header-logo header-logo

04 October 2013
Issue: 7579 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Is it good to talk?

Lawyers’ telephone technique loses them clients

A mystery shopping exercise among law firms of all sizes has revealed a catalogue of telephone inefficiencies, missed business opportunities and inappropriate comments. 

In more than a third of 254 “mystery calls”, neither party knew who they were talking to because the caller’s name was not taken and the call handler did not introduce themselves.

In 97% of the calls, the call handler failed to either ask if the caller wanted to go ahead or make an appointment. 93% of firms called during lunchtime either had nobody available to deal with the enquiry or were closed with a recorded message.

Telephone bloomers include one call handler who told a potential client: “Yes, a broken ankle is a very good injury…and if you are lucky, it will develop complications and you can claim more.”

Another potential clients was told: “If it’s a quote you want for a will, you should know we don’t do cheap wills. You see the problem with doing cheap wills is that there is very little profit on it, until people die and often it’s a long time before that happens.”

The research, by Ian Cooper, a business development consultant for the legal profession, included interviews with senior management in 92 law firms about strategy.

Cooper found that 70% of firms made no attempt to formally track and monitor incoming new enquiry calls and conversion rates, and nine out of 10 people who dealt with incoming potential client calls admitted to not liking it or not being good at it.

However, 90% of firms who trained their staff in how to deal with potential clients benefited from at least a 10% improvement in conversion rates within a month.

Cooper said: “It is quite amazing that at a time of massive competitive pressure and changes in the legal sector, law firms have not yet fully embraced the importance of converting their leads into profitable business. Most firms don’t have a proper strategy and have simply not switched on to the fact that this is a high priority area, which is costing them business.”

Issue: 7579 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll