Category: Contributors

  • How AI’s ‘Intended Purpose’ Could Define Companies’ EU Regulatory Burden

    How AI’s ‘Intended Purpose’ Could Define Companies’ EU Regulatory Burden

    The EU’s AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive legislation on artificial intelligence, imposes the bulk of its due diligence obligations on companies that sell AI systems that are particularly risky for people’s health or fundamental rights.

    Where this hefty regulatory burden will land in practice might largely depend on the concept of “intended purpose,” which, according to the AI Act, means “the use for which an AI system is intended by the provider, including the specific context and conditions of use.”

    The notion comes from EU product safety law, of which the AI Act is a prominent example, but it doesn’t sit quite right with so-called general-purpose AI systems, or GPAI, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Microsoft’s Copilot, which have no specific purpose but can carry out various tasks.

    What is the intended purpose of a system designed for an infinite number of uses? Who should be responsible for due diligence over a GPAI system used for a high-risk application? What is the regulatory risk for users going beyond a system’s intended purpose? These and more questions are bound to bug the industry.

    Risk minimization

    One of the first questions to which GPAI system providers such as Microsoft and OpenAI will have to seek an answer is whether allowing customers to use their systems for use cases that the AI Act deems high-risk would automatically make them high-risk.

    For Dessislava Savova, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance, GPAI system providers could definitively make the point that their system was not designed specifically for that high-risk purpose, which is different from a situation where you don’t prevent some uses. This argument would be of course prevented if the documentation put in place by providers directly refers to high-risk use cases with respect to the relevant GPAI system.

    In this reading, as GPAI systems are by definition not built with any specific intended use, the crux is the difference between the intention and a possibility, meaning that the bulk of the responsibilities should shift from the provider to the user, dubbed system “deployer” in the AI Act.

    Conversely, regulators might argue that including a high-risk application in the acceptable-use policy would make the provider intentionally acknowledge it as an inherent function of the GPAI system.

    This view might be reinforced by the AI Act’s article on how market surveillance authorities should cooperate on the supervision of GPAI systems, including when they have sufficient reason to consider as non-compliant a GPAI system that can be used “for at least one purpose that is classified as high-risk.”

    Without clear guidance, the argument could go both ways. Thus, based on their risk appetite, some GPAI system providers are already introducing restrictions in their licensing terms that their system cannot be used for high-risk use cases.

    “Many organizations are responding pragmatically to new regulatory obligations, which included reviewing their terms and ensuring that those terms comply with new laws,” Barry Scannell, a partner at the law firm William Fry, told MLex.

    Market dynamic

    As AI companies factor “intended purpose” into their corporate strategy, the incentive to minimize one’s regulatory risk might create a market dynamic in which the acceptable use policy becomes a competitive element.

    Clifford Chance’s Savova notes that the most advanced AI adopters are already looking at the acceptable use policy when negotiating the licensing terms with GPAI system providers.

    “The AI Act’s whole philosophy is based on use cases, so when multiple uses are possible, it’s important to work on the intended purpose. But the law says very little about the contractual relationship between providers and deployers,” Savova said.

    In other words, once the AI Act’s high-risk regime kicks in, the considerations for choosing one GPAI system over its competitors might not relate just to which system is the most performative but also to what providers allow it to be used for.

    “I could see a market emerging where GPAI system providers could advertise their AI products based on their limited or general intended uses plus performance as well as other aspects,” Victoria Hordern, a partner at the law firm Taylor Wessing, told MLex.

    GPAI system providers might face specific questions, however, when including “intended purpose” in their offerings. Suppose OpenAI doesn’t allow ChatGPT to be used to screen CVs, except for a few high-value clients. Would that make the whole of ChatGPT high-risk? Or only insofar as it is used by the high-value clients?

    An argument could be made here that these are essentially different GPAI systems since they have different intended purposes, and it would seem disproportionate for the other customers to have to comply with the obligations of high-risk system users. But again, until there is relevant regulatory guidance, companies cannot be sure.

     

    A time bomb

    For this market dynamic to develop fully, there would need to be a widespread understanding of the regulatory risk, which varies massively within the industry, at least in these early days. And the liability risks might be extremely significant.

    The AI Act provides that anyone who modifies the intended purpose of an AI system, including a GPAI system, in such a way as to make the system high-risk, automatically becomes a high-risk system provider.

    For William Fry’s Scannell, these provisions have the potential to be nothing short of a “massive time bomb,” as companies might become providers of high-risk AI systems without even realizing it.

    Suppose that, ahead of the AI Act’s regime for high-risk systems entering into application in August 2026, Microsoft forbids the use of Copilot for filtering job applications in its acceptable-use policy.

    If someone in a company starts using Copilot for screening CVs, that would be considered as fundamentally changing the AI system’s intended purpose for that company. Could misuse by a single employee turn the company into a high-risk system provider?

    If so, the company would then have to comply with the AI Act’s relevant requirements, such as risk management and data governance. But the company’s management might not even realize the misuse is happening.

    Someone who doesn’t land a job with the company and decides to investigate might file a data subject access request under EU data protection law and find out that the recruitment decision was based on an AI system without the proper due diligence.

    The regulatory risk of such a not-so-remote possibility is far from negligible. And the stakes are high: Non-compliance with high-risk providers’ obligations can result in a fine of up to 3 percent of the company’s worldwide annual turnover or 15 million euros, whichever is higher.

    “Companies are of course aware that employees may use AI tools for uses that the company has not permitted,” Taylor Wessing’s Hordern said. “We’re seeing companies try to anticipate this activity through policies and training.”

    Much like in the early days of the General Data Protection Regulation, when employees were unaware they were processing personal data, companies might indeed have a hard time keeping tabs on what AI systems are being used across the board and for what purposes.

    “These [value chain] provisions are untidy and too broad. There are so many ways they could be triggered. It’s a big risk that always comes up when discussing AI policies with companies to monitor what employees are doing,” Scannell said.

    Interested in staying up to date on the latest regulatory changes and what’s on the horizon? MLex identifies risk to business wherever it emerges, with expert journalists pinpointing the likely impact of the proposals, investigations, enforcement actions and rulings that matter most to your business and clients.

    By Luca Bertuzzi, Senior Correspondent, MLex

    LexisNexis

     

  • 7 Common (and Completely Avoidable) Mistakes Law Firms Make on Their Websites

    Let’s be honest – most law firm websites aren’t exactly thrilling. In theory, they should exude expertise, professionalism, and credibility. In reality? Many are riddled with outdated designs and buzzword-filled copy that says a lot without actually saying anything. 

    Legal professionals pay close attention to how they present themselves to prospective and current clients: sharp outfits, polished shoes, neat haircuts, and tasteful accessories. I would argue that in this day and age, when so much of the first impression is created by the online presence, the digital space of a law firm deserves the same level of attention to detail.

