The National Law Forum

Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013 – September 30 – October 01, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013.

When

September 30 – October 01, 2013

Where

University of Maryland
Francis King Carey School of Law
500 W Baltimore St
Baltimore, MD 21201-1701
United States of America

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher.

It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

Top Whistleblower Settlements of 2013 – To Date

The theme of the top whistleblower settlements to date in 2013 is, once again, health care fraud. Eight of the largest settlements involve fraud in the health care industry. This is indicative of the number of health care fraud cases being filed in recent years. According to the Department of Justice, since January 2009, over $10.3 billion has been recovered from health care fraud cases. This year, the focus seems to have particularly shifted to cases involving violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark law, which prohibit the giving of financial incentives for referrals or the use of particular pharmaceuticals or devices. Without further ado, here are the top whistleblower settlements of 2013 to date:

1. Ranbaxy USA Inc. ($500 Million)

Ranbaxy USA Inc., a subsidiary of Indian generic pharmaceutical manufacturer Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, agreed to pay a total of $500 million to settle criminal and civil allegations filed against the company. Ranbaxy pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a criminal fine and forfeiture of $150 million. The civil settlement, which resolves False Claims Act violations, was for $350 million. Ranbaxy was accused of poor oversight and inadequate testing and maintenance of drugs manufactured at its facilities in Paonta Sahib and Dewas, India. This lead to false claims being submitted to numerous government agencies including the FDA, Medicaid, Medicare, TRICARE, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and USAID. The whistleblower in this case, former Ranbaxy executive Dinesh Thakur, will receive $48.6 million from the federal share of the civil settlement.

For more information about this settlement, read the DOJ press release.

2. C.R. Bard Inc. ($48.26 Million)

C.R. Bard Inc., a New Jersey-based corporation that develops, manufactures, and markets medical products, agreed to pay $48.26 million to resolve kickback allegations filed against the company. Bard was accused of submitting false claims to Medicare for brachytherapy seeds used to treat prostate cancer. According to the complaint filed in 2006, Bard paid illegal kickbacks in numerous forms to both physicians and customers who used the seeds to perform treatment for prostate cancer. The whistleblower in this case, Julie Darity, was a former Bard manager for brachytherapy contracts administration. She will receive $10,134,600 as her portion of the settlement.

For more information about this settlement, read the DOJ press release

3. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. ($45 million)

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., one of the top five U.S. generic pharmaceutical companies, pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges and agreed to settle civil allegations involving the company’s promotion of the drug Megace ES. Par was fined $18 million and ordered to pay an additional $4.5 million in criminal forfeiture. The company will also pay $22.5 million to resolve the civil allegations. The civil suit accused Par of promoting Megace ES for non-FDA approved uses that were not covered by federal healthcare programs and of actively ignoring some of the negative side effects the drug has on various patient groups when promoting Megace ES. The settlement resolves three separate whistleblower lawsuits that were filed against the company. Two of the five whistleblowers in the cases, Mr. Michael McKeen and Ms. Courtney Combs will receive $4.4 million as their portion of the settlement. Any payments to the other whistleblowers, Ms. Christine Thomas, Mr. James Lundstrom, and Mr. Elliott, are unknown at this time.

For more information about this settlement, read our blog post.

4. Dr. Steven J. Wasserman ($26.1 Million)

This year, the Department of Justice announced one of the largest ever settlements with an individual under the False Claims Act. Florida dermatologist, Dr. Steven J. Wasserman agreed to settle allegations filed against him for $26.1 million. Dr. Wasserman was accused of performing medically unnecessary services and engaging in an illegal kickback scheme. Dr. Alan Freedman, the whistleblower in this case, was a pathologist at a company involved in the kickback operation. He filed his qui tam lawsuit in 2004 and will receive slightly over $4 million as his share in the settlement.

For more information about this settlement, read our blog post.

