Western European Study Highlights Key Selection and Retention Factors Used by In-House Counsel

A new global study of client feedback initiatives found that the majority (52%) of law firms still do not have a structured client feedback programme, but those that do generally find the feedback to be instructive in improving client relationships.

The survey of 415 senior personnel at law firms around the world shows a stark division among respondents about the value placed on client feedback. In total, 83% of survey respondents 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that clients value the opportunity to provide feedback to their lawyers and law firms. In addition, more than 70% of firms report adjusting firm behaviours in response to feedback received. However, despite the importance firms place on obtaining feedback and the acknowledged benefits gained from well-executed feedback initiatives, worryingly 56% of all respondent firms admitted their lawyers were 'ambivalent' or 'not enthusiastic' about their firm's feedback efforts.

These findings are based on a global law firm survey on client feedback initiatives among the world's law firms. The research was conducted by the Wicker Park Group, a consulting group specializing in client feedback initiatives for professional services firms.

The most surprising aspect of this survey was the reasons given by firms for not seeking feedback, for example, 38% of respondent firms reported insufficient staff or resources as the main reason for not doing so. Yet, among those firms that do seek feedback, 64% invest less than 5% of their firm's marketing budget to obtain it. Considering that feedback can be collated with relatively little effort and the clear benefits it brings to client retention and profitability, one wonders why so many law firm leaders would not want to make this impactful investment.

In general, the survey found most law firms that ask for client feedback do so for genuine service development reasons - they typically want to measure client satisfaction or improve the firm's level of client service overall. Leveraging a client feedback programme to identify business development opportunities or generate additional revenue are secondary considerations.

The survey also casts doubt as to whether firms that currently organize client satisfaction surveys actually act upon the feedback and share learnings throughout the firm. Firstly, client feedback tends to be shared within firms on an informal basis, rather than via detailed reports with planned follow-up strategies. Moreover, it appears that feedback may not always be shared as openly as possible, with only 51% of firms agreeing that feedback is broadly and openly shared, and only one-third of all respondent firms saying they communicate feedback to lawyers and other staff that actually deal with the client.

Firms that proactively use insights given by clients are more likely to improve and protect a relationship in the longer-term. Corporate counsel report that one of their biggest frustrations is giving feedback that is neither properly fed back to relevant parties in the firm, nor acted upon.

The overall responsibility for leading client feedback programmes tends to fall to managing partners (53% of all respondents). However, perhaps surprisingly, managing or marketing partners are also nominated as those responsible for collecting feedback on behalf of the firm.

In relation to the feedback gathering process itself, written/electronic surveys or face-to-face interviews are by far the most preferred methods used by 48% and 47% of all survey respondents respectively. In contrast, collecting client feedback by telephone is not a popular option, except in one-quarter of cases where it was used by client relationship partners as part of their management of key clients.

Looking ahead, 56% of respondent firms have plans to obtain client feedback in the future. Of those firms, nearly half expect their feedback efforts to increase 'somewhat', while only 17% expect their efforts to increase 'substantially'. Only 2% of this group expect to decrease client feedback efforts.

Overall, our research suggests that, in the future, a majority of law firms will have feedback programmes in place, given that clients are increasingly more demanding and the legal sector ever more competitive, it's safe to conclude that law firms will want to take positive steps such as seeking client feedback to aid client retention and ultimately boost their financial performance.

LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell is an Online Law Firm Marketing service. Martindale-Hubbell offers solutions for both professional and consumer markets. Our online destinations contain profiles for over one million lawyers and firms in the United States, Canada and 160 other countries, serving as a fundamental legal resource and marketing tool.

View the original article here

The European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty. By acceding to this treaty, contracting states oblige themselves to secure certain rights and fundamental freedoms to every person within their jurisdiction. The observance of the ECHR is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Individuals, who deem that one of their rights under the Convention has been infringed by a contracting state, may submit an application to the ECtHR. The Court is obliged to scrutinize the application. If it finds that indeed one of the rights enshrined in the Convention has been violated, it renders a judgment against the state which is responsible for the violation. The possibility to file individual applications with the European Court of Human Rights has rendered the ECHR the most important human rights instrument in Europe.

The Convention entered into force in 1953. It was drafted as a reaction to the atrocities committed in the first half of the 20th century, in particular in Nazi Germany. Until then, the protection of human rights had primarily been considered a matter falling under the responsibility and sovereignty of individual states. However, the mechanisms which had been in place on the domestic plane had proven ineffective; despite of the general recognition of human rights two cruel wars had taken place in Europe and unheard of cruelties had been committed. This led to the conviction that the new order to be established in Europe after World War 2 should be based on a common catalogue of values and a commitment to certain fundamental rights and freedoms.

The wish to bring the protection of human rights to the international plane corresponded to a global trend. In 1945, the Charter of the United Nations had been signed, which made reference to the notion of 'human rights', and in 1948 the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' was adopted.

The ECHR is comprised of three section: The first part contains the rights and fundamental freedoms, which all contracting parties have to secure. Important rights enshrined in the Convention refer for example to

Physical integrity and human dignity (for example the right to life, article 2; the prohibition of torture, article 3 or the prohibition of slavery and force labor, article 4)Judicial proceedings (for example the right to a fair trial, article 6; the right to liberty, article 5; the prohibition of retroactive criminal laws, article 7, the right to appeal, article 13)The personality (the right to private life, family, home and correspondence, article 8; the right to marry, article 12; freedom from discrimination, article 14; freedom of conscience)Communication (freedom of expression, article 10; freedom of association, article 11).

The second section of the European Convention on Human Rights deals with the European Court of Human Rights. In this part, important elements of the procedure before the Court, its composition, the selection of judges and similar matters are governed. The provisions regarding the proceedings before the Court are complemented by rule of procedure, which the Court has adopted.

The third and last section of the Convention is under the heading 'miscellaneous provisions'. This part deals with the conditions subject to which the abrogation of certain provisions may be possible or the entering into force of the ECHR.

Additional rights are provided in protocols to the Convention. The protocols are treaties, by which contracting states undertake the obligation to secure additional rights. The rights in question are regularly rights regarding whose existence or scope there was no consensus among the contracting parties when the Convention was drafted. Examples for such rights are the right to education or the abolition of the death penalty.

Holger Hembach is a lawyer and a consultant in the area of justice reform and rule of law.

View the original article here