MARKETING YOUR FIRM Part II

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.

NO SAFE HARBOUR…AND A HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

In Schrems v Data Protection Commission (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-362/14), the European Court of Justice looked at whether the Irish Data Protection Commissioners Office had the authority to examine claimant’s concerns regarding the transfer of his personal data under the Safe Harbour Framework from Facebook’s Irish subsidiary to its parent company, Facebook Inc., in the United States of America.

The Court ruled that the Safe Harbour agreement on data transfers from the EU to the US is invalid, as it fails to ensure adequate protection for that data, as required by the Data Protection Directive.  The Court has invited the Irish Data Protection Commissioner to consider suspending the transfer of European Facebook users’ personal data to the US.  The Court also found that national data protection authorities must examine claims from subjects that a transfer of their personal data to a non-EEA country violates their right to privacy even if the country receiving that information has been found by the European Commission to ensure an adequate level of protection for that data.

This judgment has far-reaching consequences.  Thousands of companies share data with US group companies and US-based service provides, such as Microsoft and Google, relying on the Safe Harbour arrangements to enable transfer of that personal data.  Now they will need to consider whether they can continue with this, and develop ways of doing so.  Just as interesting will be the effect the decision has on the flow of data between the EU and the US, and on the relationship between the countries.  UK companies who transfer such data to the US should look to review their data privacy compliance process and ensure that the fundamentals are in place and being followed, all the while eagerly awaiting a new Safe Harbour Framework, which it is hoped will be released sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, here at LNTV HQ, preparations for Halloween are in full flow.  This does not mean dressing the office in cobwebs and pumpkins, but buying trick or treat chocolates and sweets, eating them, and then returning to the shop for more.  It’s all in the interests of supporting the British confectionary industry you understand 😉

Have a spooky week….

CYBER SECURITY FOR LAW FIRMS

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…

http://www.lawcolmedia.com

THIS WEEK IN THE STUDIO…RICHARD WILLIAMS, SENIOR POLICY EXECUTIVE AT THE SRA

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!

http://www.lawcolmedia.com

STAFF RETENTION IN LAW FIRMS

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.

CHANGES TO CPD…AND DIRTY SANTA

With the holidays fast approaching, the hard work at LNTV HQ continues at a pace (although we still found time to play Dirty Santa!), where we are close to completing our Practice Management & Compliance channel programme ‘Changes to CPD’, which will be of interest to all solicitors.

Rules governing Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for solicitors have been in place since 1985, requiring a certain number of hours of CPD training to be done each year.

However, the SRA recognised limitations with this approach, as well as the increasing popularity of more modern practices of education, such as watching online presentations or undertaking interactive training which can be done in short bursts or on the go. Consequently, with effect from November 2016 the mandatory requirement to undertake 16 hours of CPD per year will be replaced.  Instead there will be an obligation for an annual declaration that an assessment of the need for CPD training has been carried out, and that any needs identified have been addressed in an appropriate manner.

The intention is to create a system where CPD becomes a tool for ensuring that solicitors maintain the standards expected, but in a way that suits them and which is flexible enough to adapt to changing needs.

Our programme will therefore look at the changes to CPD as introduced by the SRA, the new approach to training and development, and the best practice guidance that will be contained within the SRA’s toolkit.

As part of this programme we interviewed Julie Brannan, Director of Education and Training at the SRA.  Here’s a preview:

LNTV: How did the review of CPD come about?

Julie: It was something that came out of the Legal Education & Training Review Report. They suggested – generally – that we should be focusing our regulatory attention on assuring standards rather than requiring particular processes or procedures. So far as CPD was concerned they identified that the requirement to have a minimum of 16 hours training a year meant that we spent our time tying ourselves in knots, working out what counted, what sort of training was required, you know, just inventing a rule that accredited training had to be done in chunks of no less than an hour, regardless of whether it worked. And the Review suggested that what we should be doing instead is focusing on whether the training that was undertaken was effective.

LNTV: What problems were identified with the hours-based system?

Julie: It was inflexible and it didn’t necessarily assure standards, so it didn’t enable people to learn in ways which suited their particular learning styles. It, you know, the days really of people sitting at the back of long – of dusty, smoke-filled training sessions, long lectures and so on really were a thing from the past. We wanted to update it, we wanted to recognise the impact that modern technology has made on training, we wanted to enable people to learn more flexibly and, also, we wanted people to think about doing training that worked for them.

LNTV: So what do you consider to be the advantages of the option that you have gone for over the old regime?

Julie: It means that we can concentrate our regulatory attention on assuring competence, on delivering messages to solicitors about the need throughout their professional life to maintain their level of competence as the law changes and, indeed, as their role and their function within a law firm changes. So the shift moves onto how do I make sure that I am competent; what do I need to do to make sure that I am competent? Rather than thinking about either: I must do this training because it’s nearly the end of the month, and going off and doing something which is irrelevant; or turning up in an session, signing in and then walking back home; or sitting in the back doing your e-mails while you’re there. Though all of that would have counted, but it wouldn’t have meant that you were one jot more competent at the end of the training than at the beginning of it. So that’s one advantage. It makes people focus on doing the training that they really need to maintain their competence. It also means that people are able to learn in the ways that suit them best. So if you are not the sort of person who can listen to a long lecture, but prefers to learn more actively, you can do that. If you’re a person who likes to go through your file and reflect on what went well and what didn’t go so well, and think about how you might do something better the next time, this is perfect, it gives you that opportunity. It also means, in fairness to consumers, that whilst consumers are still protected, because their solicitor has to maintain their competence, consumers are not paying for solicitors to do training which they do not need.

We are grateful to Julie for giving up her time to come into the studio and talk to us about the forthcoming changes to CPD, which we know is of great interest to subscribers to our service.

But what’s Dirty Santa?  More on that next time…