5. CH2M Hill Hanford Group Inc. ($18.5 Million)

CH2M Hill Hanford Group Inc. and its parent company CH2M Hill Companies Ltd. agreed to settle civil and criminal allegations relating to time card fraud for a total of $18.5 million. CH2M had a contract with the Department of Energy to manage and clean 177 large underground storage tanks that contained radioactive and hazardous waste at a nuclear site in Washington. CH2M employees allegedly regularly overstated the number of hours they worked on time cards submitted to the Department of Energy. As a result, CH2M was overpaid for more hours of work than were actually performed. The civil settlement was for $16.55 million. CH2M will also pay $1.95 million to resolve the criminal liabilities. To date, eight CH2M employees have pleaded guilty to engaging in the time card fraud. The whistleblower in this case, Carl Schroeder, was a former CH2M employee and one of the individuals who pleaded guilty to the scheme. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act bar whistleblowers from receiving a portion of the settlements if they are convicted for their role in the fraud scheme. Therefore, Mr. Schroeder will not receive a portion of this settlement.

For more information about this settlement, read the DOJ press release.

6. American Sleep Medicine LLC ($15.3 Million)

The Department of Justice announced a $15.3 million False Claims Act settlement it reached with American Sleep Medicine LLC. American Sleep is a Florida-based company that owns and operates 19 diagnostic sleep testing centers across the country. Its primary business is to provide testing for patients who suffer from sleep disorders. American Sleep allegedly submitted false claims to Medicare, TRICARE, and the Railroad Retirement Medicare Program for tests that were performed by technicians who lacked the proper certification required by these agencies for reimbursement. The whistleblower in this case, Daniel Purnell, will receive about $2.6 million as his portion of the settlement.

For more information about this settlement, read the DOJ press release.

7. Adventist Health System & White Memorial Medical Center
($14.1 Million)

This month, Adventist Health System and its affiliated hospital White Memorial Medical Center agreed to a $14.1 million settlement. The settlement was the result of a qui tam lawsuit filed against the companies accusing them of violating the Anti-Kickback Act and the Stark Statute. Of the $14.1 million, $11.5 million will go to the federal government and $2.6 million will go to California’s Department of Health Care Services. Adventist Health was allegedly improperly compensating physicians for patient referrals to White Memorial by transferring medical and non-medical supplies and other inventory to the physicians at less than fair market value. White Memorial was also accused of paying referring physicians at a rate above fair market value for teaching services at the family practice residency program. The whistleblowers in this case were Dr. Hector Luque and Dr. Alejandro Gonzalez, who were members and partners of White Memorial. They will collectively receive $2,389,219 as their portion of the settlement.

For more information about this settlement, read our blog post.

8. Cooper Health System ($12.6 Million)

Cooper Health System and Cooper University Hospital, a hospital and health care system in South New Jersey, agreed to a $12.6 million settlement that resolved allegations that Cooper engaged in an elaborate illegal kickback scheme. According to the complaint, Cooper created a sham advisory board to pay high-volume medical practices upwards of $18,500 each to attend four meetings over the course of a year with the true goal of encouraging medical practices to refer patients to Cooper. The whistleblower in this case, Dr. Nicholas L. DePace, is a prominent Delaware Valley cardiologist. Dr. DePace was invited to join the sham advisory board and, after attending one of the meetings, figured out Cooper’s true intentions. Dr. DePace’s whistleblower reward has not yet been determined.

For more information about this settlement, read our blog post.

9. Hospice of Arizona ($12 Million)

Three Arizona hospice companies, Hospice of Arizona LC, American Hospice Management LLC and American Hospice Management Holdings LLC, agreed to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit with the government for $12 million. In order for hospice care to be reimbursed by Medicare, patients are required to have a life expectancy of, at most, six months.The qui tam lawsuit, filed against the companies in 2010, accused the defendants of submitting false claims to Medicare for patients who did not need to be admitted to the Hospice of Arizona. Additionally, they were accused of submitting false claims by overbilling Medicare for some of the hospice’s services. Ellen Momeyer, the whistleblower in this action, was a former Hospice of Arizona employee. Momeyer will receive $1.8 million (approximately 15%) as her share of the settlement.

