I think that you raise a number of issues and I’m always happy to talk with anyone interested in exploring the issues and helping us improve, but I’ll jump in on just one point for now in order to try to be helpful: choosing the six criteria was a really hard task and you’re totally right: the options we chose will be subject to different interpretations by different posters and reviewers.

I think your assessment of what folks should be thinking about with those criteria is very good, so I thought I’d dig a little deeper for folks who were interested in it. When we created the Index criteria, we started by basing our choices on the very successful Serengeti Tracker evaluation system that hangs off their law department matter management software. Several of our leaders had used it and found it to be simple and effective over time. (Perhaps the best recommendation you can have.) And thanks to Serengeti for so generously allowing us to borrow from them.

But of course, being lawyers, we took that simple model and debated it a lot. We took each one apart, we admired them, we shredded them, we reconstructed them in every fashion you can imagine. And we discussed the very issues that you, Tim, so astutely addressed above. Because we were so (at first) fundamentally uncomfortable that you could unpack so many concepts from each criteria’s suitcase, we wrote longer and longer and more detailed categories of review. And then we slapped our foreheads (collectively!) and said: stop over-lawyering this.

If value is subjective to each client, then let them have categories that allow them to assess value generally and as they perceive it. A suitcase isn’t such a bad thing – it’s not a black box and it’s not capable of carrying everything, but folks can put in it what they like.

We decided it was practically more important to allow them a form they could complete in 30 seconds than it was to offer them a form that they wouldn’t complete and that — in the end — still wouldn’t be able to capture such obtuse concepts as “value” with any greater accuracy than these simple words and categories. And so be it.

So yes, “communication/responsiveness” could mean “returns my calls quickly” or “understands what I need to know and keeps me informed in the manner that is most effective for me.” It could mean “this firm listens, instead of just talking at me.” It could mean “they send me great newsletters or offer me free seminars/updates that keep me apprised of legal developments that are relevant.” While we’d all love to know all detail of all things (really?), what’s most important is to hear clients start to think and talk about who’s providing value? how can my client drive greater value in my firms’ representation? how can I begin to capture comparatives on the value that my portfolio of firms provides me, and how can I begin to communicate with others about value and then with my firms about value? So we got over it and got on with it. It’s not perfect. But it’s actually pretty darned good at getting clients to articulate (and then organize) some first thoughts in what it is that they like and don’t like in their current firms and what they want in the firms they’ll hire tomorrow. What’s in the suitcase they’re packing as they leave firms that don’t respond to value; and what’s in the suitcase they’re unpacking with firms that they want to establish long and institutionalized relationships.

I am sure you’ll see continuing improvements to this Index as time goes forward and I hope everyone will help drive our progress and improvement. Commentaries like yours, Tim, make that journey a lot more pleasant, and I thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with others, too.

-Susan Hackett
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC)
hackett@acc.com