    As a marketing advisor at Five-o-eight, I browse through websites of law firms on a regular basis. Here are some of the most common mistakes I encounter.

    1. Absent or expired SSL certificates: This digital certificate verifies the security of a website by authenticating its identity and establishing an encrypted connection. An expired or absent SSL certificate screams, “We don’t take data privacy seriously!” That’s not exactly the message law firms want to send to potential clients. Modern browsers even slap a big fat security warning on unsecured sites.
    2. The lack of meta tags: Meta tags might sound like tech jargon, but they do some heavy lifting for a site’s visibility. Two examples that don’t require any specialized knowledge of search engine optimization (SEO) include: (1) link previews impact click-through rates (e.g., the way the preview information like the featured image, page title, and meta description appear when a link to a page is posted on LinkedIn); (2) meta tags impact how a page appears in search engine results pages.
    3. Heavy images and videos: Page speed is an important factor for user experience. Unfortunately, many law firms fail to optimize their images and videos, which then results in slow page load times. Displaying past clients’ logos, awards, and professional headshots of employees is important. However, do they really need to be the size of a billboard?
    4. Infrequent page updates: In around 50% of the cases (yes, the number is that high!), law firms do not update such basic info as the copyright year. Sometimes, it is off by a year or two. In most instances, it’s from 10 years ago, which is probably when the website was built or redesigned. Similarly, I notice too many websites where law firms display their dynamic content like firm news where the latest post is from three years ago. A website should feel alive – not like an abandoned time capsule.
    5. Little to no marketing strategy in the user journey: A lonely contact form tucked away on the “Contact Us” page is not a marketing strategy. It’s important to engage and nurture users. Adding a newsletter subscription that’s displayed prominently on the blog/insights/thought leadership section would be Step 1. Step 2? Customizing the calls-to-action based on the subject/industry/practice area – e.g., “Receive legal updates in the M&A market directly in your inbox.”
    6. An outdated, unresponsive design: Here, I’m referring to websites that look like they were created in the early 2000s: newsletter-style boxed layouts with a grey background, clunky navigation, uninspired templates with barely any customization, lack of alignment or balance between graphics and text, autoplaying creatives like videos and carousels, etc. Plus, many fail to optimize their website for various screens such as mobiles and tablets. In 2025, it’s the bare minimum that users expect.
    7. The lack of clear value propositions and social proof: The legal industry, more so than most others, I would argue, is an expertise-specialization-based business. Clients want experts with years, if not decades, of experience. The stakes are too high. Unfortunately, most law firms use this as their literal messaging with vague, cookie-cutter statements like “We are a leading law firm in [insert industry] with 70+ years of combined experience”. There is no differentiation, no clear social proof in the form of testimonials, case studies, or thought leadership pieces.

    A law firm’s website isn’t just a digital business card – it’s often the first test of credibility. If it’s outdated, slow, or stuffed with generic messaging, potential clients will bounce faster than you can say “leading, client-focused, and results-driven.” 

    The good news? These mistakes are all fixable.

    By Steve George, Marketing Advisor, Five-o-eight

  • Measuring Productivity and Client Satisfaction: Essential Operational KPIs for Law Firms

    Measuring Productivity and Client Satisfaction: Essential Operational KPIs for Law Firms

    Beyond financial indicators, a law firm’s performance also depends on operational and client satisfaction KPIs. These metrics enable firms to optimize time management and enhance service quality, directly impacting client loyalty and the firm’s long-term growth.

    Productivity KPIs for Law Firms

    Utilization Rate and Billable Hours per Attorney

    Maximizing billable time is a key driver of performance for law firms. To fully leverage this potential:

    • Set individualized and realistic billable targets for each attorney.
    • Encourage specialization in high-value practice areas, enabling higher billing rates.

    Train your teams in personal efficiency techniques and time management. Identify and eliminate non-productive, time-consuming tasks. Invest in technology tools that automate administrative processes.

    Regularly analyze time allocation across different case types. Prioritize complex matters that yield higher billable hours. Implement a mentorship program to help junior attorneys enhance their productivity.

    Average Case Resolution Time

    The time taken to resolve matters is a critical indicator of a law firm’s efficiency. Closely monitoring this metric helps identify bottlenecks in workflow.

    To reduce resolution time, consider adopting project management tools tailored to the legal industry. These solutions enhance team collaboration and automate certain administrative tasks.

    Jarvis Legal, for instance, enables centralized case and task management while providing clear visibility into deadlines and responsibility allocation. This streamlines teamwork and boosts productivity.

    Client Satisfaction and Retention KPIs

    Client Satisfaction Rate:

    Evaluating client satisfaction is a cornerstone for law firms. To gather accurate feedback, consider using online surveys after each resolved case. Include targeted questions about communication, legal expertise, and turnaround times.

    Analyze the feedback to identify strengths and areas for improvement. Use these insights to train your team and continuously refine your services.

    Implement a star-rating system on your website to provide immediate visibility into overall client satisfaction. This transparency builds trust with prospective clients and highlights your firm’s expertise.

    Additionally, request detailed testimonials from satisfied clients to enhance your brand reputation and attract new mandates.

    Retention and Referral Rates:

    Tracking your retention rate provides valuable insight into the stability of your client base. Calculate it by dividing the number of repeat clients by the total number of clients over a given period. A high retention rate signals strong client loyalty.

    To assess your referral rate, use the Net Promoter Score (NPS). This metric gauges how likely clients are to recommend your services. A positive NPS indicates a satisfied and loyal client base.

    Analyze these indicators quarterly to identify trends. A decline may indicate the need to adjust your practices, while an increase validates your retention strategies.

    These metrics directly impact the long-term growth of your firm. Loyal clients generate recurring revenue and attract new business through word-of-mouth referrals.

    Number of New Clients and Acquisition Rate

    The influx of new clients is a critical indicator of a law firm’s growth. Closely monitor the number of new mandates on a monthly or quarterly basis.

    Calculate your acquisition rate by dividing the number of new cases by the total number of prospects contacted. A high ratio reflects an effective business development strategy.

    Identify your most effective acquisition channels—referrals, website, social media, or professional events—and focus your efforts on the most fruitful sources.

    Evaluate your cost per client acquisition by dividing your marketing expenses by the number of new mandates obtained. Optimize this ratio to maximize your return on investment and ensure sustainable, profitable growth for your firm.

    Operational KPIs, from attorney productivity to client satisfaction, play a fundamental role in a law firm’s overall performance. By tracking these indicators and implementing continuous improvement strategies, firms can enhance efficiency, strengthen client relationships, and achieve sustainable growth in a highly competitive market.

