✅ Roughly speaking
- While it is natural to compare performance, management structure, and compensation when choosing a law firm, when seeking specific legal decisions on individual cases, it gradually approaches "legal consultation" rather than "selection."
- Lawyers are cautious about specific legal consultations before signing a contract, not simply because they "don't want to do the job for free." This is also to verify the facts and to respond responsibly.
- If the selection process demands excessive unpaid work, the more professionals with sufficient cases will drop out midway, potentially leaving behind "professionals who have invested the most resources in sales activities" rather than "best professionals."
- Choosing an expert is not a one-way audition. While the client selects the expert, the expert also decides whether they can take responsibility for the request.
Introduction
This time, we will explain the boundary between questions and legal consultations when selecting a law firm, as well as the common pitfalls of selecting a specialist.
The trigger was a law firm selection process I recently went through.
Of course, confidentiality is required, so below we have abstracted away any information that could identify the case, such as the company name, industry, target country, and contract details.
When we first received your inquiry, we were asked about the services we could handle, our system for handling overseas cases, our contract structure, and our compensation system.
After that, more questions were sent to me.
They were asked to answer fairly detailed questions, including the track record of similar cases, the lawyers on charge, the backup structure, the response, the fee structure, professional liability insurance, and whether or not there was a mandate agreement.
I answered these questions.
In fact, the questionnaire at the time included individual questions about the performance of similar cases, such as experience in overseas sales agency contracts, overseas trade support for manufacturing and machinery equipment manufacturers, and experience in exporting equipment and machinery.
Regarding compensation, questions were also asked about combinations of fixed compensation, retainers, and time charges, as well as minimum billing units.
So far, we can understand this as a detailed question to compare law firms.
However, after I provided the estimate, the questionnaire I was sent as a "pre-interview question" was quite different in nature.
For example, abstracting the content, the question is:
Whether to recommend that the law of Country A, Country B, or Country C be the governing law.
Also, whether to recommend trial or arbitration.
I'd like you to explain the reasoning behind that as well.
The actual questionnaire also required participants to indicate which of the laws of multiple countries they recommended as the governing law, and whether they recommended trial or arbitration, along with the basis for their recommendations.
Furthermore, abstracting the content,
The contract clause limits the sales area and the handling of competing products to this extent, but is this judgment appropriate.
The question and
There may be a discrepancy between the warranty period from the manufacturer to the retailer and the warranty period from the retailer to the end customer.
How to recommend contractual responses to this issue. Please provide a conclusion and specific methods.
There was even a question like that.
I stopped answering here.
And since these are legal advice, I explained that I wanted to respond after establishing a formal delegation relationship.
They then explained that "this is currently a selection stage where we are comparing multiple law firms, and answering questions and subsequent interviews are part of the selection process."
Even so, I didn't answer.
As a result, I received a message from the previous party stating that they would not be submitting this request because my firm's policies make it difficult to align with our company's selection process.
This series of interactions has led me to rethink the relationship between those who choose and those who are chosen as experts.
There's nothing wrong with comparing law firms
First, I want to make it clear that I am not at all negative about companies comparing multiple law firms.
In fact, I think comparisons should be made carefully if they are important (although this one wasn't the particularly challenging one I've done many times before - reviewing distributor agreements).
Different law firms have different areas of expertise, experience, staffing arrangements, fee structures, and overseas networks.
In international cases, the difference becomes even greater.
Therefore, before making the request,
- Have you dealt with similar cases
- Who will actually be in charge
- How to collaborate with overseas law firms
- How often you can get an answer
- Is the reward fixed or timed
- When will the additional costs be incurred
It is reasonable to check the following:
Once again, I answered the first question as a question for selecting a law firm like this.
"Can you do this job" is different from "How do you solve this problem"
So, where does legal consultation come from.
In reality, this boundary is not always clear.
For example,
Do you have experience with overseas distributor agreements?
This question is a question that confirms the experience of a law firm.
"What are some of the most common issues that arise in overseas sales agency agreements"
When asked this question, it comes a little closer to legal advice, but I think it's possible to answer it in general terms.
But,
"Which country A or B should be the governing law for our contract?"
"Which is more appropriate in our case: trial or arbitration"
"Is this restriction of competition clause appropriate"
"How do I fix this warranty clause issue"
Then the nature changes.
This isn't asking the law firm, "Can you do this job."
I've already asked, "What do you think about this legal issue."
And I think that's the core of the legal work that companies pay lawyers to do.
"It's easy, that's fine," but it's not always easy for experts
The questionnaire also included a statement to the effect that "it's easy and that's fine."
From the perspective of the client, I think they weren't asking for a detailed opinion, but simply wanted to understand the lawyer's perspective.
I understand the intention itself.
However, this is a difficult problem for professional services.
For example, if you are recommending governing law or dispute resolution methods for international contracts, you may not need to look only at the wording of the contract.
Various factors are involved, including the scale and continuity of the transaction, the location of the counterparty, the location of the assets, mandatory laws and regulations, the enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards, and the costs incurred in the event of a dispute.
Without fully checking them,
"I think the law of Country A is good."
"I think arbitration would be a good idea."
