Happy New Year to all our subscribers!
The team here at LNTV HQ would like to take this opportunity to congratulate LNTV Expert Panel Member for the Family channel, Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE (@lawabduction), a partner at London firm Dawson Cornwell (@Dawson-Cornwell), on being made honorary Queen’s Counsel.
Well deserved, and a great start to 2016!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/queens-counsel-in-england-wales-2015-to-2016
http://www.dawsoncornwell.com/en/about_amh.html
Here at LNTV HQ we are starting to work our last few days before closing the doors on another great year, which saw us deliver 78 excellent continuing professional development/executive education television programmes to hundreds of subscribers, interview more that 150 legal experts including Mr Justice Coulson, upload our programme highlights to YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmxZF_16AYBqklYdMeDqybw), continue to engage with our subscribers on Twitter (@LegalNetworkTV), and welcome two new Writer/Presenters to the LNTV family.
We return refreshed on 4th January, already excited at the plans we have for 2016.
So a big thank you to all our subscribers, readers, and followers – it’s been a great year, and we can’t wait to follow it up with an even better one.
Wishing you the very best for the holiday season, and we hope 2016 brings you everything you hope for.
From all at LNTV HQ.
In response to just how popular last week’s post ‘Marketing Your Firm’ (https://lntvinsight.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/marketing-your-firm/) proved to be, we thought we’d follow it up with another further brief extract from that same forthcoming programme ‘Marketing your Firm’ in the Practice Management & Compliance channel. This time the extract comes from our interview with Ian Stephens, Managing Partner of Saffron Brand Consultants, who talked to us about branding (http://saffron-consultants.com/approach/ian-stephens/)
Interviewer: Talk us through how you go about creating a brand.
Ian Stephens: Well, at the heart of a brand process there are four steps, the first one is what we call discover, so that’s about market research, both understanding what your clients might want and do want. Understanding who you are, what you do, how you do it. So it’s basically the market research end of things. Second step is what we call define, so working out from all those possible things what actually is your strategy. So you define your brand strategy, what message you want to take out to the world. The third stage is design, and that doesn’t only mean visual identity, it means how do we design the service, the experience that we want our clients to have of this service? And then the last one, often the most difficult, is deploy, so how do we make that all happen in the real world as opposed to the PowerPoint presentations we’ve been working with up until now. So a four step process which can be done over weeks or months or even years, but at the heart of it you’re still following that four point process.
Interviewer: So what do you need to think about when assessing the market in which you operate and your role within it?
Ian Stephens: Well, the legal market is a very big and diverse and global market, so there are lots places to be in that market. So part of the research and the defined stage is very important to choose your territory, to choose your story. And there are three, there are three, if you like, overlapping circles, one is what do your clients need, because they’re actually going to pay for something they need, not just what you think they need, so ask them. Those things may be what you think they are, they may be something else. The second thing is what are you good at, and that’s not such a stupid question because you can’t be great at everything and there might be, for whatever reason, you’re particularly entrepreneurial or you’re particularly good at an area of law, you’re particularly good at a type of situation. And then the last one is what can other people do less well than you? And you’re not looking for something unique that nobody else can touch, but you’re looking for emphasis, so you’re trying to find things that clients genuinely do need and that you are, to some extent incredibly able to deliver, and then ideally something that not very many other people can do. Get all those three right and then you start to have a proposition as we might call it, that is quite valuable.
Interviewer: And once you’ve settled on your brand, how do you go about managing it?
Ian Stephens: Well, this is the really tough bit because, actually, defining a story is not so complicated as actually making that real, because a law firm of even 50 people, you’ve got 50 personalities to deal with, 50 human beings to deal with, a law firm of 10,000 people, you multiple that so many times. And so the big challenge in implementing your strategy is to actually deploy it with ruthless precision across all the touchpoints of what we call the client journey, how you manage that client experience at every single touchpoint so that it’s in line with your brand values, and that where things are not in line with those brand values you have to try to take steps to correct them.
