Category: Marketing
After my last post about customer service, Orbea, the manufacturer of the bike frame I was riding when I was involved in an accident, a company representative contacted me. His explanation for the less than appropriate company response was that it was sent from Spain, the company headquarters, and the sender had challenges with the English language.
Whether this is true, I cannot say. But, Mr. Paul Alexander of the U.S. Orbea arm said that I should visit a local Orbea retailer and I would receive a 15% – 20% discount on a new bike. He said, "I look forward to getting you back on your bike and leave you a satisfied Orbea cyclist."
Thank you, Mr. Alexander. That should have been the first response from Orbea. My wife asked for information about the company’s "crash program." Even an expression of sympathy/concern and a statement that the company doesn’t have a crash program would have sufficed … and saved unfavorable ink in this blog. Commenting on Orbea’s warranty program was not the subject of my wife’s inquiry.
I’m glad to see that the company has recouped so gracefully. Some companies don’t do even that. Some time ago, you may remember that United Airlines committed a major gaff. By not treating their customers with due respect, a song was written about the company and it appeared in the social media. The company stock dropped 10% as a result! That is still the subject of some discussion.
I’m glad that Orbea represented the cycling industry more professionally and with greater sensitivity on the rebound.
View page
Last week, I had an accident. A preoccupied driver who admitted she didn’t see me failed to yield the right of way and turned left before I could see her. My bicycle hit her right front fender. You can see a picture of the damage to the car. Sometimes, it’s better to hit than be hit. Because I hit her car, rather than she hitting me, I am alive and still walking, albeit with some difficulty. The fireman and paramedics said they’d never seen such damage to a car from a bike. “… Either the car was made of plastic or you are a man of steel!…”
If I were made of steel, I would not be so sore and bruised as I am still today. My thighs and quads have turned colors I never knew existed; like burnt toast. The bike down tube is cracked and very good, beautiful and cherished Orbea Orca carbon fiber bike is history. I’m lucky, frankly, to be alive … The alternative is not appealing.
Once things settled down, several days later, and a mechanic suggested that some manufacturers offer deep discounts for bike frame replacements needed because of a crash, my wife found the e-mail address for Orbea and sent them this note: “…My husband was involved in a traffic accident with his 2008 Orbea-Orca …. He is apparently okay with major bruising but his beloved Orbea has a damaged frame on the post between the seat and the pedals. Is there an incentive Orbea offers to encourage customers to replace a damaged bike with Orbea? … Thank you.
CANNOT MAKE THIS UP
The company response follows: “Good morning, Thank you for contacting with Orbea! In case of accident, Orbea’s Warranty is null and void. Sincerely, …”
We never entered a warranty claim; that was never in my mind. My wife was merely checking out the status of their crash program. Some companies retain the loyalty of their customers by allowing them deep discounts to replace a damaged bike (product) and then studying the returned item for future research and improved manufacturing processes. My wife’s response was classic understatement: “We were not expecting to file a Warranty claim. We understand that some bike manufacturers give a discount on purchasing a new bike when a bike has been in an accident. You might consider doing the same. We are in the market now for a new bike. Thank you for your concern.”
Lessons here are legion.
First, listen to your customer’s comments and requests. This reminds me of the classic instruction from a lawyer to his client: Listen to the question. Answer only the question. Then shut up! Wait for the next question. Don’t answer what you think should have been the question.
Second lesson: Everyone in your firm represents the organization. If a receptionist is rude, if a secretary fails to give you a message; if an associate is ill-prepared for a conference or court appearance, this reflects poorly on you as the senior lawyer and the firm as a whole. Education and training is not limited to the lawyers in the firm. Everyone needs to take continuing education programs to maintain and elevate skills and service levels.
Third lesson, don’t “piss off” the economic buyer (in this case, my wife) in your organization or you will never retain the business, and accompanying revenue.
Fourth lesson, live your life for now. There may not be a tomorrow. Yes, we have to keep an eye on the future, saving, planning and preparing. But, don’t do so without having some joy and value (your subjective opinion here) each day that passes. For me, the pleasure and reward is a vigorous bike ride, especially as a reward for something I did during that day. Whatever it is for you, “just do it.”
I’m sure you can provide other valuable lessons from this experience. Contact me or write your comment below. Let’s see how many lessons we can create from this one true-life experience.
View page
The article by David Streitfeld is a good piece. He’s the housing reporter for the NY Times and spends most of his time in California. In response to an earlier piece by him on the subject, where he failed to mention California, I contacted him. He knew nothing about the law in California (since 2009) or the State Bar’s modification of its Rules of Professional Conduct that made it a crime to take money from clients in advance of completion of the loan modification, not even for deposit into a client’s trust account.
I told him about the new law and pointed him to several of my blog posts on this topic where he could learn more.
I’m glad that he’s written about it now, in more detail and highlighted California’s experience.
