emphasis mine):

Both of us are well aware that top rainmakers in blue chip law firms report that they rarely visit a client’s place of business without growing existing work or getting new work. Both of us agree that this is a desirable consequence of client visitations. The key issue is whether selling ought to be the focus of the visit....

Few lawyers understand their clients’ businesses or industries as well as the clients would like and we agree that this is a critical objective for the visit.

The delicate question is this: What is the appropriate reaction in a client visitation when it becomes obvious that there is a legal need that your firm is not currently fulfilling. My view is that the primary purpose of the visit must not be abandoned (or appear to be abandoned). At the same time I agree completely with Steven Bell that the doctor must help the patient. I don’t believe that Steven is advocating throwing the patient onto the gurney and tossing our note pads into the trash. I used the word “delicate” because there is some judgment to be exercised here.

How can we be appropriately responsive to the need without being unfaithful to the primary purpose of the visit. I can think of several possibilities:

• Briefly defer the discussion of the legal matter to a follow up with the lawyer(s) who are best equipped to attract the work and do it with quality.
• With the client’s blessing, allow a digression from the meeting’s agenda to address the problem or opportunity at hand but be disciplined enough to return to the original agenda.
• There may be different and perhaps unforeseeable options which make sense in the context of a particular meeting. The visiting lawyer(s) must have the discretion to exercise appropriate judgment and make the best choices in the circumstances.

This is excellent advice and Gerry hits the nail on the head. I particularly agree with his statement that:

Perhaps what I have described here is indeed selling at the highest level

Enjoy the rest of Gerry's comments within which there are many pearls of wisdom.

Further on this subject is an excellent comment (scroll down on the page) by Robert Millard (another Edge International guy with a fantastic blog) made on Jim Hassett's post that I referenced yesterday.

These discussions, by the way--the whole thread of the purpose of client interviews--has engaged many lawyers and consultants (including Patrick Lamb, Dan Hull, Tom Kane, and more) for the past couple of months. It is nicely recapped on Jim Hassett's blog.