Roger Dennerly says:

I agree to a large extent.The big firms will bank-roll themselves, it’s likely to be medim size firms who suffer most, especially those dependent on RTA work.

Small firms can be more nimble and if they concentrate on building a local reputation, cross-selling etc. they will be in a reasonable position.

At the same time it will encourage the likes of Injury Lawyers for You, Quality Soliciors and other groups run by and for solicitors.

jonathan white says:

A ban on referral fees is a license for unscupulous lawyers to print their own money . Breaches of the SRA code of conduct are currently rife . Practices such as cold calling and profit sharing with intermediaries are common place . Many firms ignore rules 7 and 9 and seem to get away with it . Firms that recommend a tied ATE poicy with a £25k indemnity , hmmm !! Those who play by the rules are already losing out to their more ” creative ” competitors . Any referral ban would have to come with vigorous enforcement and strict penalties and apply to non lawyers.

Mike Massen - Gartons says:

I would hope that the large companies that buy in claims by the score and have them dealt with by over-worked under-skilled file handlers whose only remit is to settle 10 claims a day go to the wall once for all and that claimants will return to high street practices and get the quality driven service that they deserve.

There has been no real depletion in the number of claimants at any one time just that the distribution has been skewed by the large BTE firms buying in the cases and so denying the claimant the freedom to go to the solicitor of their choice, preferably one that is in the same area as opposed to one at the other end of the country as is frequently the case.

Small practices can not only survive but also thrive if they get their act together and start marketing themselves properly. Every method and skill employed by the claims management companies is available to them; there is no monopoly for Google Adwords, no SRA regulation that prevents the use of good copy. Small firms can be flexible, adaptable and look what they have to offer above and beyond the ‘big boys’ – accessibility and quality personal service.

Seize the changes as a way forward and an opportunity to take back what is our inalienable rights as solicitors- to offer personal, friendly and professional service to those who need it most.

admin says:

Interestingly I have just had Seth Godin’s blog post through for today (he is a marketing man if you don’t know him – very good).

He is talking about change, in his case to the book industry, and it’s inevitability. His most poignant (and I think relevant comment to the legal industry) is that it will never go back to how it was. That is so true, so whilst I believe you can achieve success with your own marketing initiatives (Mike Massen et al) it is not the same as it used to be and never will be. That is right. That is change. It is how the legal profession reacts and adapts to this change that will determine it’s future.

Here is the blog: Seth’s Blog

Craig Holt says:

“I believe that now is the time for some concerted action for these smaller law firms, to ensure that they can survive post Legal Services Act, post Jackson and post the banning of referral fees…”

This is precisely the aim of my organisation, QualitySolicitors. I don’t want to turn this into an advertorial for membership so I won’t list the benefits I believe we bring but the principle behind the group is to allow smaller firms to come together in order to leverage the same economies of scale as the very largest. We are trying to develop a recognisable legal brand from which our members can benefit and at the same time are increasingly able to provide those who specialise in PI with a supply of cases without the need to pay “per case” referral fees.

I agree to an extent with Mike Massen, however there are enormous inefficiencies in a small firm marketing on their own. The heavy initial costs in creating a TV advert for example are likely to be prohibitive. Even google adwords which are mentioned are hugely weighted towards larger campaigns which quickly gain higher quality scores and CTRs etc. Most smaller firms can’t begin to afford the sort of sustained campaign on adwords necessary as they would be cleaned out of their marketing budget before even a case or two had come through their site. A new entrant to the PI adwords market might pay £25-30 PER CLICK. Considering the convertion of clicks to submitting an enquiry might typically be less than 1 in 30 or 40 and then of those only a fraction prove to be genuine cases you can see the problem. The larger CMCs have build up such an history with adwords that they might pay a tenth of that per click.

Anyway, I digress. I do believe that firms can be enabled to compete but there needs to be a concerted plan of working together in order to enable this to be possible.

Ed says:

Only in this asylum of a country could firms be required to rush headlong into a new process for claims, w/e/f April even though nobody has seen the rules, via a web portal that doesn’t exist, and spend fortunes in changing systems and training staff and implementation, while being told that if Jackson has his way, the claims system will be transformed beyond recognition, and their efforts will have been either wasted; or at the very least at this stage they have no idea whether post-Jackson the remaining game will be worth the candle.

Only here could the government abolish legal aid and leave the stakeholders to sort out some fair replacement for innocent victims of accidents, and after a few years of this slowly becoming something like a settled and effective system, then to have someone like Jackson suggest that in fact all that was wrong, the innocent victims should pay from the derisory compensation that this goverment allows to be paid. Oh, I’m sorry, jackson weirdly thinks that a 10% increase in damages will offset the costs. (Who does he think will pay the increased damages? Is this barking, or have I missed something?) As if damages – especially in lower value claims – are so settled that it would even be possible to apply a real “10% increase” – take the case of a modest whippy I just settled. The opponent offered £2,200. We settled at £3,000. Where does the dotty Jackson ’10% increase’ fit into that (typical) scenario? Is there ever a claim where there isn’t at least 10% to be negotiated between the parties already?