    With its analytics and management modules, Jarvis Legal becomes a strategic partner for firms seeking to improve profitability and competitiveness in a demanding environment.

    By LexisNexis

    LexisNexis

     

  • Enhancing Your Law Firm’s Financial Performance with Essential KPIs

    Enhancing Your Law Firm’s Financial Performance with Essential KPIs

    The profitability of a law firm relies on meticulous financial management and a thorough analysis of performance metrics. By leveraging essential Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), firms can assess and enhance their financial health. Metrics such as revenue growth, average billing rates, and the breakeven point provide valuable insights that empower strategic decision-making and drive performance optimization.

    With Jarvis Legal and its Analytics module, law firms gain access to a powerful tool for centralizing and analyzing key performance indicators in real-time. By providing an objective view of performance and regular analysis, Jarvis Analytics enables firms to refine their strategy, streamline processes, and boost profitability. Meticulous tracking of these data points is essential for sustaining and growing operations in a competitive marketplace.

    Key Financial Metrics for Profitability

    Revenue and Revenue Growth

    Revenue is a fundamental indicator of a law firm’s financial health. A detailed analysis by practice area and individual attorney highlights the most profitable sectors.

    Revenue growth, measured monthly and annually, provides insight into the firm’s trajectory. A stable or upward growth rate reflects a healthy business dynamic.

    High-performing firms set ambitious yet achievable revenue targets for each quarter. They closely track the ratio of new clients to existing clients, striving for an optimal balance to ensure sustainable growth.

    Benchmarking against comparable firms offers valuable context to assess and refine financial performance.

    Average Billing Rate and Profit Margin

    The average billing rate reflects the value generated per hour worked. A well-performing firm typically aims for a rate between €200 and €500, depending on its specialization and location. To optimize this metric, firms should diversify their high-value services and train their team in effective negotiation techniques.

    Jarvis Legal can track and analyze average billing rates to help set profitability goals and identify the most lucrative services.

    Profit margin measures the overall profitability of a law firm. A healthy margin typically falls around 30-40% of revenue. To improve this metric, streamline fixed costs, such as by digitizing certain administrative processes.

    Monitor the ratio of billable to worked hours; a ratio above 70% indicates strong operational efficiency. Implement a precise time-tracking system to identify and optimize time-consuming, non-billable tasks.

    With Jarvis Legal’s time-tracking features, you can pinpoint non-billable, time-intensive activities and optimize them effectively.

    Break-Even Point and Breakeven Analysis

    The break-even point represents the level of activity at which a law firm covers all its expenses. To calculate it, divide fixed costs by the contribution margin ratio.

    The breakeven date indicates when this threshold is reached. For example, a firm reaching its breakeven point in October should refine its operations to achieve it earlier. Possible strategies include:

    • Reducing non-essential expenses
    • Increasing the number of cases handled
    • Revising pricing for services

    Regular monitoring of these indicators allows firms to make timely adjustments and ensure their financial stability.

    Working Capital Requirements (WCR)

    Working Capital Requirements (WCR) are a critical indicator of a law firm’s financial health. They represent the resources needed to bridge the gap between expenses and revenue collections tied to operations.

    Effective management of WCR promotes healthy cash flow. To optimize it, expedite fee collections by offering flexible payment options to clients, and negotiate longer payment terms with suppliers.

    Fee Collection Rate

    Maximizing fee collection is essential for the financial health of a law firm. To improve this rate:

    • Establish clear payment terms at the start of the client relationship
    • Offer flexible payment options, such as installment plans
    • Send detailed invoices promptly after services are rendered
    • Implement an automated follow-up system

    Track the ratio of billed fees to collected fees monthly.

    Analyze the reasons for payment delays to refine your strategy. Improving the fee collection rate directly enhances cash flow and profitability.

    The financial management of a law firm hinges on continuous analysis of key KPIs to maximize profitability and safeguard cash flow. By adopting a relevant set of KPIs and regularly reviewing their performance, firms can build a solid foundation to ensure long-term stability and growth. Rigorous financial oversight becomes a strategic lever to support growth in an increasingly competitive environment.

    With its analytics and management modules, Jarvis Legal serves as a strategic ally for firms aiming to boost profitability and competitiveness in a demanding market.

    By Yan Miranda, Business Development Manager, LexisNexis

    LexisNexis

     

  • Surviving AI Disruption in Legal Services: What’s Your Strategy?

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is entering the legal services sector. Some law firms, particularly the largest ones, are already experimenting with AI not only to streamline internal processes but also to perform legal tasks. So, let’s address the elephant in the room – AI is shrinking the legal services market by introducing a new competitive threat unlike any we’ve encountered before.

    If you are still sceptical that AI can partially replace your work, here are some hard facts for you.

    A New Competitive Threat Unlike Any We’ve Faced Before

    Goldman Sachs research indicates that 44% of legal work could be automated by emerging AI tools. And this is already happening. GPT-4, the large language model serving as the backbone of ChatGPT and several other generative AI systems, managed to score 90% on the Uniform Bar Exam last year, which is required in the majority of jurisdictions in the United States, according to research by CodeX – The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics.

    To sit for the exam, applicants must have a degree from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association. The exam takes 12 hours over two days. Successfully passing the exam requires an examinee to discern challenging factual and legal scenarios, understand and apply legal principles, and both consume and produce complex legal language.

    What is even more interesting is that part of the exam, the multiple-choice Multistate Bar Examination (MBE), saw AI significantly outperform the average student passing the exam. GPT-4’s score was 75.7%, while the student average was 68%.

    So, the fact is that AI tools can now handle the endless reading, summarizing, creating, and filing of documents ordinarily entrusted to junior associates. And even if it doesn’t replace lawyers entirely, the emergence of generative AI stands to radically alter the nature of practicing law, as well as its business model.

    The question is, what should we do knowing this?

    Customers’ Expectations Are Evolving Rapidly

    Between December 6, 2023, and January 9, 2024, LexisNexis interviewed executives in corporate legal departments at Fortune 1000 companies, as well as managing partners and other senior leaders at large law firms, to understand how AI is changing the market, attitudes, and organizational adoption. They found that 76% of Fortune 1000 respondents expect their outside counsel to use cutting-edge tools, including Gen AI, and 80% of corporate legal executives anticipate a reduction in billing from outside counsel due to Gen AI efficiencies. However, only 9% of law firm leaders reported that their corporate clients have expressed expectations for reduced firm bills as a result of Gen AI. These insights come from almost 200 executives.

    What should be concerning is that the clients expect law firms to adopt the new tech, invest in AI, and learn to work with new tools, but this expectation may not be communicated until they receive an invoice that they perceive as overcharged.