We were recently lucky enough to have Sue Stapley, a solicitor and founder of reputation management firm Sue Stapley Consulting (http://www.suestapely.com/) in our studios to discuss how best to market your law firm. Here is a brief extract from that interview, which will be released in full as part of our programme ‘Marketing your Firm’ in the Practice Management & Compliance channel:
Interviewer: Now we all have occasions when we need to make a good impression in a short space of time. What exactly is a mini-pitch or an elevator speech as it’s sometimes known?
Sue Stapley: I think they are sort of interchangeable. My understanding – and I’m not an expert on succinctness – is that it is being able to explain – in one or two sentences at the most – precisely who you are or who the organisation you are representing is or what it does. The phrase ‘elevator pitch’ came from the Americans, of course, who said you should be able to describe your business in the time it takes to travel between floors in a lift or elevator. And the opportunities probably arise most often nowadays at receptions where, I don’t know about you, but I seem to spend probably far too much time standing with an empty glass in my hand in a crowded room talking about my business to other people. And one obviously wants them to remember what it was that one said in case, at some point in the future, they might find your services of use and need to be able to contact you. It is a very succinct statement of who you are and what you do, such that they can remember enough to come back to you if they want to.
Interviewer: So what do you think it should include?
Sue Stapley: The name, and if there’s anything that makes the name more memorable, use that. I’ve been criticised several times for being nothing like serious enough, but my own name is mis-spelt regularly and sometimes mispronounced, and I simply say if you think of shapely, Stapely will probably come to mind. It’s very arrogant but it works, they remember. And one sentence which you will probably need to actually physically write down and work on to get right until it trips off the tongue without your hesitating over it and without you being feeling embarrassed about it, but if you are a small niche practice that specialises in insurance claims then that’s how you want to be seen, and you would say ‘I’m with Seek, Grabbit and Run I’m in a small niche practice that specialises in insurance claims, we’re based in Norwich’. And that’s probably all that you want people to know. That’s enough for them to remember the name, you can make a joke of it if it’s a name that has some joke potential – to make it more memorable – they need to know where you’re placed and they need to know the sector of the business that you’re in.
Interviewer: Have you got any other tips for lawyers that might be thinking about putting together a pitch?
Sue Stapley: Just a few. I think the first and most important is make yourself impossible to dislike. Remember that the client or the potential client is making a choice about a person, a human being or a team of people. Secondly, never forget the support staff, even when you have to do the walk from the lift, which may be with the PA of the person who’s interviewing you, talk to them, be friendly, be nice, they may actually have a voice in the decision-making process so it’s worth being friendly to them as well. And the PA may be the one that’s making the appointments every time you go back into the building, and if she likes you and put in a good word for you it could be helpful. Another quick one is never forget to rehearse your presentation. Just because you’re skilful lawyers and expert in your field – and I would hope you all are – don’t assume that you can do a pitch without rehearsing. Actually put yourselves in the room, get some colleagues to role play the potential client and grill you, and make sure that you go through it clearly so that you know who’s going to say what at what point in the presentation and how. And then finally, follow up: after you’ve done your presentation, hopefully well and successfully, there’ll probably be several weeks delay while they’re seeing other people or considering, you may not hear at once, but the very same day that you’ve done the presentation I would recommend either sending an e-mail or making a phone call – whichever is appropriate – thanking them for their time, saying how much you enjoyed meeting them, maybe seeing their business if you had an opportunity to do that, and how much you’d enjoyed working with them. If there were any questions that you weren’t able to answer at the pitch let them have that information, whether it’s the name of a referee or two who will talk about you positively, or whether it’s a problem that came up that you couldn’t actually offer a solution in the meeting but you’ve had a chance to think about. That demonstrates, again, your enthusiasm for working with them, and that’s always very seductive.