It's easy to answer that.
However, the question arises as to what happens if a company trusts that answer to enter into a contract, and problems arise later.
In that sense, lawyers are cautious about specific legal consultations before signing a contract not simply because they "don't want to do the job for free."
It's also to take responsibility for the answers.
I can understand the idea that companies want to "sear after seeing their strengths"
However, there are reasonable counterarguments from the companies themselves.
Check out the law firm's website
"We are strong in international trade."
"We have extensive experience in overseas projects."
Even if it says that, that alone does not tell you your actual abilities.
I completely understand the idea of wanting to ask a lawyer to explain how they organize the issues in a real case and what kind of answers they will give.
I myself am also involved in corporate management, so I sometimes take the lead in selecting experts and external businesses.
Even from that perspective, I think it's natural to feel uneasy about deciding where to order important jobs simply by looking at your background and price list.
So it's not a "don't ask any specifics before signing a contract" thing.
The problem is, Where to divide the information gathering for selection from the actual professional work Yes.
More free options will help you choose a better law firm
Here's another issue that companies want to consider.
"By sending the same questionnaire to multiple law firms and receiving detailed answers from each, you can choose the law firm with the most competence."
At first glance, this appears to be a very rational selection method.
However, I don't necessarily think that will happen.
(1) There are opportunity costs to participating in the selection process
For example, let's say you read the contract before receiving the appointment, examine the relevant legal issues, answer multiple questions in writing, and participate in further interviews.
Naturally, this will take several hours, and in some cases even longer.
That time is also time that could have been used for an existing client's case.
I believe the same problem arises not only with lawyers, but also with professional services that provide time and expertise, such as consultants, accountants, tax accountants, and investment bankers.
(2) More established experts may drop out midway
This is where one problem arises in the selection process.
For professionals who already have enough cases, the opportunity cost of hours of unpaid research and review of a case that they are not sure they will be able to accept is not small.
Therefore,
"We will respond regarding the firm's performance and structure."
"We will also provide a cost estimate."
"However, legal decisions on individual cases will be made after a formal request is made."
This line can be drawn, and from there, it may be decided that they will not participate in the selection process.
This does not mean that the lawyer will definitely do so if they are competent.
Conversely, this does not mean that law firms have a low capacity to respond carefully from the selection stage.
However, The more unpaid work requested during the selection process, the easier it becomes to leave only offices that are willing to meet those conditions and have the time and resources to do so I think it's best to be aware of this structure.
(3) "The office that remains until the end" is not necessarily the "best office"
I think this is a point that is surprisingly easily overlooked when selecting experts.
The law firms that remained until the end of the selection process
"The law firm with the most legal skills"
Maybe.
But,
"The law firm that invested the most time in sales activities to acquire cases"
It's also possible that this is the case.
Of course, sometimes the two agree.
However, they don't always match.
The law firm that provided the most free insights may not necessarily be the one that provides the highest quality legal services after formal application.
I think this is a pretty important point for those choosing experts.
The selection method measures whether the person has "legal competence" or "sales ability."
Going further, the selection method itself may change the attributes of the potential law firm.
The selection process, which requires free payment of detailed questionnaire responses, preliminary review of contracts, presentation of legal opinions, preparation of proposal materials, and multiple interviews, does not solely assess legal competence.
At the same time,
- Ability to create proposals
- Proactiveness towards sales activities
- Human resources that can be invested in presales
- A sales desire to win the deal
- The office's management policy regarding the extent to which unpaid work is permitted
We also measure these things.
You need to be a little careful here.
What companies really want to know is
"Who is the lawyer who will do the highest quality job on this case."
So if so, you need to consider whether the selection method really measures that capability.
While this is not strictly the same as the economic "adverse selection" (adverse selection), it seems to have a similar structure in that setting selection criteria biases the attributes of the resulting candidates.
While companies may have carefully compared many law firms, in reality,
"We are only comparing law firms that have followed our company's selection process to the end."
That's a possibility.
"Comparing multiple firms" and "being able to compare candidates who really needed to be compared" are not necessarily the same thing.
If you want to check your skills, you can also take a paid trial
So how do we solve the problem of companies that can't choose a law firm without seeing how they actually do their work.
I would say that if it's an important case, A certain budget will also be allocated for the selection of experts I think that's a good idea.
For example, the selection process on paper will narrow down the number of potential law firms to 2〜3.
And then,
- One or two hours of legal consultation
- A brief review of specific issues
- Review of a portion of the contract
- Initial discussion
We will request these for a fee.
This way, companies can see and compare the actual work they do.
You'll see things you wouldn't know from a website or proposal alone, such as how to grasp the problem, how easy it is to explain, the response, the risk mindset, the sense of practice, and how well you work with your company.
Lawyers can also dedicate the necessary time to formal work.
If we are selecting experts who will incur costs of hundreds of thousands, millions of yen, or even more, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to incur a certain amount of cost for that selection.
"Free and lots of listening" doesn't necessarily mean it will really save money
Making selection costs zero is not necessarily the most economical option for a company.
Send detailed questionnaires to multiple law firms, collect answers, compare them internally, send additional questions, and schedule further interviews.