    Additionally, one-third of respondents expect law firms to introduce new pricing models by the end of this year (2024), as indicated by Thomson Reuters research conducted in May and June 2023. Another 43% of respondents expect the alternative pricing models to be presented to them later. This indicates a demand for law firms to quickly adapt their business models in response to new AI tools.

    The conclusion on that: die or adapt. Don’t you agree?

    Market Leaders Are Already Investing Millions in AI

    The reality is that we must invest in AI tools and new skills immediately, without delay. LexisNexis survey indicates that 18% of the TOP200 largest law firms in the US with a dedicated budget for generative AI will spend 1%-2.9% of their revenue on generative AI in 2024. Given that the revenue of these firms ranges from $250 million to $6.5 billion, the planned investment in generative AI starts at $2.5 million and exceeds $100 million.

    We have already heard a lot about the investments from top law firms into tools that assist in performing legal tasks. It started with investments in AI-powered document automation and review tools. For instance, Clifford Chance announced a partnership with Kira Systems in July 2016, followed by Freshfields two months later. Kira uses machine learning technology to automate the extraction and analysis of key provisions from contracts, supporting accuracy in due diligence, contract reviews, regulatory compliance, etc. Today, the same tool is also used by DLA Piper, Hogan Lovells, Herbert Smith Freehills, Freshfields, and many others. Freshfields claims that Kira Systems improved the firm’s efficiency by 20-40%. Other law firms like Bird & Bird and Dentons use Luminance for the same tasks and report very positive feedback about increased efficiency as well.

    However, document automation is not the only AI tool being utilized by law firms. Recently, there has been significant interest in various generative AI tools, such as Harvey, a platform built on artificial intelligence technology from ChatGPT creator OpenAI. Harvey AI is built on a version of OpenAI’s GPT AI and is further trained with general legal data, including case law and reference materials. When engaged by a firm, Harvey AI is then trained using the firm’s own work products and templates. The tool assists with contract analysis, due diligence, litigation, and regulatory compliance and can generate insights, recommendations, and predictions based on data. As a result, lawyers can deliver faster and more cost-effective solutions for client issues.

    One of the very first to adopt the platform was the global law firm Allen & Overy in February 2023, to help speed up the lawyers’ work and save the firm millions of dollars. The Big Four have also joined in, with PwC signing a partnership agreement with Harvey over a year ago. Today, more than 15,000 law firms are on a waiting list to use the legal AI startup Harvey.

    At the same time, Clifford Chance uses Lucy, which finds results across an organization’s knowledge and provides summaries to users’ questions. It is also integrated with Teams and Slack and can join conversations, providing valuable input to legal discussions among lawyers.

    While some of these firms partner with AI developers by licensing their use, others focus on developing their own AI tools. However, time is not on their side as technology emerges rapidly and market leaders are spending millions to fuel development.

    The tools in which law firms invest also include AI solutions for predictive analytics (predicting case outcomes and assessing risks), client interaction and management (such as chatbots, real-time updates to clients on case status, etc.), as well as business development and competitive intelligence (for tracking market trends and providing competitor analysis) and various marketing tools (for analytics, content production, etc.).

    Most market leaders do not disclose the amount of their investments, but KPMG’s head of legal services, Stuart Fuller, was very open about The Big Four’s plans, stating that they plan to invest “tens of millions of dollars” to help corporate legal departments streamline operations, including implementing generative AI. According to him, the technology will eventually “take away part of the core business model” for law firms by handling tasks usually assigned to junior lawyers.

    Where Does All of This Leave Your Law Firm?

    The most important question is: what’s next, and how close is this “alternative” future? What will it look like?

    Thomson Reuters, in their latest report on the State of the US Legal Market, considers three possible scenarios for the impact generative AI could have on law firms:

    1. It significantly enhances both client value and law firm profits by increasing efficiency and reducing costs for firms, and enabling higher-quality advice, faster service, and more creative solutions.
    2. Clients derive a disproportionate share of the benefits of generative AI by getting greater leverage in competitive pricing and an increased ability to bring work in-house.
    3. Generative AI finds utility in law firm areas such as knowledge management and search, as well as operations, marketing, IT and HR, but does not significantly alter current legal practices or firm-client relationships.

    Considering the law firm investments in AI and the evolution of customer needs, I am confident that only one scenario is likely. The polarization between commodity legal work and work that requires solid experience and extensive expertise will increase, cutting the tail of commodity work that generates profits/revenues for law firms. Law firms will have less commodity work, which will be replaced by in-house teams using generative AI tools. Consequently, the legal services market will soon shrink significantly.

    Where to Begin?

    If you are wondering whether it’s time to turn off the lights and close your firm, the good news is you still have a couple of years. Use this time to understand your options, wisely reconsider your business model, and be proactive with communication.

    The change should begin with a better understanding of market options: what AI tools are available for lawyers and how they can bring you efficiency. Seminars, conferences, and various online sources are great for learning about these tools. It will take some time to choose the right ones, so don’t delay the process. Meanwhile, start training your lawyers to work with generative AI tools like ChatGPT or Gemini.

    Once you understand your options, the most important decision is to review your business strategy. Start with your firm’s positioning strategy—how you want your target audience to perceive your law firm and what value proposition will help you meet their expectations and stay ahead of the competition. Next, conduct an audit of your client portfolio along with a review of your firm’s service portfolio strategy. Consider focusing on high-value legal services such as ‘grey hair’ work, which involves problem-solving based on experience in notable cases and transactions, or ‘rocket science’ work, which requires deep expertise and creative problem-solving. Move away from ‘commodity’ work, which involves simple and routine problems that don’t require much legal expertise.

    If your target segment (existing or potential clients) doesn’t plan to invest in AI and new skills, you can continue providing commodity legal services, but consider productizing these services. Productization helps optimize service delivery, automate sales, and minimize costs, allowing you to offer competitive prices to clients ensuring continuous loyalty.

    New technology also brings opportunities for new service development. Consider offering legal training on security, GDPR, and other topics, as well as consulting clients on implementing AI-related processes in their companies.

    After reconsidering your service portfolio, the next question is the pricing model. AI tools will help you optimize service processes, and clients will expect lower prices for some services. Analyze market competition to see what others are doing and develop a new pricing model for your firm’s legal services.

    Once you’ve done this marketing and business development strategy exercise, don’t delay communication. Remember, being first offers an advantage. Adjust your marketing materials to reflect the new strategy as soon as possible. This includes updating your basic marketing materials like website, corporate presentations, sales offer templates, and your overall communication strategy.

    Is There a Way to Prevent the Coming Change?