A huge thank you to Sue for making the time to come and be filmed answering our questions, we know the finished programme will be a great one and useful to all those that watch it.
Until next time…
This week’s blog will be delayed as a sign of respect, as the thoughts of all here at LNTV HQ are with those who died or were injured, and their families and friends, in Friday’s attacks.
#SilenceForParis
Recently we were lucky enough to have Steve Wilmott, Director of Intelligence and Investigations at the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the studio to discuss cyber security matters as part of our upcoming Practice Management & Compliance channel programme, ‘Cyber Security for Law Firms’. Here is an exert from that forthcoming interview:
Interviewer: Why might law firms be targeted for cyber security attacks and what parts of the firm are particularly vulnerable?
Steve Wilmott: Well, law firms are very reliant on information and they use that information to simply move clients’ money from one account to another, whether it be to a client or whether it be to another law firm, for example, if there was a conveyance in a house purchase. And they rely on that information to have the right bank account and the right details so that an individual or a firm receives the money when they should. Now what we’ve seen in relation to phishing, and we call it – and another terminology is e-mail diversion, is within the course of that transaction a firm may receive an e-mail very late in the transaction to say we are the corresponding firm, we’ve just changed our banking details, don’t send the money to our usual account, this is our new account, please send it there. Law firms are hugely attractive to criminals and organised crime, and the main reason is they hold huge amounts of money in their client accounts, sometimes many, many millions of pounds. Only two years ago the Financial Action Task Force – when they undertook a money laundering evaluation of law firms internationally – said the same, that law firms are hugely attractive to organised crime for that very reason.
Interviewer: Attacks and breaches can come from different sources, so what are the main categories that these fall under?
Steve Wilmott: Well, the one that we’re seeing by far is criminal attacks, and they’re simply designed to obtain money criminally, through a criminal act, from solicitors’ firms. We get one or two where it may well be a disgruntled employee and that usually involves a destruction of data, destruction of information, which can have an effect on a law firm, but the principal one is trying to obtain money from law firms through a criminal act.
Interviewer: And in what ways do a law firm’s own employees present a risk to cyber security?
Steve Wilmott: Well, all law firms should have practices and procedures in place to make sure that the person they are speaking to is genuine, and that they keep their passwords, in particular, secure. If they receive, for example, instructions to send money to another bank account via e-mail or the internet then it’s very wise to make sure that there is a policy in place to ensure the veracity of that change by making further inquiries and not just relying on the initial contact. What we’ve also found as well is that clients of law firms are receiving information from criminals, for example, they’re just about to pay a deposit on a house, or Stamp Duty to a solicitor, and what we found there is that they’ve also received similar e-mails and those e-mails have said we are your solicitor, we’re just about to receive money from you, but we’ve just changed our bank account, please send it to this account. It’s still the same law firm, but it’s another bank account, and of course that bank account is operated by criminals, and substantial amounts of money have been stolen direct from clients in that respect rather than law firms.
Interviewer: So if a solicitor or a law firm thinks they’ve been the subject of an attack what’s the best thing for them to do?
Steve Wilmott: If you think you’re under attack and whether this be by e-mail or by telephone contact then immediately stop the contact. If it’s a telephone call then stop that telephone call. Do not use the telephone that you are using, so do not use any numbers to call that have been given by the individual that has contacted you. So terminate the call and use another telephone, and use trusted contacts that you can call to try to ensure the veracity of that original call. Now they can be very clever, sometimes the telephone screen that identifies the caller, the criminals can manipulate that so that it looks as if it is from a genuine bank, so ignore that. Also ignore any other call, telephone numbers, other than the ones that you know and trust. But the main thing is if you have any form of concern whatsoever then you must terminate that transaction and seek independent means of establishing the veracity of that contact. The second thing is if you have been the subject of a fraud then immediately contact the police, your insurer and your bank, importantly, and the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, all of which can help you in various means to assisting in trying to establish, one, who’s done this, two, what the impact on that business will be and, thirdly, trying to recover some of the money that may have been taken. Perhaps, the three most important things is security software, keeping passwords safe and also, actually, making sure that your banking details are as secure as can be.
