Satisfied and Unsatisfied Clients

The theoretical framework for my Law Firms as a Business Organization class is the Heinz-Laumann two-hemisphere theory, which posits that lawyers  fall into one of two distinct "hemispheres": (1) lawyers who serve organizational clients, such as corporations, institutions, and labor unions; or (2) lawyers that provide personal services to individuals and small businesses.   See Chicago Lawyers (1982) (detailed empirical study of ~700 lawyers in greater Chicago).

Jack Heinz (NWU Law/ABF) and Edward Laumann (Chicago Sociology) created the hemisphere typology because their research documented that these two groups had very little in common; they attended different law schools, hailed from different socio-economic and religious backgrounds, belonged to different bar organizations, and otherwise traveled in completely separate social and professional circles.

For the next two weeks, my class is focusing on the personal services hemisphere.  And let's face it--virtually all law professors either worked for, or were groomed to work for, the corporate hemisphere.  We don't have a lot of exposure (at least as working adults) to the gritty world of personal injury, family law, workers compensation, and other mainstays of solo and small firm practice.  Since I teach the Law Firms course, I have compensated over the last few years by attending the Annual ISBA Solo & Small Firm Conferences.   It was there that I first learned about Jay Foonberg, the author of the ABA's all-time best selling book, How to Start and Build a Law Practice (5th ed. 2004).  Literally tens of thousand of small firm lawyers have built highly successful practices by following his simple nuts and bolts advice.

In law school, one gets the impression that success in the legal profession is primarily a function of analytical ability.  But this snippet from an ABA survey, republished in Foonberg's magnificant volume, suggests that client service (a function of organization and emotional intelligence rather than book smarts)  is the real make or break category:

Although the importance of these attributes, upon reflection, is obvious, they are rarely discussed in law school.  Moreover, they reflect a skill set (indeed, an awareness) that many law students have not yet acquired.  Foonberg is a welcomed antidote to this deficiency.

Comments

[William Henderson]

Confused,

You need to reflect on the probabilities here: What is the likelihood that dissatified client experienced two or more of the above seven lapses in service versus the same likelihood for satisfied clients?

I have not done the math, but the probability gap is surely staggering. Note that the inability of a nonlawyer to detect the lack of analytical competent is the primary justification for the bar exam. Nonlawyer clients (cf. CLO at a fortune 500 company) don't know lawyerly competent but they do know when they are being ignored or neglected.

So in the same volume Foonberg provides this addition data:

Why do clients leave? According to one national survey (Foonberg, p 233):

1% die

3% move

5% dislike the produce [lack of analytical ability?]

24% have some dispute that does not get adjusted

67% leave because they feel they were treated discourteously, indifferently, or simply not given good service

You don't need Clarence Darrow to devise your will, probate your estate, or litigate your divorce. But it helps if the lawyer is empathetic, honest, and responsive.

[Confused]

Thanks for the response.

So then the numbers indicate "yes" responses to the positive quality listed? If that's the case, then it seems a significant number of dissatisfed clients felt that their lawyers possessed the above qualities. Although that wouldn't rule out an argument that such qualities were necessary, but not sufficient, for client satisfaction, it certainly seems to cut against the argument that these qualities are what really determines client satisfaction.

It would be useful to see how many satisfied clients felt that their lawyers were great guys but lacked analytical ability. Without that information, I don't see how the above table supports the argument that success in the legal profession is *not* primarily a function of analytical ability.

[Confused]

Thanks for the response.

So then the numbers indicate "yes" responses to the positive quality listed? If that's the case, then it seems a significant number of dissatisfed clients felt that their lawyers possessed the above qualities. Although that wouldn't rule out an argument that such qualities were necessary, but not sufficient, for client satisfaction, it certainly seems to cut against the argument that these qualities are what really determines client satisfaction.

It would be useful to see how many satisfied clients felt that their lawyers were great guys but lacked analytical ability. Without that information, I don't see how the above table supports the argument that success in the legal profession is *not* primarily a function of analytical ability.

[William Henderson]

Good question. Judging from context in which Jay discusses these results, it looks like a survey of clients who have hired lawyers; those who were satisfied answered yes to the questions above, those who were dissatisfied answer no. Jay's inference is that these attributes were integral to client satisfaction. And that sounds convincing to me.

[Confused]

What do the numbers in the table refer to? It's not intuitive...