    I understand this prospect might seem daunting to some of you, so I wanted to offer a glimmer of hope. You might wonder if there is any chance to halt the legal market transformation. Indeed, there is, and you are likely aware of it. AI comes with various risks, and these concerns could justify regulations that might delay market changes. However, in the meantime, I believe it is wiser to prepare and start working on your law firm’s future business and positioning strategy to adopt.

    Neringa Petrauskaite is a business development and marketing strategist with 15 years of international legal service industry experience working both in-house and as a outsourced consultant.

  • Is ChatGPT a Threat to Legal Marketing Professionals?

    ChatGPT, an AI that claimed to be able to write an answer or even a brief article on any topic, became the talk of the year 2022. Copywriters, PR professionals, and marketing experts will all benefit from it greatly. But should we be scared?

    What Is ChatGPT?

    ChatGPT is a large language model developed by OpenAI. It is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that is trained to understand and generate human language. It is based on the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) architecture, which uses deep learning to generate text that is similar to human writing.

    ChatGPT can be used to perform a variety of language-based tasks such as language translation, text summarization, text completion, and question answering. Additionally, it can be fine-tuned for specific tasks such as content creation, customer service, and data analysis. It has the ability to generate text that is coherent, fluent, and contextually appropriate in a conversational setting.

    Overall, ChatGPT is a powerful tool that can assist with a wide range of language-based tasks and help businesses save time and resources by automating repetitive tasks and providing valuable insights.

    How Can ChatGPT Improve Marketing?

    ChatGPT can be used to improve marketing in a variety of ways. One way is through the generation of compelling and engaging copy for marketing materials such as advertisements, emails, and social media posts. ChatGPT can also be used to generate personalized and automated responses to customer inquiries, which can improve customer service and lead to increased customer satisfaction. Additionally, ChatGPT can be used to analyze customer data and identify patterns and trends, which can inform targeted marketing campaigns and improve overall ROI.

    How Can It Help Lawyers in Marketing?

    ChatGPT can help lawyers in marketing by assisting with the creation of legal content such as blog posts, articles, and white papers. It can also assist in the generation of engaging and compelling copy for lawyers’ websites, social media, and other marketing materials. Additionally, ChatGPT can help lawyers to personalize their communication with potential clients, by generating custom responses to frequently asked questions, and help in identifying patterns and trends in client data to inform targeted marketing campaigns.

    ChatGPT can also assist lawyers in research by summarizing large amounts of legal information and providing relevant information quickly. Furthermore, it can help lawyers in the generation of legal documents and contracts. Overall, ChatGPT can help lawyers to save time and resources by automating repetitive tasks, and by providing them with valuable insights to improve their marketing efforts and better serve their clients.

    What Can ChatGPT Write for Lawyers in Marketing Materials?

    ChatGPT can write a variety of marketing materials for lawyers such as: (1) Website copy: generating compelling and engaging copy for lawyers’ websites, highlighting their areas of expertise, experience, and qualifications; (2) Blog posts and articles: writing educational and informative blog posts and articles that provide valuable information to potential clients and position the lawyer as a thought leader in their field; (3) Social media posts: generating personalized and engaging social media posts that promote the lawyer’s services and keep followers informed about industry developments; (4) Emails: generating personalized and automated email responses to potential clients, following up on leads, and providing additional information about the lawyer’s services; (5) Brochures and flyers: writing copy for brochures and flyers that promote the lawyer’s services and provide potential clients with an overview of the lawyer’s qualifications and experience; (6) Legal documents: assisting lawyers in the generation of legal documents such as contracts and agreements which can save time and effort; and (7) Press releases: writing press releases announcing the lawyer’s new cases, settlements, or awards, which can help to build their reputation and gain visibility in the legal community.

    Overall, ChatGPT can help lawyers to create marketing materials that are tailored to their target audience, providing valuable information and positioning them as experts in their field.

    Will It Replace Marketeers?

    ChatGPT can assist with certain tasks related to marketing, such as generating copy and analyzing data. However, it is not capable of replacing marketeers. Marketeers are responsible for creating and executing marketing strategies, which involve a wide range of tasks such as researching target audiences, identifying market opportunities, and developing campaigns. Marketeers are also responsible for measuring and analyzing the effectiveness of marketing efforts and making adjustments as needed.

    ChatGPT can help to automate certain tasks, such as generating copy and analyzing data, but it cannot replace the creativity, strategic thinking, and decision-making abilities of a human marketeer. Marketeers will continue to play a critical role in creating and implementing effective marketing strategies and campaigns. Moreover, ChatGPT is a tool to assist marketeers, but it doesn’t have the ability to understand the context, culture, or business environment. It can help with data generation, but it’s always better to have a human interpreting the data, understanding the business context, and making decisions.

    How Is ChatGPT Better than Marketeers?

    ChatGPT is a powerful tool that can assist marketeers in a variety of ways. Here are a few ways in which ChatGPT can be better than marketeers: (1) Speed: generating large amounts of text or data quickly and accurately, which can save marketeers a significant amount of time and effort; (2) Personalization: generating personalized responses to customer inquiries, which can improve customer service and lead to increased customer satisfaction; (3) Content creation: assisting in the creation of marketing materials such as blog posts, articles, and white papers, which can help to position the lawyer as a thought leader in their field; (4) Data analysis: analyzing customer data and identifying patterns and trends, which can inform targeted marketing campaigns and improve overall ROI; (5) Language generation: generating text in different languages, which can help to reach a wider audience and increase the chances of conversions; and (6) Automation: automating repetitive tasks such as answering customer inquiries, which can free up time for marketeers to focus on more strategic tasks.

    It’s important to note that ChatGPT is not a replacement for marketeers, but rather a powerful tool that can assist them in their tasks and help them make data-driven decisions. Marketeers will continue to play a critical role in creating and implementing effective marketing strategies and campaigns. And ChatGPT can be used as a tool to make the job easier, faster, and more efficient.

    Can I Use This Text in an Article About ChatGPT?

    Yes, you may use the text in an article about ChatGPT. However, as a language model, I am not the author of the text, and I am not able to give you the permission to use the text. You should always check if the website or platform you are going to use to publish the article has any terms of service or copyright policy that you should follow. Additionally, it is always a good practice to properly cite any information used from other sources to give credit to the original author and to avoid plagiarism.
    ————–
    As you can see, ChatGPT wrote the entirety of this article. I created this to show the capabilities and limits of this tool. If we use this AI correctly, it can be very beneficial to us as legal marketeers. I’ve already prepared some sample descriptions for law firm websites, as well as simple blog pieces, SEO articles, and short posts for social media.
    The Future has arrived. Are you scared?

    By Mate Bende, Owner, Pro/Lawyer Consulting
    With 15 years of legal communication experience, Mate Bende started his legal consultancy firm, Pro/Lawyer Consulting, in 2015 with the intention of helping lawyers and the legal industry reach their business goals.