A big thanks to Steve for giving up his time to come and speak to us on this important subject. Until next time…
It all started with a comment on a LinkedIn profile, and from that acorn, mighty oak trees seemingly started to grow.
On 8th September, Charlotte Proudman, associate tenant barrister at Mansfield Chambers, named Alexander Carter-Silk, senior partner of Brown Rudnick LLP, as someone who had sent her a message on business-oriented social networking site LinkedIn, which she deemed to be inappropriate. The message, titled ‘PICTURE’ read:
“Charlotte, delighted to connect, I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect, but that is a stunning picture !!!
You definitely win the prize for the best Linked in picture I have ever seen
Always interest [sic] to understant [sic] people’s skills and how we might work together
Alex”
Ms Proudman replied:
“Alex
I find your message offensive. I am on linked-in for business purposes and not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men. The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women. It silences women’s professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject.
Unacceptable and misogynistic behaviour. Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message.
Charlotte”
Seeking an apology from Mr Carter-Silk, Ms Proudman also said she had contacted the CEO of Brown Rudnick LLP to complain, and would also be referring the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Mr Carter-Silk commented “Most people post pretty unprofessional photos on Linked in, my comment was aimed at the professional quality of the presentation on linked in which was unfortunately misinterpreted.”
The internet then virtually exploded with people expressing their views, with some calling Ms Proudman’s retort ageist, and her “a twit“, “a silly little lady with an exaggerated sense of self-regard“, a “jumped up feminist” and “a stupid immature female“, and others calling Mr Carter-Silk “a twit“, “a sexist pig from another era“, “inappropriate“, and “a fool“. And so the argument continued between those on either side of the debate.
And then, just as we thought the whole issue was about to cool, Lord Sumption gave an interview in the Evening Standard in which he said that rushing to achieve equal representation for women at the top of the legal profession could inflict “appalling consequences” on the quality of British justice. He said that to avoid inflicting damage, those wanting equality would have to be wait, stating:
“It takes time. You’ve got to be patient…We have got to be very careful not to do things at a speed which will make male candidates feel that the cards are stacked against them. If we do that we will find that male candidates do not apply in the right numbers.” He continued “The Bar and the solicitors’ profession are incredibly demanding in the hours of work and the working conditions are frankly appalling. There are more women than men who are not prepared to put up with that. As a lifestyle choice, it’s very hard to quarrel with it, but you have to face the consequence which is that the top of the legal profession has fewer women in it than the profession does overall.”
Comments such as these in the interview piece led to Ms Proudman writing an article expressing her concern at the comments:
“His comments encapsulate his deepest fears that power vested in the old boys’ network could come under siege“. Shadow Justice Secretary and former lord chancellor Lord Falconer also commented that hearing “such comments from one of our senior judges is deeply worrying, not least because the record on diversity is already poor.”
So let’s take solicitors as an example. As at 2013, 51.4% of solicitors were male, and 48.6% female. The overall proportion of female court judges is just over 25%. It therefore seems that female solicitors in the legal profession are willing to put up with the “incredibly demanding” hours of work and the “frankly appalling” working conditions, but even worse, they are then not being given the opportunity to reach the highest potential of those careers. Which raises the question, how patient do women have to be, Lord Sumption?
Until next time…
This week we were lucky enough to be joined in the studio by Richard Williams, Senior Policy Executive at the Solicitors Regulation Authority, to talk about the future of Continuing Professional Development for our upcoming programme ‘SRA Competence Statement and Toolkit’, in the Practice Management & Compliance channel.
Here’s a sneak peak at part of Richard’s interview, before the programme’s release date:
Interviewer: And the key document in this is the Competence Statement, isn’t it? And it’s a fairly extensive document. Does it run the risk of being over-prescriptive?
