Beyond feedback: Creating a client advisory group for the firm

Chairman Philip Rodney shares how Burness created a client advisory group to improve its service offering

 

1. Identify a mix of businesses '¨from different sectors'¨
2.  '¨'¨Select individuals who are '¨likely to express their views'¨
3.  '¨'¨Ensure that the synergies '¨among the members are positive'¨
4.  '¨'¨Select topics which have practical application to clients'¨
5.  '¨'¨Keep the sessions brief '¨and focused'¨
6. '¨'¨Follow up with summaries

 

In 2006/07, we looked at the firm’s governance. We decided to follow a fairly standard path. The day-to-day running of the business would be the responsibility of the operations board, led by our managing partner. The governance and strategy board (GSB), comprising the managing partner, an elected member and the chairman, was designed to do what it said on the tin.

This structure worked well for us from the outset. It meant that operational decisions are taken more quickly and strategic issues are given proper airtime and do not slip off the agenda. The GSB can also act as a checking device for the managing partner in relation to issues which might have a long-term or reputational impact. By and large, this has been successful. We have been very careful to ensure that neither board steps on the toes of the other.

When we were devising the structure, we considered the possibility of having a non-executive member on the GSB. When we discussed this within the partnership, it was thought to be a step too far at that stage in our development. However, the point did remain that, at a management level, we were a step removed from the market we serviced.

We had, around the same time, initiated a practice of carrying out client reviews. We would meet with the chief executives, financial directors or general counsel at our key clients once a year so as to explore with them our service levels and better understand what the requirements of their businesses were going forward. The surveys also allowed us to obtain feedback as to what they liked and disliked about the service provided by our competitors and other professional service firms.

Crucially, these interviews were not carried out by the relationship partner, but by our director of marketing and business development and myself. Clients were able to make points (mostly supportive but sometimes critical) which perhaps they could not share with a partner with whom they had a longstanding relationship.
It was of course extremely important to understand our service levels and satisfying to hear that, in the main, '¨they were very high. What was of more interest was really understanding what the strategy and drivers of our clients would be going forward. It was also a way of getting intelligence on the sectors in '¨which they operate.

This led us to consider what other structure we might have that would enable us to canvass the views of our client base and understand their perspective of the market in which we operate. Sometimes lawyers miss the point that we don’t drive the market, but serve it.

We hit upon the idea of having a client board. The idea was that we would create a grouping of senior executives within our client base. We wanted the members to be people who knew the firm well and preferably also had experience of working with other top law firms.

We had to ask ourselves the question: why would members of this board give up time to help us develop our business? We thought that the benefit would be providing the members of this group with an opportunity to network with other '¨Scottish business leaders.

We also thought that, for it to work, we would have to identify topics which were of as much interest to the members of the group as they were to us. Finally, we had to ensure that it did not take up too much time in their diaries.

Composition considerations

We approached a couple of potential members tentatively to explore the idea. The responses we received were positive except for one issue. From a corporate governance standpoint, there was some sensitivity about being members of a grouping styled as a board. Accordingly, we agreed on a name: the client advisory group (CAG).

We then had to decide who would represent the firm on the CAG. Given that our hope was that the output of the discussions would assist us with our long-term planning, it seemed appropriate that the members of the GSB should also be on the CAG. In addition, it was essential to include our director of marketing and business development, who could reflect on service issues and longer-term marketing initiatives.

What should be the composition of client representation on the CAG? Clearly, we wanted individuals who were at the top table in their respective organisations. They also had to be reflective, articulate and prepared to express their opinions. In addition, we wanted people who understood not only the sectors in which they operated but had a feel for the Scottish market as a whole.

It was also important that we had representatives of different sectors of the market and different types of businesses. We wanted to hear not just from institutions, but from PLCs, SMEs and other service providers. To ensure that we had the final point covered, we stretched the criteria to include a couple of our suppliers – a big four accountancy firm and professional indemnity insurer.

Finally, we had to have a mixture of personalities that we believed would engage with each other. So an important criterion was choosing individuals that we liked as people and were likely to remain engaged in the process.

There is nothing worse than being invited to something that looks as if it will last a couple of hours but ends up eating into your whole day. We decided therefore that the meetings should take place over lunch – 12.30pm for drinks, sitting down for lunch at 12.50pm and finishing no later than 2.30pm.

We drew up a list of around ten members who we wanted to invite onto the CAG. We assumed that we might get a 50 per cent take up. In the end, all but one accepted. The one invitee who declined did so because he was concerned about being seen as affiliated to one law firm when he worked with others. Interestingly, all of the other members also have relationships with a number of other law firms.

Managing meetings

I approached the first meeting of the CAG with a degree of trepidation. We advised the members in advance what the topic would be and we did a lot of preparation.

On the day, the event went extremely well. It was important to manage the discussion so as to ensure that we kept to the subject and did not stray into general chat about holidays and golf. It was also important to ensure through active chairing that all the members of the CAG contributed to the discussion.

One of the gratifying surprises that came from the first meeting was that the members generally wanted to help us. They wanted to be associated with a law firm that was successful and constantly striving to improve what it did. The members were very generous in sharing their experiences.

Since then, we have held around two or three lunches per annum. It is very important to keep them fresh by selecting topics that are not just of benefit to us, but are also of fundamental interest to the members of the group.

We usually have attendance by about two thirds of the members. All are enthusiastic about the process and are regular attendees. After the lunch, we follow up with a written summary of what has been discussed and the outcomes.

Topics that have been discussed include our DNA and brand value, post-transaction debriefs, pricing models and added value. We have also explored such macro issues as the economy, innovation, risk and governance.
Topics that have practical application to our clients tend to be the ones that are most popular. They are less stimulated by discussion that focuses on abstract issues which are particular to our business, but with which they may have little connection.

Using information obtained

Getting the views of our clients is, of course, the beginning and not the end of the process. This information is then considered by our GSB and operations board and influences our thinking in developing new initiatives and improving our processes. For example, a lot of the information gathered helped us to develop the brief for our recent rebranding. The feedback has also assisted us in refining our client feedback process.

A by-product of the process is that clients who are represented on the CAG have tended to become more embedded with the firm. This is because, having seen for themselves our processes and the degree to which we constantly strike to improve our service delivery, they have wanted to invest further in the relationship. We also often pick up at CAG lunches information about our clients’ businesses which allows us to anticipate their requirements.

Over the years, a couple of members have dropped out – in both instances because they changed jobs. We have also supplemented the group and now have 13 members. Group members tell us how much they enjoy these events – one even comes from abroad to join us.

Now that the relationships have been built up, we are about to start using the CAG as a forum for market testing some issues through email responses.

Our view is that this initiative has been a complete success and has no real downsides. It is one which we will continue with for the foreseeable future.
 

philip.rodney@burness.co.uk