     

  • The Confident Counsel: The Path of Least Persistence (Part 2)

    In Part 1, I talked about the dilemma facing most lawyers when asked to involve themselves with business development. If you want to be good at BD, it helps a lot to be an optimist. But, since most lawyers are uber-pessimists, we struggle with BD and find ourselves with practically zero persistence.

    In this article, you can learn about the following solutions for tackling this pessimism problem:

    • Hire baby rainmakers
    • Encourage BD specialization
    • Protect the pessimists and your pocketbook

    Hire Baby Rainmakers

    In Part One of this article, I talked about the research by Martin Seligman demonstrating that the more pessimistic law students are likely to do better in school and get better job offers. In other words, the big law firms seem to be vacuuming up uber-pessimists.

    Why don’t law firms simply set up two hiring processes – one for high-potential lawyers and a second for baby rainmakers? For the high-potential lawyers, you can keep following your traditional hiring policies (e.g., nice school, good grades, solid handshake). For the baby rainmakers, you would de-emphasize the grades (Seligman suggests that optimists are likely to have lower grades) and focus more on investigating their resilience towards rejection. Better yet, why not test these candidates with one of Seligman’s surveys like the Attributional Style Questionnaire (used to assess levels of optimism and pessimism) or the Grit Survey (used to examine perseverance)?

    Encourage BD Specialization

    You can also increase the persistence of your lawyers by helping them manage the detrimental effects of their pessimism. For example, Seligman recommends several cognitive science techniques (e.g., the ABC model) to manage excessive pessimism. But you and I know that most lawyers are too pessimistic to actually do exercises that would make them less pessimistic.

    As an alternative, you can also help lawyers increase their BD persistence by encouraging them to pick a specialization for their BD activities. In my experience, lawyers don’t just struggle with BD because they are pessimists – they are also frustrated when forced to do activities that they are not good at. Unfortunately, law firms feed this frustration by encouraging lawyers to engage in a vast range of BD activities. As a result, the lawyers don’t have the time to develop expertise in any of these activities. To address this problem, they should be encouraged to boost their confidence by becoming an expert in a particular BD domain of their choosing (e.g., social media posting, article writing, conference presenting).

    Protect the Pessimists and Your Pocketbooks

    Last but not least, we need to take this pessimistic shit seriously. There are countless articles detailing the detrimental effects of pessimism in our profession (e.g., depression, divorce, substance abuse, burnout).

    Unfortunately, most law firms ask their lawyers to just suck it up, take the money, and quit whining. Management understandably doesn’t want to mess with this model, because it’s a proven moneymaker. As a result, we just pretend that pessimism and its consequences are an annoying but necessary part of the job.

    If you’ve been paying attention to this article series, you probably realize that this management mindset is not only lazy, but it also hurts the bottom line. When we don’t help lawyers deal with their pessimistic mindsets, we end up with the exact opposite of rainmakers, whatever that is. On the other hand, we can lead them down the path towards BD persistence and success if we provide them with support targeted at helping them overcome their pessimistic aversion to BD (e.g., coaching, mentoring, and training aimed at dealing with excessively negative beliefs about BD).

    The math is simple: happier lawyers means more money in your pocket.

    Learn More

    If you liked the insights from Seligman, I recommend that you check out his book Learned Helplessness or his website for the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

    Aaron Muhly is an American lawyer who has been training European professionals on clear writing and effective communication for over 15 years.

    This article was originally published in Issue 9.10 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • The Confident Counsel: The Path of Least Persistence (Part 1)

    Lawyers know that business development requires a handful of sales skills, a pinch of luck, and a boatload of persistence. Freaking BD persistence… it’s a serious problem for all of us. We didn’t go to law school to do sales.

    Why is BD so annoying for us? And, how can law firms be smarter about managing our persistence struggles? Read on to find out.

    Pessimism: The Persistence Killer

    Once upon a time, a US life insurance company (Metropolitan Life) had a major problem – their salesmen sucked. The company’s CEO discovered that the company was burning tens of millions of dollars because it was hiring the wrong people (50% of new sales staff quit in the first year). So, the CEO did the smart thing and called Professor Martin Seligman.

    Seligman is a leading researcher in positive psychology. He investigates the link between a person’s mindset and personal and professional success. The CEO challenged Seligman to set up a psychological test for hiring successful salespeople. In response, Seligman delivered a test that positioned job candidates on a scale from super-optimistic to super-pessimistic. He predicted that higher levels of optimism would lead to greater sales success.

    He was right. When salesmen tested in the more optimistic half of the class, they were 50% less likely to quit in the first year. They also outsold the less optimistic half of the class by 20% (and the top quarter outsold the bottom quarter by 50%).

    To understand the “why” behind these results, just imagine that you sell life insurance. Your job is to call people and ask “Hey, have you thought about dying recently?” As you can imagine, almost everyone is going to hang up on you. That’s a lot of rejection, and you need the right mindset to survive it. If you are a pessimist, you will likely explain this rejection by blaming yourself (e.g., I am just not good at this crap). Once you have collected a sufficient amount of self-blame, you are going to give up and quit. But, if you are an optimist, you will probably react to such rejection in a more positive manner (e.g., they were just in a bad mood). As a result, you will find it much easier to shrug off the rejection and keep selling (i.e., stay persistent).

    Optimistic Lawyers: Are you Kidding?

    Unfortunately, you are probably destined to struggle with BD (i.e., high-rejection sales) because it’s unlikely that you are an optimist. According to Seligman, most top lawyers fall into the pessimist category. He backs up this belief with a cool study that he ran with Jason Satterfield and John Monahan at the University of Virginia’s law school. Based on this study, pessimists are much more successful in law school – they get better grades, and they get better job offers.

    But we don’t need Seligman to tell us this. Every lawyer knows in their heart that our industry is filled with pessimists. Think about our job – we need to spend most of our days focusing on the dark side of life – legal risks, issues, and mistakes. This is not a land for super-optimists.

    If BD needs optimists and lawyers are mostly pessimists, I don’t think law firms are managing BD in a smart manner. We can’t just pretend that BD is a normal part of a lawyer’s job. We definitely shouldn’t live in the fantasy that making lawyers fill out BD plans and calendars is going to suddenly fix our persistence issues.

    Stay Tuned

    In Part 2, I will discuss how law firms can improve their BD by directly addressing this pessimism dilemma. 

    Aaron Muhly is an American lawyer who has been training European professionals on clear writing and effective communication for over 15 years.

    This Article was originally published in Issue 9.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • The Confident Counsel: What’s Up with Those Slides?

