When I practiced law I often wondered why the client who had hired me to get them out of a tough jam at great expense, had not hired me to help them avoid getting into the jam at far less expense.
Today, I wonder why law firms do not hire me, or anyone else to do client development coaching for their lawyers to make sure they get it.
Some time ago, I found the answer to my questions in a Fast Company article by Dan and Chip Heath titled: Turning Vitamins Into Aspirin: Consumers and the “Felt Need” As the Heaths point out:
If entrepreneurs want to succeed, as venture capitalists like to say, they’d better be selling aspirin rather than vitamins. Vitamins are nice; they’re healthy. But aspirin cures your pain; it’s not a nice-to-have, it’s a must-have.
I know that when I practiced law, clients were more willing to pay for the “must haves’ than they were to pay for the “nice-to-haves.”
The same is true in my current work with lawyers and law firms. Sad as it may seem, many law firms view developing the next generation of rainmakers as a “nice-to-have” rather than a “must have.” I guess they assume their baby boomer lawyers will never retire.
Likewise, when the economy is tough, law firms cut training and development of their lawyers because it goes from a “must have” to a “nice to have.” Thus, even though developing the next generation of outstanding lawyer rainmakers is “nice-to-have” not a “must-have” for the near future.
One irony in all this: My best construction law clients were the ones who hired me to do “nice-to-have” legal work and now my best law firms and the best lawyers for whom I work hire me to help with “nice-to-have” goals.
One other irony: The primary way I got hired for “must have” work was by creating content to help clients avoid the “must have” problem.
I have a question for you. What will happen to your law firm when the vast majority of baby boomers retire? Have you developed the next generation of rainmakers?