Richard Williams: The Competence Statement really just articulates what all practicing solicitors need to do in order to do their job to the best of their abilities. But as an approach, our new approach to ensuring continuing competence is less prescriptive than the current requirement to undertake 16 hours. The 16 hours requirement is, in fact, a blanket approach, it applies to all solicitors, irrespective of their career, their experience, and also their role. With our new approach, solicitors can think about what they need to do in order to deliver a proper standard of service and meet their regulatory responsibilities.
Interviewer: So Principle 5 is what underlies all this, how do we interpret that in the light of the new CPD requirements and the Competence Statement?
Richard Williams: All solicitors have a regulatory requirement to deliver a proper standard of service, and this is articulated in Principle 5. The Competence Statement can help solicitors deliver this particular obligation, and there are two ways in which it does that. Firstly, the Competence Statement articulates what a solicitor needs to do to practice effectively. And, secondly, the Competence Statement in the context of our new approach can be used by solicitors to enable them to reflect on their practice and identify any learning and development they need to do in order to continue to practice effectively.
Interviewer: So how does the SRA believe it’s going to be using the Competence Statement in future?
Richard Williams: We use the Competence Statement as a key mechanism in order to allow us to ensure that the consumers of legal services are protected. It’s really important that solicitors do their job effectively and practice effectively, and the Competence Statement and our new approach to ensuring on-going competence enables us to do this in two ways. Firstly, solicitors have a regulatory responsibility to deliver a proper standard of service, and under our new approach to CPD they’ll have to reflect on the quality of practice in relation to the Competence Statement, and identify where they may have any learning and development needs. As part of our Training for Tomorrow programme we’re also considering the introduction of an assessment framework. We will consult on this later in 2016. The point of the assessment framework will be to enable solicitors to demonstrate to us that they are competent at the point of admission to the profession, so in that way the Competence Statement will critical as part of ensuring that consumers and legal services are protected.
Interviewer: So some people might say that this looks very much like a box ticking exercise which, of course is what CPD was always criticised for. What would you say to them?
Richard Williams: Absolutely not. Our new approach is much harder than a solicitor attending a course towards the end of the CPD year to gain a specific number of hours. Solicitors will need to think really hard about what it is that they need to do in order to deliver a competent service and meet their regulatory obligations. As a regulator we take this really seriously. As a result, under our new approach all solicitors will be required to make an annual declaration that they’ve reflected on the quality of their practice. They’ve identified their learning development needs and addressed them, and we’ll monitor that.
That’s all for this week – a VERY happy bank holiday weekend to all our readers and subscribers!
As the sun starts to shine brightly on LNTV HQ, and thoughts turn to walks in the park, ice creams, sand under our feet, and avoiding the tourists on Oxford Street, we this week spoke with Sally Woodward Founding Principal of Sherwood PSF Consulting about what law firms can do to try and retain their best talent. Sally helps leaders and senior professionals achieve the best results for themselves, their teams and their firms (http://www.sherwoodpsfconsulting.com/sally_woodward.html). Here is a sneak preview of our interview with Sally, for our upcoming programme ‘Staff Retention’, in the Practice Management & Compliance channel:
Interviewer: One of the reasons identified as a trigger for staff turnover is often a perceived lack of opportunity to experience the right type of work or the right mix of work. What would you say a law firm can do to counteract this?
Sally Woodward: Well, it’s certainly true that I’m often told that a feeling of stopping learning or even being bored is one of the main reasons why associates, and actually even some young partners, choose to leave. There are some strategies that some firms are using to try and address some of these issues. Having said that, it’s also important that they think about the way the partners and the managers are measured in order for these strategies to work, because many of them can, on the face of it, result in the expenditure of time that can’t be charged to the client. The four main areas where firms are working on this are work allocation, the way in which work is spread around, the policy on specialisation, both the timing of it and what that actually means. the use of secondments and shadowing within the firm and also with clients, and also the encouragement of better on-the-job training and particularly the use of skills that ensure that people get more context and understanding and see the bigger picture, even when that’s not strictly necessary to get the job done. So all of those taken together can actually spread whatever work there is available around in a way that keeps variety and increases development. But, as I said, the firms have to be very careful that there aren’t other systems that get in the way of people actually making strategies work.