    When you get up to present at a conference, what is your goal? Since lawyers are addicted to billable hours, you are probably gambling some non-billable time with the hope of landing some legal work. To accomplish this, you want to sell yourself to potential clients as a competent, trustworthy, and mildly entertaining lawyer.

    If that’s the case, what’s up with those slides? You know what I’m talking about. Those super-heavy slides filled wall-to-wall with dense legal citations that blow up the brains of your audience. (And no, sprinkling in some bullet points isn’t saving the day.)

    When lawyers smother their audiences with massive information dumps, they kill the sale. Not only do these burdensome slides distract clients from appreciating your brilliance, but they also send the terrible signal that you will do the exact same thing when managing their matters. In other words, they should expect that you will bombard them with excessively long emails that they don’t have the patience to read.

    If you would like to avoid wasting these valuable opportunities to generate business, you’ve got to simplify those slides. In this article, you will learn some helpful techniques for converting even the cruelest sets of slides into something that clients can handle, and more importantly, actually appreciate.

    Step One: Preserving the Value

    If you are like many of my students, you use your slides as a form of notes for your presentation. You are filling your slides with bullet points to help you identify all the pieces of information that you would like to convey during your presentation. If so, that’s OK because those slides are not only valuable to you, clients like them too – just not during your presentation. When I talk to in-house lawyers about the slides of external lawyers, they oftentimes mention that they find the detailed slides useful as a learning tool after presentations.

    So, take those slides and send them to the participants after your presentation. Actually, don’t just send them the slides. Send them links to any additional resources that they might find helpful (e.g., related articles / reports prepared by your firm). With this approach, you are definitely starting to look trustworthy and competent.

    Step Two: Highlight and Delete

    Next, you can make your original slides a lot more accessible for your audience if you reduce each slide to one main concept. To accomplish this, just go through and highlight the key words on each slide. After highlighting, delete everything else. You should have left just a few key words – we’re talking phrases, not sentences.

    If you are concerned that you still have too much on a slide, just split up the information into multiple slides. Remember: no one is complaining about too many slides. We just want each slide to communicate a simple concept, a concept that you will expand upon as you speak.

    Step Three: Go for Images

    As a final step, it’s time to use a much under-used skill of lawyers – creativity. If you can replace your words on a slide with a related image, you will create a much more powerful impact on your audience. You can use safer images like a timeline, graph, or pie chart. But, you can also unload a killer image by simply going to Google Images and searching for an interesting picture. Naturally, you won’t be able to find image replacements for most of your slides, but even a couple of non-textual slides can greatly improve the experience for your audience.

    Learn More

    If you are looking for a book to help you deliver cooler-looking presentations, check out Resonate by Nancy Duarte. She is an expert in creating impactful presentations via visual storytelling.

    Aaron Muhly is an American lawyer who has been training European professionals on clear writing and effective communication for over 15 years.

    This Article was originally published in Issue 9.7 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Has Coaching’s Time Come for Central European Law Firms?

    Although in most respects the law firm business in Central Europe is on par with other sophisticated practices in the rest of the world, coaching is one thing that has not been as widely adopted as elsewhere. This article addresses the questions of what coaching is, what it offers lawyers and law firms, and whether it should be more widely embraced by the legal profession in Central Europe.

    Dentons is a dramatic exception to the rule as it has, during the last several years, developed its own internal team of professionally trained and accredited coaches, coming from both its lawyer and support staff ranks, with each of its Central European locations having at least two of such coaches in residence, according to Warsaw-based Patryk Zamorski, Dentons’ Europe Director of Talent Development. Dentons also maintains a standing panel of external coaches.

    Another firm that puts a high emphasis on coaching is Schoenherr which views coaching as playing a critical role in their lawyers’ development, according to HR head Sabine Binder-Krieglstein. Coaching opportunities are made available to lawyers as they progress in rank utilizing Schoenherr’s external coaching panel.

    What is coaching? How does it differ from mentoring and other forms of trainings that are recognized as important by and are quite common in the Central European legal community?

    “Coaching is a one-on-one bespoke process in which a coach acts as a confidential and neutral thought partner to effect behavioral change,” according to Lane Vanderslice, a principal with Volta Talent Strategies, a U.S.-based coaching group that focuses on lawyers.

    How is coaching different than mentoring, a process with which most lawyers are familiar? To contrast the difference between mentoring and coaching in very simple terms, experts say mentoring can be thought of as a mentor showing a mentee how to “do it my way” whereas in coaching a coach will seek to help a coachee “do it your way.”  In mentoring, the theory presumes that, if a mentor has been successful in the applicable environment, then by following the mentor’s footsteps the mentee should be successful, as well. In contrast, “coaching presumes the coachee has the ability to reach the same (or better) result on her or his own with the coach’s role being to facilitate the thought process needed to productively deal with any internal/external roadblocks and to achieve the coachee’s defined goals,” notes Strauss of Vilnius-based Trinitas Coaching.

    “Many lawyers in the region may not yet understand coaching,” notes Marta Niedzialek, an accredited coach who heads marketing and business development at DLA Piper Warsaw. “Unlike, say, therapy, coaching is all about the here, now, and future – things we can influence.”

    Coaching advocates point to the established science of learning as well as common sense which hold that permanent behavioral change is much more likely to come about when we decide what to do ourselves versus being told or taught what to do, the latter approaches forming the foundation of existing law firm mentoring and other training programs.

    That being said, is there really any need to introduce anything new and/or different into the mix of tools used to maximize the performance of Central European law firms and lawyers? At the very least, such a change would come with additional cost and diversion of resources at a time of growing business uncertainty and budgetary pressures from things like technological upgrades. What’s missing? Why change?

    For some firms and lawyers, the answer may well be that nothing is missing and there is no reason to change. However, observing that lawyers can be a bit “set in their ways,” Strauss, believes further reflection would show the issue deserves very close examination by the Central European legal community.

    Being historically based on an “apprenticeship” model, the practice of law should be the ultimate “one-on-one” experience in which law firm lawyers receive considerable individual attention and encouragement in their professional growth and personal happiness.

    That’s the legacy notion, for sure. In the “here, now, and future,” though, we all can see that the mobility of lawyers in the region, as elsewhere in the world, has greatly increased. There is also widespread recognition that younger lawyers, in particular, have different expectations about their careers and life than preceding generations. Retaining the best talent is increasingly difficult and, in response, many law firms have stepped-up formal mentoring, training programs, and other “benefits” (including money) to help address that challenge.

    Despite the best of intentions, the nature of today’s law business will preclude the complete success of such programs in some, and probably most, cases. Tugging against the clear advantages of true teaming and more inclusive and welcoming firm cultures, the underlying reality of the importance of hours recorded and fees collected affects the amount of time and effort any colleague can devote to the development of another. Some may very well thrive on their own in such an environment. Others may not. The fact of the matter is that everyone a lawyer interacts with in even the most enlightened law practices will have an agenda of their own, notes Andrea Yang, an internal coach with Mayer Brown. She adds that a coach, in contrast, “is all about the coachee’s agenda” and responds to the universal human desire to be “individually listened to and understood.”