This requires a considerable amount of time from the company's staff.
And if this results in a strong candidate dropping out of the selection process, it's not necessarily a win-win for the company.
Don't just look at how much you pay experts,
How much money is spent both internally and externally to select good experts
I think that perspective is also necessary.
Selecting experts is not a "one-way audition"
There's one more thing I felt from this experience.
When a company is comparing multiple law firms, it naturally
"Which law firm to hire"
I have chosen.
However, during that time, the law firm is also looking at the client.
This does not mean that we are evaluating whether a company is "good or bad."
For example,
- A case that utilizes one's expertise
- To have a common understanding of the scope of work
- Can you share the information you need
- Is there an environment for providing responsible advice
- A balance between compensation and required work
- Mutual understanding of communication methods
- How to proceed with the case with respect for each other's work
We are looking at points such as:
Legal work isn't just about delivering contracts and finishing the job.
Especially in ongoing corporate law and international cases, clients and lawyers often share information and make decisions together over long periods of time.
Therefore, at the same time that the client chooses a lawyer, the lawyer also
"Under these conditions, can I take on this job responsibly."
We are making a decision.
I believe that selecting experts is not a one-way audition.
A "good client" is not necessarily a client who pays a high salary
At this point, you might be wondering, "After all, lawyers prioritize their highly paid clients."
I don't think so.
Clients who feel very grateful for their work are not necessarily the ones who pay a large fee.
Rather,
- They will organize and communicate what you need to discuss
- Explain what you value
- They will share the necessary materials
- They will tell you the deadline early
- They will consult with you frankly about the budget
- They say they don't understand
Clients like these are very easy to work with.
As a result, lawyers can also focus their limited time on the really important issues.
This also has benefits for the client.
Even with the same legal fees, the results you get will vary greatly depending on where you spend your professional time.
I don't think "reducing legal fees" and "using a lawyer effectively" are necessarily the same thing.
From this experience, I felt that I should improve
However, I don't believe that the problem with this incident was solely with the company that was considering the request.
I myself had areas that needed improvement.
In response to my initial inquiry, I not only explained the firm's experience and fee structure, but also raised some fairly specific issues regarding governing law, mandatory laws, arbitration costs, etc., based on the contract.
I also answered the additional questions that followed.
For me, this was just an initial comment to help you understand the technical aspects.
However, from the other party's perspective,
"We can get answers to this point even during the selection stage."
This expectation may have arisen.
Considering this, experts also
How much information is provided for selecting an office, and where does it come from to formal professional duties
This needs to be clarified at an early stage.
For example, in the future,
"We will respond to the firm's performance, structure, compensation, etc. during the selection stage, but we will respond to legal evaluations and recommendations for individual cases after the formal request is made."
It's also possible to state this first.
So maybe it's just that I didn't have enough nurturing skills (I have a financial advisor who is incredibly nurturing and always admires me).
Even if you don't offer a free legal evaluation, you will be able to empathize with the other person's concerns, build trust, and naturally translate the request into a formal one. I also feel that this kind of sales courtesy was just one step short. However, if I get too good at that, it seems like I'll be cutting back on the time I spend on my main job, which is painful and itchy.
This experience has been a good opportunity for me to think about how to communicate the boundaries of my professional work.
Fair selection for both companies and professionals
Comparing law firms is important.
I believe law firms should also provide as much information as possible that companies need to make decisions regarding their performance, management structure, fee structure, and other factors.
On the other hand, if you are seeking a specific legal decision on an individual case, you can request it as a limited paid consultation, rather than simply thinking of it as free of charge because it is for selection purposes.
This allows companies to verify the actual capabilities of their experts.
Experts can also use the necessary time to provide responsible answers.
And most importantly, by making excessive unpaid support a selection condition, it becomes easier to avoid the situation where experts who should be included in the list are excluded from the list themselves.
What is important when selecting a law firm is
It's not about "which office provided the most free service," but rather "which office will do the best job after you formally request it."
It should be.
We believe it is important to design the selection process by working backward from its purpose.
summary
This time, the law firm selection process I experienced myself prompted me to consider the boundary between "questions to choose a law firm" and "legal consultation."
It's natural for companies to compare multiple law firms.
It is also important to gather sufficient information regarding performance, structure, fees, and response.
On the other hand,
"Can you do this job"
and asking,
"Please explain what conclusions you should draw on this legal issue for our company, why, and how you will do so."
Asking that question is not the same thing.
If you want to verify the competence of experts regarding the latter, you can also target candidates and use a limited, paid consultation service.
Furthermore, we need to consider whether requiring a large amount of unpaid work during the selection process is truly advantageous for the company.
If you move away from the selection process from experts who don't accept those conditions, the last expert left won't necessarily be the best.
While companies select their experts, those experts also decide whether they can take on responsible work under those conditions.
Choosing an expert is not a one-way audition.
The client and the expert
"I wonder if I can do a good job with this person."
I think it's a process to confirm this.
As a result, we were unable to reach a relationship this time.
However, this experience has made me reconsider whether there are better ways to select professionals for both those who choose and are selected for law firms.
comment