For more information about this settlement, read our blog post.

Article By:

Jonathan Tycko

Whistleblower Practice Group

Tycko & Zavareei LLP

Tips for Measuring Content Marketing Results [INFOGRAPHIC]

We saw the Brandpoint infographic below posted on the MarketingProfs.com website and thought it was a good representation of how you can tell if your content marketing efforts – blogs, social media posts, videos, articles, etc. – are working for your practice.

After all, if you are spending time and/or money on content marketing, you really do want to know if it’s working, right? See below on how to measure the effectiveness of your content marketing in terms of awareness, consideration and conversion:

Article By:

Stephen Fairley

The Rainmaker Institute

Michigan Cardiology Settlement of Medicare and Medicaid Fraud Allegations

On July 10, 2013, United States Attorney Barbara L. McQuade announced a $4 million settlement between Allegiance Health d/b/a W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, Jackson Cardiology Associates, P.C., Jashu R. Patel, M.D. and the U.S. Government. The U.S. Department of Justice collaborated with the Birmingham, Michigan law firm, Vezina Law, PLC, in pursuing this action against the Jackson, Michigan based defendants.

According to allegations brought against the defendants in 2008, Foote Memorial Hospital, Jackson Cardiology Associates, and Dr. Patel knowingly billed Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs for medically unnecessary cardiovascular procedures and tests, including, but not limited to, stress tests, cardiac catheterizations, cardiac stents, and peripheral angiography procedures.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the qui tam provisions of the Federal and State False Claims Acts. Both False Claims Acts allow private individuals with knowledge of fraud against a government program to file lawsuits on the Government’s behalf. If the case is successful, the private plaintiffs, known as relators or whistleblowers, are entitled to a percentage of the Government’s recovery. The state and federal False Claims Acts both provide for recovery of three times the single damages incurred by the government as a result of the fraud, as well as civil monetary penalties of between $5,500 and $11,000 per false claim submitted and statutory attorney fees.

The relator in this case is Dr. Julie Movach, an independent contractor with Medical Practice and a physician board certified in internal medicine, cardiology, and echocardiography. Dr. Movach released a statement explaining how important it is for her to deliver the best care to her patients and ensure that they do not undergo any unnecessary procedures. When she realized that certain health care providers were more concerned with their personal financial well-being rather than the welfare of their patients, to the point that they would commit fraud against federal health care programs, Dr. Movach knew she must expose this corruption. She took it upon herself to file a lawsuit against the defendants on behalf of the U.S. government. Dr. Movach deserves our thanks and applause for her willingness to risk her livelihood in order to ensure people with genuine need can continue to receive assistance from Medicare and Medicaid.

In this case, the combined settlement was $4,150,988.31. The Foote Memorial Hospital settled the allegations with the federal government for $1,824.927.98 and with the State of Michigan for $126,060.33. At the same time, Dr. Patel and Jackson Cardiology settled the allegations with the federal government for $2,200,000.00. As the whistleblower, Dr. Movach will receive a 19% share of the overall settlement, which amounts to approximately $760,000 of the proceeds.

Article By:

Whistleblower Practice Group

Tycko & Zavareei LLP

Countdown to HITECH Compliance: How to Redistribute Your Notice of Privacy Practices

September 23, 2013 is the fast-approaching compliance deadline for the final omnibus HIPAA/HITECH rules. Many provisions required revisions to Notices of Privacy Practices (NPPs) maintained and distributed by covered entities. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has made clear that these changes are material. As a result, covered entities must redistribute their NPPs shortly in order to meet HITECH’s requirements. This alert describes the manner of redistribution dictated by HIPAA.

General Requirements

When revising NPPs, keep in mind that whether paper or web-based, HHS requires them to be accessible to all individuals, including those with disabilities. Covered providers required to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act must also take steps to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities, including making the revised NPP available in Braille, large print, or audio. HIPAA also requires NPPs to be written in plain language.