As a side note, an officer of Bank of America claims that of the Bank’s loan modifications, more than 70% go back into default within 2 years … a scary statistic. Should the Bank be responsible for maintaining a family in a home which it can’t afford, even with a modified loan structure? I’m not sure … Or, should the government offer some help. They have bailed out the big banks on Wall Street, how about some help for the people on Main Street? I’m not sure what is the right answer. It’s clear, however, that if no one helps, we’ll have many more foreclosures in 2011 and 2012. Our political spectrum is so polarized today that all we seem to hear is noise, white noise, and more noise.
BTW, it was a politician seeking headlines that started the ball rolling. And, it was the absence of lawyers in the legislature (only about 23% today) that permitted it. And, a non-lawyer governor who signed it. And, it seems, non-profit organizations who lobbied for it (a little competition there, would you say?). Who gets screwed? The people.
Too bad the State Bar president failed to support sole and small firm lawyers who worked in this area. Rather, he seemed hell bent on chastising the whole because of a few bad apples. Rather, the Bar and the District Attorney could have used the many rules (moral turpitude and others) and laws (Penal Code against theft) already on the books to protect the people scammed by lawyers without removing entirely the good lawyers from this process. Provisions on the books already protect against any lawyer taking money from a client under false pretenses (theft) and the rules of professional conduct protects against moral turpitude and for not performing work that was promised. The State Bar didn’t have to follow the urging of the bar president to support this effort.
The state bar president, at the very best, gives no more than lip service to solos … See my open letter.
View page
Recently, several states and the ABA have been reviewing and discussing the limits to which lawyers may use social media … LinkedIn, Facebook, et al … without violating the restrictions on advertising.
Now, there seems to be a similar but more mild review and reaction to judges using social media. I’m somewhat surprised that lawyers are being restricted but judges are not in their use of social media. For example, Ohio, Kentucky, New York and South Carolina similarly answered the friend question … Judges can befriend attorneys and others. The warning, if one were to call it that, is that judges need to tread carefully…Not to befriend lawyers and others who are to appear in their court.
But, how do you know that someone you "friend" today won’t be a party or lawyer in your court tomorrow? While I normally do not concur with the Florida restrictions on lawyer advertising, I am more inclined to support their somewhat more stringent approach in this area. In 2009, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee for the Florida Supreme Court decided that judges could not add lawyers who appear before them as friends online. Personally, I don’t think this restriction goes far enough.
As I’ve noted in a previous post, judges must "not only be chaste, they must also appear to be chaste." (With due apologies to the Bard.) Appearances of appropriate judicial conduct is essential. And judges’ participation in social media networks violates the appearance of impartiality.
View page
In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, there was an article about Bert Lahr’s 1956 Broadway performance of Waiting for Godot.
The article was enticing and caused me to go to Amazon.com to order the mp3 download of the performance. I purchased the download, but had trouble viewing it. I went to Amazon’s "help" section and followed the instructions for over an hour … then I saw that I could contact them. They asked if I wanted email response, a phone call later or a phone call NOW. I asked for the latter and within less than a minute received a call. Now, that is SERVICE!
The person must have been from India (after all, it’s a holiday week-end here <g>), but I could understand him. He offered to give me a refund or download the play again. I chose to download it again … after all, I did make the purchase because I wanted it. But, we still had trouble and what was downloaded did not appear to be what the WSJ review promised. So, without argument, protest or difficulty, the man said I would get a refund.
While I didn’t get what I wanted, my recourse is to go back to the journalist and determine what I didn’t understand. BUT, I was super impressed by the detail to service presented by Amazon. They will now address the issue for me on their end, I was not charged for something I didn’t get and I will sing their praises. (Oh, I guess that’s what I just did.)
Amazon, thus, is not just a repository of books. That can be had in a library. But, they are a customer experience to satisfies. Congratulations to the folks at Amazon. I am one very pleased customer.
Do the clients of your law firm say the same thing about dealing with you? Is the experience of dealing with your law firm, despite the stress of their legal challenge, more than satisfying? Are they being cared for? Demonstrate that you care for them and care fully.
View page
In August 2009, the California legislature enacted a law requiring the State Bar to examine how it governs itself. I don’t think any other state in the Union has a legislature overseeing the bar. This is usually a function for the State Supreme Court. However, in California, since the 1920s, the Bar must get permission for it to send out dues bills to members; thus, the legislature has the power to impact the legal system through the back door.
Does this remind you of law firms whose compensation structures govern what its lawyers find to be important? If the firm emphasizes and rewards new client acquisition more than work performed, that is what lawyers will spend their energy doing ("eat what you kill"). If, on the other hand, the firm compensates more for hours expended, then focus on new client generation will go down and billable hours will go up.
The same is true in the relationship between the bar and the legislature. Today, with less than 30% of the members in the legislature having a law school degree, there surfaces an animosity between lawyers (the bar) and those (the legislature) who approve the dues to be paid by lawyers to retain their license. Oh, did I forget to say? California is a mandatory license state, meaning that you must be a member of the State Bar in order to practice law. Voluntary bars exist at the county and local levels, not at the state level. The state is mandatory. Voluntary bars exist, but only at the local (county and city) levels.
So, what’s the big deal? The fear by legislators is that a self-regulating body (more than half of the Board of Governors are elected by lawyers; others are appointed by the Governor and others) will serve the interests of their constituencies, not the public interests. I thought that was the whole point of public members being part of the Board; they are, they participate and they have a significant influence from the Board. The legislature wants the Bar to "protect the public" only; the well-being of lawyers is unimportant.
