Back to overview Conflicts & Ethics Policy Terms & Conditions

It is just too easy to offer solutions without creating a nexus between the advice and the promised results. For us it's a credibility and an authenticity issue. If we aren't prepared to put our money where our mouth is, how seriously should you take us?

Richard Burcher is the most in demand legal speaker in the world at the moment...

Professor Dominic Regan - Special advisor to Lord Justice Sir Rupert Jackson, architect of the UK legal civil costs reforms

For any organisation like ours working with some of the most sophisticated, well resourced and critical law firms in the world, we usually find that scepticism and expectations are both understandably very high.

This is one of the reasons why we have outlined in some detail the process by which firms initiate dialogue and ultimately engage with us.

Once firms do begin to work with us however, we still have to deliver. We have never been shy in backing ourselves to deliver up to and preferably beyond the firm's expectations.

It is also important to us that as far as practicable, we de-risk a firm's decision to engage us to assist with their pricing function. One of the ways in which we typically do this is to provide a satisfaction guarantee.

However, there is no shortage of businesses that provide such assurances that are often meaningless. Therefore, we have taken the decision to put our money where our mouth is and wherever possible, put some of our fee at risk.

Whether we are working with you on a specific pitch, bid or tender proposal, working alongside you to negotiate a reconfiguration of the pricing aspect of the relationship with an existing client, or running your partners through our Validatum® Pricing Masterclasses, we are often prepared to let you decide whether we have earned our full fee or not.

Nor is this simply an exercise in tokenism with 5% or 10% of our fee at risk. Depending on the circumstances, we will on occasion put 100% of our fee at risk and it is rarely less than 50%.

Sometimes the results are linked to key performance indicators or other metrics. In other instances, the only criterion is whether the firm was delighted with our input.

We believe that if we aspire to work with the best, we need to be the best and we need to be prepared to back that up with meaningful peace of mind assurances.

You have successfully signed up to our Newsletter

There was an error and you were not signed up to the Newsletter

Latest Articles and Events

Planning for the RFP Storm...

Last week, in our 2nd instalment in our blog series ‘Planning for the RFP storm’, we talked about the types of questions firms should be asking themselves and the pre-work that can be done prior to RFP issue. In this, our final article, I’m going to talk about bid triage – deciding whether or not to respond to an RFP. It’s an unexpectedly sensitive topic.

February 20, 2019

Planning for the RFP Storm...

In part 2 of this 3-part weekly series, I will get into more detail on what that checklist looks like and why. Last week, we began this 3-part series with what we see as a major, systemic and permanent rise in the use of RFPs which many firms are struggling to adequately resource yet still achieve acceptable win rates and margins.

February 12, 2019

Planning for the RFP Storm...

This is Part 1 in a series of articles on managing client RFPs. I read the BTI Consulting’s ‘mad clientist’ blog with interest this morning, about the predicted rise of RFPs in 2019 among the largest law firm clients.

February 06, 2019