Changes to the NPP may not be implemented prior to the NPP’s new effective date, unless otherwise required by law. Typically, any change to the practices described within the revised NPP may only be applied to PHI created or received after the effective date of the change. All previous versions of the NPP and any acknowledgments of its receipt must be maintained for six years from the last effective date.

If You Are a Health Care Provider

For existing patients, you must make the revised NPP available upon request on or after the effective date of the changes (for most, this date will be September 23, 2013). If you have a physical service delivery site (such as a clinic or hospital), you must have copies of the NPP available at the site for individuals to take with them upon request. You also must post a copy of the NPP or summary of the revisions in a clear and prominent location, where it is reasonable to expect individuals to be able to read the posting. You must ensure all new patients receive the revised NPP at the time of first service after the effective date of the changes. The revised NPP must be made available on your website if you have one. If patients have agreed to receive electronic notice of the NPP, you may e-mail the revised NPP to those patients. You do not need to obtain acknowledgment of receipt from individuals, except for the initial distribution of the NPP provided at the first time of service.

If You Are a Health Plan

You must distribute the revised NPP to current plan participants. If you post your NPP on a website, then you must post the revised NPP, or a description of the material changes, prominently on that website by the effective date of the changes. You also must provide in your next annual mailing to participants either the revised NPP or information regarding material changes and how to obtain a copy of the NPP. If you do not post your NPP on a website, then you must provide participants with the revised NPP or information about the material changes and how to obtain the revised NPP within 60 days of the material changes. Note that all health plans also must continue to notify participants of the availability of the NPP and how to obtain a copy at least once every three years.

HHS has stated that if covered entities or health plans amended and redistributed NPPs prior to issuance of the final omnibus rule then they are not required to repeat the process, so long as the current NPP that was redistributed meets all the requirements in the final rule. For all other covered entities, the NPP must be revised and effective by September 23, 2013, and redistributed as appropriate.

Article By:

Tara N. Cho

Elizabeth H. Johnson

Poyner Spruill LLP

Healthcare Fraud Case Results in $491 Million Settlement

On July 30, 2013, Pfizer Inc., one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, announced its finalized agreement to pay $491 million to the U.S. government in order to resolve accusations that the company and one of its subsidiaries defrauded the U.S. healthcare system. Under the settlement, Pfizer will pay $257 million in order to resolve civil allegations that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., owned by Pfizer, engaged in illegal marketing that led to false claims being brought to Medicare and similar healthcare programs. Pfizer will pay the other $234 million of the settlement in order to cover criminal fines and penalties.

According to allegations in the lawsuit, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals had illegally marketed a transplant drug named Rapamune for uses that had not been approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Patients use Rapamune in combination with other drugs following kidney transplants. However, Wyeth’s advertising campaigns advocated the drug for unapproved applications, such as use after liver, lung, heart, pancreas, and islet transplants. According to a U.S. attorney, this type of off-label marketing endangers patients and erodes the population’s confidence in the FDA. In 2002, the FDA required Wyeth to place a “black box warning,” the most stringent type of warning required by the agency, on the Rapamune product label. This warning would advise people of the risks inherent in using Rapamune after liver transplants. One year later, the FDA required a similar type of warning with regard to the use of Rapamune after lung transplants. Nevertheless, claims up to 90% of Wyeth’s Rapamune sales were allegedly for “off-label” uses.

The $491 million settlement resulted from two qui tam lawsuits filed against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. Under provisions of the False Claims Act, private citizens with knowledge of fraud committed against the government can file a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the United States. The individual filing the lawsuit is known as the relator or whistleblower. Healthcare whistleblowers, such as the persons who brought the lawsuits against Wyeth, serve an important role in exposing and eradicating healthcare fraud. Many whistleblowers have personal knowledge of deceptive practices because they work for the companies that submit false claims to the Government. By relating their knowledge to the appropriate authorities, these individuals can assure that healthcare programs can achieve their intended benefits to Americans with the greatest need of federal assistance.

