header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 December 2008 / Chris Parr
Issue: 7348 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Client care

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Should keeping clients happy be a  law firm’s highest priority? Without a  doubt, says Chris Parr

How much of a law firm’s activity  is actually dedicated to, or  orientated primarily around, its  clients?

If partners are honest about the  answer to that question, they may find  that they are in the 40–50% range.  Consider that. Essentially, all of a firm’s  income comes from its clients; so why  would a firm not have those clients in  mind in everything it does?

The CEO of one organisation for  which I used to work (not a law firm)  once made a statement: “Do not hold  any meeting unless the primary purpose of that meeting is to add value to a  client or to the clients in general.” Th e  organisation met this with incredulity.  What about all the “administration”  meetings that are required in the life  of a company? What about budget  meetings and meetings to discuss HR  and location issues? There seem to be  many reasons to meet which do not  relate to the clients of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll