It pays to know what clients are thinking, and there are ways to get at that.

A focus group, for example, is a meeting of eight to 10 clients or customers who can help shape a firm's health and profitability by evaluating existing services or products, brainstorming new product ideas, or assessing the worthiness of marketing initiatives, including pricing, promotional issues and delivery channels.

As a result of what is gleaned from the focus group, the firm invests in fertile areas, increasing top-line results and improving profitability by eliminating ineffective revenue streams.

Clearly, it is time for law firms to explore this kind of feedback and avenue to higher profits in ways that are professional and ultimately serve both the client and firm.

While law firms use focus groups to test prototypical jurors' reactions and professional organizations such as bar associations use member responses to encourage loyalty and participation, such methods are rarely employed by law firms on issues close to home and those affecting the bottom line. That includes eliciting feedback on such issues as:

* Marketing. Which topics, for example, would you like us to develop in a seminar format? Do you read our newsletter? Is our web site useful? Which of these marketing tactics do you find most useful, least useful?

* Operational improvements. How well do we communicate with you on legal matters? On nonlegal matters? Do you understand our invoices? When you have questions or issues, do we respond quickly enough?

* New service offerings. In the next six months, what are the most-important issues you face in your business or profession? Are you aware we have other practice groups, such as . . . ? How desirable are multidisciplinary practice groups?

A distinct minority of law firms have used focus groups as client advisory panels at firm retreats to bring the client perspective to an otherwise insular process. While this is an excellent use, wouldn't life be easier if you were able to have some of the aforementioned questions answered two or three times a year? Do you think some of your clients might appreciate you asking their advice?

It is a sad fact of life that the American Bar Association estimates only 29 percent of U.S. firms ask for client feedback in some way. That number, which I think is overstated, ignores the essential structure of serious, loyal relationships -- the ability to give and receive advice and evaluation among the parties. I have found that managing partners usually want more opportunities to listen to clients; individual partners may have another agenda counter to shared feedback, whether it's in a focus group, client interview or a survey. Solos and small firms think they're too small or haven't the time or expertise. Too bad, because for all of these impediments, education breeds profits and growth.

Process unveiled

To get eight to 10 attendees at a focus group or client advisory panel, you will need to invite 20. Which 20? Start by deciding which specific issues you want the focus group to address. To get solid advice within an hour-plus meeting, the list should be narrowed to two or three issues or questions. Then, consider who among your clients are most competent to answer the questions and discuss the issues. Finally, consider the politics among potential group members.

Once you have your 20 invitees, send a letter asking their participation and laying out a solid rationale for holding the focus group, e.g., "For a number of months we have been considering instituting the following changes/additions/new programs . . . and we would appreciate hearing your views as part of our client-advisor panel following lunch at our annual retreat."

If possible, it is better to have a trained third party run the group. Responses will be more forthright to a neutral party. Recognize that having attorneys in the room may be a hindrance to openness, but if you want the forum to be in front of the firm, with give and take, at least have a neutral party manage the interaction and keep the questions on track. The leader should develop your issues into a script of introductory information ("Some clients have suggested that the firms provide accounting expertise in-house as a multi-disciplinary practice group.") And the leader should offer questions aimed at developing a lively dialog: "Would having other professionals under one roof
be desirable?" The group should be audiotaped; videotaping is intrusive and distracting.

After the focus group has met, the leader will review the transcript and look for three types of responses as those you may wish to consider for future action:

1) repetitive responses (Three people voiced this view);

2) novel responses, but the kind that would be feasible to consider (One person suggested having a client service coordinator to improve call-back responsiveness); and

3) significant responses that in light of the leader's experience and research, or the respondent's expertise, should be considered for further action.

In reporting the outcomes of the focus group, the leader should provide a process for considering options and be able to help you weigh the worthiness of proposed action steps. For instance, a majority of the focus group may have recommended the institution of a new procedure or process. The group leader then should have information about other firms' experiences both within and outside the legal profession. This type of consultative support imputes necessary levels of experience, research and management expertise on the group leader's part.

Completing the process

Reporting to group members, clients and staff on the outcomes of the focus group and the resulting initiatives provides the completion of this feedback loop. Besides providing closure, the communication about the result and existence of a focus group has a life of its own. It signals your clients and the contacts with whom they communicate that your firm is unique in its willingness to listen to and act upon clients' advice. Not a bad perception!

Are there arguments to the use of focus groups? Sure. Chief among them are that the results are not statistically valid or reliable and, as a result, the firm should not make critical decisions based on less-than-valid data. While this can be true for focus groups, keep in mind it similarly may be just as true for other feedback vehicles, e.g, surveys and interviews. Focus groups also can be swayed by a persuasive member, thus indulging in "herd behavior." Both negatives can be moderated by a skilled leader who brings expertise, research and "crowd control" to the table.

Even in the de minimus sense, some information and feedback are better than none.

© Copyright 2002, The Success Group

Return to Article Index Page