Clients Have No Way to Judge Your Professional Competence

This is from my weekly emailer for boutique law firm owners. If you'd like it in your inbox every Tuesday, you can subscribe here.

Most clients have no way of telling whether you're a good lawyer.

I don't mean that as a criticism of clients. A business owner facing a shareholder dispute, or a couple working through a separation, can't assess your drafting, your judgment or your read of the case law. Most can't assess it afterwards either. If a matter settles for $400,000, the client has no idea whether $700,000 was on the table.

So they don't judge the law. They judge everything around it. How quickly someone called back. Whether they felt understood. Whether they knew what it would cost. Whether people like them use you.

I see this a lot in the firms. The firm's actual competence is high, and almost none of it is visible to the person deciding whether to hire them. The website lists practice areas and says the firm is committed to excellence. Every firm says that, so it counts for nothing.

Trust breaks on risk

The other thing I've come to believe is that clients rarely walk away because the value isn't there. They walk away because the risk suddenly feels too high.

Law firms raise that risk all the time without meaning to. An hourly estimate with "subject to change" underneath it. A three-day wait for a callback. A first meeting that goes straight to conflict checks and fees. An engagement letter that opens with limitation of liability. None of these are wrong. Each one just makes the client a little less sure.

The order they go in

When I look at how a prospective client actually decides, they seem to work through the same six things, in roughly the following order:

First, whether you're real. They're checking whether there's an actual person behind the firm. Stock photos of gavels, generic bios and a contact form that goes nowhere all say "marketing." A same-day reply from the lawyer who will do the work says more than any About Us page.

Second, whether you're for them. They're looking for people like them, not a list of services. Fourteen practice areas tells them you work for everyone. "Business owners selling after twenty years" tells them you work for them. The language matters too. Clients don't say estate planning. They say they want to make sure the kids don't fight when they're gone.

Third, whether you understand their situation. What I've noticed is that clients judge your expertise far more by the questions you ask than by anything you tell them. When a lawyer puts the client's situation into words more clearly than the client could, the client assumes the lawyer can fix it too.

Fourth, whether this could hurt them. This is the risk calculation, and money is only part of it. There's also time, stress, relationships, and the fear of looking foolish. Lawyers tend to assume the client's biggest fear is the outcome. In my experience it's usually the bill and the unknown. A fixed or staged fee, a clear next step, and an honest word about what could go wrong all bring that risk down. Naming the downside builds trust, because it's the opposite of what a salesperson would do.

Fifth, whether it's worth the hassle. A client can trust you, want the result, and still stall because the process looks like hard work. Vague requests for "all relevant documents," meetings only in business hours and wet-ink signatures all add friction. A one-page outline of the process and a specific list of what you need from them takes most of it away.

Sixth, whether it feels like them. It's whether they can see themselves as the kind of person who does this. A tradesperson can feel out of place in a marble CBD foyer. A corporate client can feel uneasy in a suburban shopfront. Some people hold back because they're "not someone who sues people." Stories of clients like them, and a tone that matches who they already are.

Where it shows up in the numbers

Every enquiry that stalls at one of these points is marketing money spent for nothing. Most firms don't track where prospects drop off, so the usual response is to chase more enquiries rather than fix the point where they're leaking.

Price resistance is often the same problem. When a client pushes back on a fee, it's usually because their sense of risk hasn't been settled, not because the fee is too high. Discounting makes up for trust that isn't there yet, and it comes straight out of profit.

The flip side is the client who has had every one of those concerns settled before they engage you. They arrive largely decided. They argue less about fees, dispute fewer bills and refer more. Trust built before the engagement letter shows up later in lower write-offs and lockup.

What I keep coming back to

A client can't be made to skip any of these. Each one can be made easier to get through.

How fast a real lawyer responds to a new enquiry. Whether the website names specific clients and problems, or just lists practice areas. Whether the first meeting spends more time on the client's situation or on the firm's process. Whether the client leaves knowing the cost and the next step. And whether the client you most want would look at the firm and think, these are my people.

None of that asks you to be a better lawyer. Just to see your firm from the other side of the desk.

More next Tuesday,

Gordon