This may sound like heresy, but do you really want all your clients?

I came across a firm recently that once a year carries out a cull of clients. Each is assessed on criteria such as these:

A) Do we seem constantly to do more for this client than we can charge for?
B) Does their work represent a significant risk to the firm that the fees do not reflect?
C) Does this client complain a lot? Do they take up a disprortionate amount of management time?
D) Do they pay on time or do they always seem to be clogging up the aged debtor lists?
E) Do we often seem to find ourselves being persuaded, against our better judgment, to take on work
  for this client, work that perhaps falls outside our main specialisms?
F) Does this client hold us up in getting on with work for better clients?
G) Are we forever being called by this client? Do they represent a drain on our resources?

Before we decide that we no longer want their instructions there may be other considerations. We will be happy to go to more trouble if they are part of a family or an organisation that meets our criteria so we need to consider this aspect. But if at the end of the day we conclude that their work does more harm than good we may do well to stop taking on work for them. Anf, of course, if we stop they may go to our competitors. And wouldn't we be horrified and alarmed at the thought that they may now begin to clog up their firms.................?

In some commercial organisations we would simply push up our prices. Troublesome clients would then either start to pay fees that truly reflected the cost of doing their work or would go elsewhere. But in our regulated world, with remuneration certificates and so on, this is not usually possible although you could simply insist that every minute spent on a client's work is recorded and billed, giving an estimate at the start accordingly.

With all this in mind I heard recently of a firm that culls clients regularly. They review their client database at the end of each year and deliberately mark certain clients with a code that means "No further instructions to be accepted". I believe they then actually send a letter and explain but many of us would find that difficult to write. Instead you can simply tell them when they next come to you with new work that you are so busy that you will not be able to get onto it for many many weeks and that they will do best to go elsewhere. You can ever recommend your most-hated competitor!

The firm in question reports that the policy has worked brilliantly and that profitability has improved measurably!

Client Expectations

Consider two scenarios. In both cases the client is in a rush to get a result:
1) Client persuades FE to get a job done in 5 days. This is against FE's better judgment as they fear that it will take longer. In fact it does and job is not complete for 7 days. Result? Angry client who feels let down.
2) Client tries to perusade FE to do the job faster but FE insists that it will take 8 days, expalining carefully how much work there is to get through. Client agrees, reluctantly. FE gets job done on 7 days. Result? Delighted client wh sees a lawyer that really delivers.

What is the difference between these two? The time taken was identical but by managing th client better the FE in the second scenario has a delighted client, whereas in the first the client feels let down. Will they come back for their next job? Quite possibly not. - they may well try another firm as they feel that thiso ne does not meet its promises.

And when comes to the bill, client 2 is well aware of how much FE 2 and therefore much more prepared for a bill that properly reflects the volume and quality of work done.

I don't really need to say any more, do I? In our current consumer-driven climate, in which we need to work hard to delight clients, FE2 surely got it right. Tell your fee earners!

And never forget that perverse thing we call human nature. If you tell a client in a hurry "five to seven days" you may feel that you have up to seven days to finish the work.

But the client will only have heard five!