Many years ago in a far off land, there was a small village called Nocontextia. It was a fairly happy place, much like our own world today.
Nocontextia had a complex set of laws to govern the behavior of its citizens. And although life was usually peaceful and serene, there were times when people sought the advice of someone that knew the ins and outs of the laws.
In Nocontextia there were two people who citizens visited when looking for legal advice. One was the Guru, the other was The Servant.
Since the Guru never left his hillside mansion, people had to climb the hill, a two-day walk, to get there. And once they arrived, some villagers had to wait for hours just to speak with the Guru’s assistant. If the Guru decided to take the case, he would often demand a very high price for his advice and representation.
Because the Guru only took on a very limited number of cases, villagers felt honored when the Guru decided theirs was a worthy case. The high price the Guru commanded was hardly a concern; the client was just elated to be deemed sufficient.
Back in town, the Servant worked in a small office next to a butcher shop. Also a practicioner of law, the Servant’s practice was much different than the Guru’s. People went to the Servant when they felt they already knew enough about their case, but just needed someone to do the work. Rather than being known as a creative expert, the Servant was seen as the person to go to when you needed legal work done.
The Servant was always happy to go out of his way to satisfy a client, and he took on any client that would come to his office. He took pride in always delivering excellent client service.
Though very different, the client and the Guru were both bound by the same set of laws. Their main difference: perception.
In today’s legal marketing, I often see the same split in perception/projection. There are Gurus and Servants.
The Gurus are attorneys and firms that are known by name and reputation. They often charge high rates, and clients come to them. They are at an atvantage in that they can pick and choose who to represent.
The Servants are the attorneys and firms that focus only on client service. These firms take the opposite approach in that they go looking for clients. They convince clients that they are competent and will focus on the needs and wants of the client. In this case, the client is the expert, they attorney is just doing the legal work.
I’m drawing no value judgement here; I’m not saying one is better than the other. Sure, everyone would love to be a Guru, but one does not become a Guru by just charging a lot of money and living atop a hill. But Gurus would do well to take on some of the Servant’s commitment to service.
These are two extremes on what is a continuum of legal service approaches. Where do you fit in?
Popularity: 8% [?]
September 15th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
I think Nathan got up a little bit too early. Certainly he hadn’t yet had his coffee, and he so needed it. Another name for Noncontextia could be Fantasiareduxia. Such a place just doesn’t exist, and it never ever will.
Most Gurus got that way precisely BECAUSE they gave excellent client service on their way to the top of the mountain and so, now residing there, they’ve earned the privilege of picking and choosing whom to represent, but I’m willing to bet any money that the quality of service they provide is far and away better than the standard offered by those lower down on the hill.
It’s been my experience, and the experience of those I know that, in the main, the people at the very top are usually those that are the most gracious, thoughtful, considerate, and cognizant of WHO, at the end of the day, is paying the bill.
They may make you wait in the antechamber for hours on end for an audience with the Guru (after all, his/her highness is a busy wo/man!), but, while there, you’ll be fawned upon, worshipped, cosseted, fairly DOTED upon. . .
When I take it into my head that a good cavorting is called for, I take my carcass to this ridiculously overpriced place that it the creme de la creme among the ritzy-elite. It’s for the Snobby McSnobbs among Snobs.
But the driver of the car they send for me knows my name and is waiting for me when I step off my plane, and my favourite drink is already ready in the car so I can enjoy it on the way to the snobfest, and they know my name when I step from under the Port-Cochere into the Palace of Excess to Check-In (”So Good to See You Again, Mr. Mason; We’ve MISSED You!” How they can say it with Each Letter Capitalized is beyond me, but they do!).
And after a week of so of utter bliss, enrapturement, and indulgence, the likes of which I haven’t experienced since I was six-years-old with a really bad cold (hey, no one does it better than your Mama, I don’t care how jaded you get), I am ready to face a cruel, bitter, and uncaring world, to go back and become once again a cipher in a sea of humanity, known by no one, cared for by no one, remembered not at all. . .except, of course, by the good folk at the Overpriced Palace of Indulgence and Fawning.
And THAT is why I go back and give them all the money I have, and why I pay my Gurus what I pay my Gurus, and why I’m willing to endure the thousand little indignities of life, many of them heaped upon me by the dozens, and that is ALSO why I, and many others like me, are willing to climb the hill for two days, and wait like a good little penitent, and why we stand in the great hall, like the many other petitioners. And why we always will.
It’s not that there isn’t any service at the top of the hill. . .it’s that the place where there service is best is AT the top of the hill.
September 16th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
I think Nathan was trying to offer an analytic framework to spark discussion - which apparently is working since I’ve seen alot of discussion about this post elsewhere throughout the blogosphere. I doubt he intended it to be interpreted as a literal description of the differences between a high-end vs. more consumer high-volume practice.
If even a single lawyer out there reads this and “gets” that there are many very profitable small law firms at the bottom of the mountain that prosper by offering great service for people who already know what they need vs. those at the top of the mountain who often front-load the value by helping their clients sort through and develop plans for solutions to their problems/opportunities, then Nathan would not have wasted his time.
Even more optimistic is if some of the lawyers reading this take-away from Nathan’s parable that there is a difference between building a firm that focuses on identifying solutions for complex problems vs. one that essentially implements more pedestrian solutions to recognized problems.
One is not inherently better or worse than the other, but so often you see law firms that cannot seem to get their marketing, business processes and back-office operations in synch. Like McDonalds selling a $20 steak or a fancy steakhouse serving your meal on a plastic tray.
RJON ROBINS
September 17th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Thanks for the comments on this post. Like RJon said, I wasn’t trying to make any kind of value judgement here, though I could see how the post could be seen that way. I’m not at all saying that people who are Gurus are not worth what they’re being paid, and that the service provided by the Servants is equal to them. Not at all. It’s simply a story meant to be a conversation starter.
And Mr. Mason, you’re absolutely right that there are Gurus that got to be Gurus by providing the best possible service. No doubt whatsoever. But, since this is just a blog post and not a book, I decided to skip the Guru’s ascent to the hill.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
i was once a US law representative a medical retired sheriff purple heart.i was assigned to catch a ring of cops/crime figures that stole from the treasury in illegal cocaine sales.my jobgot me hurt in so many ways i had several legal settlements. in 2001 i was in a hostage situation in pine bluff ar. i was still us and the illegal cops got brave and committed a rash of crimes in front of other officers many of us got lawsuits and a national investigation. 2 of the prior lawsuits involved false arrest and false imprisonment involving sex assault. my 2001 case was a fed contract including witholding my US classified info of 10 year criminal doings and the hundreds of innocent people in prison across the state and nation.the national supervisors were caught in the act of kidnapping about 12 people looking for their illegal drug money they were removed by gun point many cops were removed from duty immediately from all arteas of fed law plus treasury personel.this was my immediate family and kids in kidnapping for ransom of drug money lost in illegal drug buys with other officers involved. all fed agreements have been broken and the Ar. court wont allow my fed agreement in court or cop testimony in court im about to be put in prison that fed agreement stated never tried under Ar. law again.i want false imprisonment for third time and other charges not allowing fed in court agreement or allowing testiminy is crimes not lawsuits im not always getting e-mail mail me if no respopnse real soon this will be my last was 6 digit and not less illegal