Interviewer: And if one of the triggers is a perceived lack of opportunity to progress, again, what can a law firm do?
Sally Woodward: Certainly it’s true that in most firms, the path to partnership is longer and fewer people make it. Having said that, I think a lot of the generation Y lawyers I speak to they’re not actually interested in partnership or at least they say they’re not, perhaps that’s partly because they see that the way in which many partners are, work very hard and are constantly stressed out, but what can a firm do where opportunities are limited? Well, first, they can make sure that people continue to have a sense of development and learning and that will keep them in the firm longer than might otherwise be the case. Sometimes there is simply lack of transparency about what the prospects are, perceived unfairness about how decisions are made. So in other words, I feel if there were more honest conversations about what the opportunities were, people might be prepared to stay around longer to pursue them. Many firms are, of course, experimenting with alternatives to partnership because not everybody wants partnership. Knowledge lawyers have been around for a while now and it’s interesting to see their role has become much more client facing recently. Many firms have been developing specialist roles that reflect the way the legal market is changing, so project managers, for example, client managers, marketing business development experts in to which many lawyers move in to these roles. So there are an increasing number of alternatives. But, as I say, sometimes I think the problem is more apparent than real, because people make assumptions about what lawyers want without actually checking them.
Interviewer: And what about partners? What can a firm do to help their careers progress?
Sally Woodward: Well, I think that’s a very interesting question because in many firms historically once you got the label of partner you were sort of left alone to get on with it, and sort of development and career planning really stopped. And with more and more firms having structured tiered partnerships, fixed share, A partners, B partners, C partners and so on, the career progression of a partner is just as important and needs to be thought about and managed as that of an associated, particularly as it can take many years now to, if you like, move up the pecking order and, indeed, the financial ladder. So many firms are having the same sorts of conversations with partners that they have with associates about what opportunities there are. Some partners are being involved in special projects in a number, a variety of contexts – client facing, important management initiatives like, for example, developing women leaders and some are again using secondments with clients as part of their career progressions as a partner. So whatever is happening at associate level I think needs to be mirrored once people become partners. The other big change I’m seeing is firms are getting much more proactive and strategic about thinking about succession opportunities, both in to client facing roles and in to management. So more and more firms are offering leadership development opportunities to take part in strategic projects that will be of interest to those partners who see themselves in future leadership and management roles.
To see Sally being interviewed in our studio, and to hear everything she had to say on this interesting topic, please call our wonderful Sales Team on 01483 216000 or 07770 496406.
Did you see the eclipse on Friday? We have to be honest, here at LNTV HQ, the grey murky morning sky looked, well, just as grey and murky as any other morning really! We heard from some subscribers around the UK throughout the day that this was not the case for everyone, and have had some reports of wonderfully eerie experiences on the way to the office. Let us know how it was for you!
Back to the week that was, and Wednesday’s budget was eagerly awaited. Mr Osborne first told us that Britain “is walking tall again“, and that in the last year it has “grown faster than any other major advanced economy in the world“. If you hadn’t been told it was a budget just before a major election, you would still have known it was a budget just before a major election. Phrases like, “…the critical choice facing the country now is this: do we return to the chaos of the past? Or do we say to the British people, let’s go on working through the plan that is delivering for you?“, showed what the Chancellor was focused on.
So what of the budget itself? Here’s the full LNTV breakdown:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-george-osbornes-budget-2015-speech
So, there you have it. Now we wait for the elections. Then it gets really interesting!
Until next time…
LNTV insight 