More than 50% of lawyers earn less than $100,000, a relatively paltry sum when considering the number of years of education required and the good that lawyers provide. (Yes, I know there are a few bad apples, but that is true in every profession … hmmmm, even with law makers.
If lawyers were helped by the bar and did earn more money, there would be far less temptation to invade clients’ trust accounts. This would be real public protection.
I have yet to find a set of rules of professional conduct that favor lawyers over the public. And what the rules of professional conduct does not "catch," the penal code does. And sometimes rules are made that hurt the public. For example, in the loan modification fracas, the legislature enacted a new penal code provision that made it a felony to take money from clients for loan mod work before the work is done … can’t even take money for the clients’ trust account! The rules of professional conduct were similarly altered. But, no intelligent, business savvy, lawyer would now represent such clients unless pro bono. If the client has insufficient funds to keep the mortgage current, what makes legislators believe such clients will pay their lawyers after the modification is completed? The clients didn’t suddenly get flush with money! So, lawyers will not now help the people who need help the most, those about to be kicked out of their homes …
A new wrinkle to this, however, is that the law seems not to apply when a lawsuit is filed. So, the lawyer might take the client into bankruptcy or sue the lender on some pretense, all with the ultimate objective of merely getting a loan modification. This is more costly and adversarial than needs to be … if the law makers kept their hands off! There were already rules on the books sufficient to punish the "bad apples" in the profession who were guilty of fraud on the clients.
Back to the main point: If the legislature removes governance from lawyers, the resulting agency will be merely a licensing and disciplinary agency … and lawyers who volunteered their time and expertise to the bar for the benefit of many in the public and produced much good work will go elsewhere. That would be a grave loss that will hurt the public.
The Bar should push back and fight the legislature … All the more reason for the separation of powers! Let the legislature do its job … and this does not include determining how lawyers govern themselves.
View page
From Michael Bryant of CTS Consulting in Baltimore comes these gems of phrases to ditch now:
-
It isn’t fair.
Translated: I didn’t get my way.
-
I’m too busy.
You’re not “too” busy; you’re as busy as you are. “Too busy” means I over planned, or over promised.
View page
In today’s WSJ, a lead article talks about the courts in New York requiring the lenders in foreclosure suits to be honest in the filing of their documents. This follows the Florida cases with "robo signers." Affidavits claiming full knowledge of the facts of each matter were signed by employees of the lenders and the mortgage servicing companies as well as improperly notarized. Lawyers are being blamed for filing defective documents.
Lenders made the loans, their servicing agents prepared the information and signed the affidavits under penalty of perjury. Yet, the focus of attention seems to be falling on the attorneys. Somehow, attorneys are expected to verify that their clients are telling the truth. I thought that was the function of the trier of fact, either the jury or the judge. What am I missing here? Or, is this just one more case of seeking to toss the blame anywhere but where it belongs.
Lawyers in our system of justice are the messenger. Lawyers present the evidence in the light best suited to tell the client’s story … but it is the client’s story … and the only obligation on the part of the attorney is not to allow known perjury to be placed before the trier of fact. How and why is that now being altered?
The mortgage companies are now saying that the cost of foreclosures and loan modifications will increase, hurting consumers! Wow, it is an affront to human intelligence to suggest that the cleanup of their corruption (filing false documents with the court) will cause consumers to pay more!
View page
The current political mood of the country seems to be that "less is more," at least when it comes to government intervention. A student of American history will note the changes and mood swings between federal/national involvement and states’ action. On reflection, we may be going through one of those swings now.
A similar reaction is being generated by the mere mention of the American Bar Association reviewing the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to determine whether new rules should be created or old rules modified in reaction to the new technology. The problem is that new technology such as social media is merely a distribution method of ideas. Rules already exist that deal with statements to the public, advertising, self-promotion and the creation of attorney-client relationships, just to mention a few.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the ABA reviewing the rules. But, sole and small firm practitioners are fearful that the ABA will not stop at merely a "review." And, as Carolyn Elefant so eloquently pointed out, the members of the task force/commission that are reviewing the impact of the social media are, themselves, devoid of any personal experience with the media. That would be like someone with no newspaper experience at all seeking to create rules of procedure for the newspaper industry. Or someone with no automotive experience trying to design a car.
Here, the case can be made that there are now rules on the books; more are not needed.
Strange how this discussion takes me back to the conversation about the Bar preventing lawyers from taking retainers to do loan modification and loan foreclosure prevention work. Who does the Bar represent anyway? Ah, but that’s another question for another day.
View page
I’m seeking to connect with lawyer(s) who either did or are currently doing loan refinance work for homeowners. In some states, the bar and/or legislature has created regulations preventing lawyers from taking money from clients for this work in advance of completing the work.
I’ve written about this and now have a major newspaper interested in talking with such lawyers to inquire whether such work is still available and how the lawyer is handling the fee.
Please contact me directly at edpoll@lawbiz.com
Thanks.
View page