Along with hundreds of other firms, and claimant organisations, we have spent many years, and invested millions of pounds of money and time trying to preserve access to justice for innocent victims, only to have a seemingly endless avalanche of meddling and revision. If only the government would expend the same effort and resources on attacking say world poverty, disease or wars as they do to endlessly tampering with the legal claims process, we might live in Utopia. I dould not hold my breath, but still shake my head at the cynicism which drives these processes forward under a fake cloak of increasing access to “Justice” by the same government which 10 years ago stuck its fingers in its collective ears and went lalala to the Law Commissions proposals to generally increase injury damages. And continue to pretend it never happened.

I can picture a first interview in 2011. “Yes Mr. Bloggs, I’m sorry you were injured through no fault of your own. In the bad old days we could do this case for you without you risking or paying anything. Thankfully, your access to justice is now much improved. You will personally run the risk of standing all your disbursements if the claim does not succeed, and you’ll be glad to know that if it does, then we’ll be taking about 30% of your cash. Isn’t that wonderful?”

And you know what, in all the years I have been involved in the seemingly endless consultations, councils, and committees nobody has spent much time if any ascertaining how and why the insurers routinely by their conduct or often by inaction place barrier after barrier in the path of innocent victims.

Marketing? Sure, there are more and less savvy ways of getting work but are we all ready to be taking (say) 30% of our earnings out of client’s pockets, as Jackson thinks we should? I don’t see much talk about that.

admin says:

As someone who has marketed High Street law firms for over 20 years my final thoughts bring together a number of my previous articles and blog posts. If you are a small law firm that wants to survive in the future this is what you must do:

1. Never rely on the number ONE in your business (one source of personal injury leads or one type of marketing to promote your practice). You must always add new methods of bringing in new leads until your Profit FlowCast looks like this: http://www.samsonconsulting.co.uk/presentation.html
2. Test and measure. For every new method that you try (and you must always be looking out for new ways to bring leads or claims into your practice), you have to test and measure the results. Everything must pay its own way or you must stop doing it. If you have been advertising for years in the Yellow Pages or local papers, is this providing you with a return on investment? If not, stop it quickly and use the budget elsewhere to provide leads for your business. There is no treasure without measure. How can you ever know if you have found a fantastic scheme for your practice (your treasure) if you do not measure it?
3. Most practices I have worked with have slashed their traditional advertising and spent it far better elsewhere. Should you be doing the same?
4. You must as a bare minimum build an email database and keep in touch with your clients and prospects at least once every month (I use Aweber).
5. Your website should be producing anything from 20 to 50% of your new business. I do not agree with Craig Holt’s comments above about Pay Per Click marketing as I have many clients using this method incredibly well and cost effectively to generate new leads for their practices. You need to spend some time developing your plan of attack, but it is generally time very well spent and the smaller firms certainly can compete with the national advertisers.
6. You must add regular content to your website for both human visitors and to please the mighty Google. You can no longer have a static five page website. Add content, submit articles to online Article Directories (you can use software such as Submit Your Article to make this easier) and PR pieces to online PR websites.
7. Use PR for your local press. This can be incredibly effective and does not need to cost much, you just have to keep trying (the first piece rarely attracts coverage but once the local press see that you are persistent you will achieve results).
8. Video is more and more popular on the internet, and is very powerful for solicitors. What better way to dispel the age old myth that solicitors are difficult to approach than by talking directly to your prospects?
9. If you are trying new referrers of leads or cases consider these points:
   • You must consider your return on investment. Whether you are looking at trying Loyalty Law (my lead generation model – ) or Quality Solicitors, Contact Law or Take Legal Advice, what sort of return on your investment can you expect?
   • How is the business going to produce these leads for you? Many referrers (usually claims companies) are trawling old data from surveys and accidents from one or two years ago. The quality I have seen can be very poor, so ask how your referrer will be generating their leads.
   • What experience or track record does the business have now or in the past with other ventures producing leads or clients for law firms?
   • What is their long term plan with the business model? Are they looking to grow their brand and sell it, or do they see legal services as their long term future.

You must have a mix of ways of generating new business for your personal injury practice. In a perfect world my advice would always be to do all of your promotions yourself through your own marketing initiatives (the Mike Massen way). However, I know from the sheer volume of calls and emails I have received over the last year that this is becoming impossible for some smaller firms. This is why we have launched Loyalty Law, to use all of my 20 years + experience in promoting Solicitors, along with our (myself and Paul Howe my business partner) experience in promoting 1stClaims for the last four + years to help as many firms as possible.

I see a bright future for smaller law firms that provide a quality service. How your firm embraces the challenges is up to you, but as long as you take regular, consistent and concerted action I firmly believe smaller firms are here to stay. My personal mission is to do absolutely everything I can to help them do so through my advice and assistance from Samson Consulting and leads provision from Loyalty Law.

8 Ways To Increase Your Practice Profits: Free Guide From http://www.samsonconsulting.co.uk/8-ways-to-increase-profits.html

New Personal Injury Clients From Loyalty Law: http://www.loyaltylaw.com

Nick Jervis

Solicitor (non-practising)