    “A sweet spot for lawyer coaching is at any transition point in a lawyer’s career,” says Vanderslice, “such as promotions in associate ranks, becoming Partner or appointment to a leadership position such as a practice leader, achievements that recognize past accomplishments but also demand new or higher-level skills and behaviors, such as business development and managerial responsibilities.”  Niedzialek notes that “investing in coaching is not just for the more senior lawyer ranks,” as coaching can result in a junior lawyer gaining “grounded self-confidence” when directly interacting with clients and lawyers on the other side of the table.  Binder-Krieglstein adds coaching can help develop the entire “package” of skills and behaviors that make for an excellent lawyer. “Just understanding the nuances of productively working in a law firm environment can present a challenge for newer entrants that may be facilitated with coaching,” notes Damir Topic of Zagreb-based DTB. “Coaching can really pull everything in a lawyer’s professional and personal life together,” observes Yang, “enhancing the effectiveness of a firm’s mentoring and other learning programs.”

    For senior lawyers, transitioning out of leadership and/or practice roles and on to other life phases is a very common subject for coaching according to coaching practitioners.  They add that coaching can also be a powerful intervention in the more dramatic situations of direct personal conflict among lawyers and/or their firms.

    Tatiana Krumova and Tatyana Hristova, of the Sofia-based coaching firm WeCoach.Team Ltd., note that the experience of actually engaging in the coaching process, which involves the use of “powerful” and “open-ended” questions, can expand the way lawyers think, helping them better interpret client needs and deliver creative solutions, matters that directly affect the bottom line, and also helps them deal with the softer but equally real issues of work-life balance and trying to also find personal meaning in work rather than just “playing roles,” i.e., meeting the expectations of others by trying to be someone else – pressures they find particularly acute in international operations.

    Coaching is not a substitute for mentoring and other learning programs, heathy cultures, and good management practices. While coaching is an important and critical tool, it should be thought of as “complementary” to all the other things lawyers and law firms need to do to achieve their best results, according to Yang.

    There are many coaching models, philosophies/approaches and techniques a coach may deploy in individual situations. No matter what, all coaching contemplates the identification of a problem and/or goal to be achieved, thinking through how to get there and how to deal with obstacles, doing it, and evaluating the successful (or unsuccessful) results, notes Strauss, a process he feels that lawyers should identify and feel comfortable with as it very much emulates day-to-day lawyering. Although time periods are situation-specific, coaching engagements geared for lawyers generally run from two to six months with coaching sessions occurring bi-weekly, monthly, or even quarterly.

    Successful coaching engagements require a relationship of confidence and trust between a coach and coachee, even when coaches are internal or in situations where a law firm is acting as a program sponsor of an external coach. For sure, tensions can arise when the goals of a lawyer and her or his firm do not seem to align; but coaching can enable a coachee to explore apparent differences and find mutually beneficial outcomes. In other words, coaching helps with lawyer retention and promotes goodwill among those who move on, observes Yang. Reflecting these realities, and the importance Dentons attaches to its coaching program in Central Europe, the external panel of Dentons’ coaches have all been interviewed and approved by Warsaw-based European CEO Tomasz Dabrowski.

    Do coaches have to be experienced in the actual practice of law to successfully coach lawyers? The response of Vanderslice, who had a prior career as a “big law” partner before turning to coaching: “Although it is not absolutely critical, a coach that is a lawyer is certainly in a position to rapidly sync with a coachee’s thought processes and lived reality without any learning time. But even more important than that, though, a coach must be a person that is a good, non-judgmental listener who can focus on putting the coachee first.” Yang adds that being a lawyer certainly adds to a coach’s “credibility,” an important factor in many lawyer coaching situations. Schoenherr has generally found it helpful to have coaches who, if not lawyers, are at least very familiar with the industry, but will occasionally turn to coaches with different backgrounds for added perspectives when warranted, says Binder-Krieglstein.

    Few Central European firms will be in a position to develop the sort of internal coaching capacity as has Dentons and will thus need to look for external resources. So, where do you start? The process is not dissimilar to that engaged in by clients when they select lawyers.  There is widespread agreement that there is nothing better than going with someone you know or with an informed referral from a trusted source.

    What if you don’t know any coaches and/or are unable to secure a referral in which you have confidence? As coaching is a self-regulated industry, new users should start with potential coaches that have individual accreditations recognized by one of the major trade groups, i.e., the Association of Coaching, the European Mentoring and Coaching Council, and the International Coaching Federation, each of which have established ethical codes for their members that parallel in many respects the ethical codes observed by lawyers (confidentiality, no conflicts of interest, etc.). The publicly available membership lists of those associations are also good places to start when looking for a coach.

    Again paralleling the counsel selection process, experience and fit are critical coach selection factors, although the “fit” part is probably even more important in coaching than in lawyering. You should expect an initial “chemistry session” just to make sure the crucial personal connection is there, observes Niedzialek.  It is not customary to be charged for that first session.

    You should also expect coaching to begin with a “contracting” phase during which an engagement letter-type agreement will be signed among all participants (coach, coachee, and the sponsoring firm) that will articulate the initial expectations of the coaching mandate, including specific objectives which may well be modified or otherwise evolve during the course of the coaching.

    Pricing is an important topic to be covered in the contracting phase. Like pricing for legal services, there is a great amount of variation depending on the experience of the coach, the seniority of the coachee, and the specific geographic location of the participants within Central Europe. However, Zamorski says that you can expect a regional pricing range of between EUR 200 and EUR 500 per coaching session, which typically last around an hour, with the coach’s session preparation time being included in the rate.

    So, has the time come for a more wide-spread adoption of a coaching culture in the Central European legal community? “Law firms should simply note the wide-spread and successful use of coaching among their clients, particularly the international ones, and ask themselves why their own businesses would not also benefit from the practice,” says Suesal Arieli, whose UK-based coaching firm has worked with ABInBev, BlackRock, EY, Cummins and many others. Firms like Dentons and Schoenherr already seem to have taken this point to heart and are running with it. The rest of the regional community should at least consider whether the practice could also help them maintain their momentum towards excellence in both the profession and business of the law as well as the conduct of their lives.

    Ron Given has been both an external and internal counsel, living, practicing law, and managing and growing law practices throughout the world, including Central Europe. From Chicago he currently sits on various boards, consults, and engages in executive coaching. Given can be reached on LinkedIn or at rbgiven@sbcglobal.net.