Friday, May 02, 2008

What clients will pay for

Oops. I meant the title of this post to say: "For what clients will pay."

Yesterday a commenter reminded me that most lawyers are too busy to polish their work as much as they should. I agreed. Today, a commenter pointed out another reason lawyers don't polish their writing as they should:
Clients aren't willing to pay to have perfect work product. More often than not, clients are pragmatic: they want "good enough" to get what they want.
This is also true. Let's take contracts for example. Only a tiny percentage of contracts end up in litigation. Almost all of them get the job done even though they aren't well polished. If that's true, the rational client should want the mediocre contract that gets the job done and not the polished contract that also gets the job done but that costs twice as much.

But a commenter who has been a client responds that, apparently, not all clients feel that way:
I have been a client. No litigation, no contracts, so perhaps my comments don't count. But in letters between my attorney and their attorney, I wanted careful editing (in fact, I edited them myself), no unnecessary words, polish, and highly intelligent writing.
So we must acknowledge that some clients want perfect written work. But it is telling, I think, that this client had to do some of the polishing herself. Would she have been just as insistent on a well polished letter if it had cost $250 instead of $150?

3 Comments:

Blogger mister.thorne said...

Consider promotional materials written by attorneys -- client alerts, magazine articles, blog posts, and such. Why do some attorneys fail to polish these pieces?

Seems to me, if an attorney finds it worthwhile to have his shoes shined, his suit pressed, and his hair groomed before he meets a potential client, then his failure to polish his latest client alert doesn't make sense.

12:58 PM  
Blogger Michelle said...

Hi Wayne! First let me say that I thoroughly enjoy your blog. Second, with all due respect, I totally disagree with your commenter's notion that clients just want "good enough." I'm both a client and I want "accurate and intelligent" - I look at poorly written documents as a reflection that I am using a sloppy attorney.

Your commenter has the cause/effect backwards. Clients don't like being charged by the hour. The comment "Clients aren't willing to pay to have perfect work product. More often than not, clients are pragmatic: they want "good enough" to get what they want." is an excuse. Pragmatic or not, clients resent getting poor work, and they resent the excuse that "I don't want to charge you extra to get it perfect." C'mon. This is another horrific side-effect of hourly billing. It's apparently allowing billers to use saving the client money as rationale for lack of work product quality.

This, IMHO, is compeletely unacceptable. The work quality is diretly related to your likelihood of getting referred to that client's friends. Do it right and don't create an impression that the client will be "charged extra" for what they should be receiving in the first place.

9:48 AM  
Blogger Michelle said...

Yikes, meant to say "I'm both a client and a professional service provider. As a client, I want accurate..."

Ah, the irony of my error when I'm writing about quality.

Whew, good thing noone is paying me by the hour to comment. :-)

9:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home