In the first case, the False Claims Act whistleblowers were Marlene Sandler and Scott Paris. They jointly filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania that alleged aspects of off-label marketing. At the time, the Government declined to intervene and the relators commenced to litigate the case on their own. Two years later, a second qui tam whistleblower, Mark Campbell, came forward. Mr. Campbell is a former Wyeth sales representative who worked for the company for twenty years. Throughout the tenure of his employment, he became aware of Wyeth’s off-label marketing practices. After he filed his lawsuit against Wyeth in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the Department of Justice intervened in the Sandler and Paris action. The Government then transferred the matter to the Oklahoma court and consolidated the two cases. The three Medicare fraud whistleblowers have aligned their interests and cooperated to help the investigation into Wyeth’s actions.

Because the whistleblowers took on a personal risk in bringing allegations against their employer and they devoted their time in relaying information vital to the case, they will obtain a significant proportion of the settlement. False Claims Act whistleblowers typically receive 15% to 25% of settlements. That means that Ms. Sandler, Mr. Paris, and Mr. Campbell will all potentially receive millions of dollars from Pfizer Inc.

Article By:

Whistleblower Practice Group

Tycko & Zavareei LLP

ABA Survey Says Lawyers Getting Clients Via Social Media

A hat tip to my friend Larry Bodine, editor-in-chief of Lawyers.com, who reports on findings from the newly published2013 ABA Technology Survey in his LawMarketing Blog today as follows:

27% of US law firms now have blogs, up from 22% last year, 15% in 2011, and 14% in 2010. Only 9% of lawyers maintain a personal, professional blog outside the firm. Solo attorneys are the most likely to have a professional blog, as are those between the ages of 40-49.

59% of those surveyed indicated their firms maintain a presence in a social network such as LinkedIn or Facebook, up from 55% last year, 42% in 2011, and 17% in 2010. Of those firms with a presence, the breakout of channels can be seen in the chart below. LinkedIn and Facebook are the most used, but legal-vertical network use remains low.

Individually, 81% of attorneys report using social networks for professional purposes, up from 78% last year, 65% in 2011, and 56% in 2010. LinkedIn usage is nearly universal (98%), with Facebook usage actually falling from 38% in 2012 to 33% this year.

19% of law firms now use Twitter, up from 13% in 2012. Individual Twitter usage by attorneys reached 14%, up from 11% last year. Twitter usage is more common in solo and small firms.

How effective is maintaining a presence in social media? When those utilizing any type of social media/networking were asked if they ever had a client retain their legal services directly or via referral as a result of their use, 19% indicated “yes” (compared to 17% last year and 12% in 2011). Solo and small law firms reported better results than larger firms.

Article By:

Stephen Fairley

The Rainmaker Institute

What Does The Word “Natural” Mean, Anyway?

t’s 2 o’clock in the afternoon, you need a snack – maybe a granola bar, but which one? Does the package that boasts it is “100% Natural” win out over the one that is only “All Natural”? Would you even consider one that is merely “Natural”? Well, don’t expect the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to help you decide anytime soon – they have left it up to the courts to grapple with.

Lawsuits against food companies alleging consumer fraud based on deceptive labeling have increased in the last few years. Many of these lawsuits have been brought in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, causing that court to be known as the “Food Court” (no, not the one at the mall). One common bone of contention is the use of the word “natural” in food labeling. “Natural” remains undefined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after a failed attempt to do so in 1991. It reaffirmed its informal policy for use of the word “natural” on food labeling claims:

The agency will maintain its current policy . . . not to restrict the use of the term “natural” except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors as provided in [21 CFR] §101.22. Additionally, the agency will maintain its policy . . . regarding the use of “natural,” as meaning that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food. Further, at this time the agency will continue to distinguish between natural and artificial flavors as outlined in §101.22. See more here.

A typical claim in a lawsuit will contend that the use of the word “natural,” whether as “100% Natural,” “All Natural,” or something similar, is misleading if the product contains or was processed with a compound perceived by plaintiffs to be artificial or synthetic. The problem in these lawsuits is that the term is undefined, and even FDA says that it is difficult to define a food product that is natural because it has likely been processed and is no longer a “product of the earth.” This leaves fertile ground for plaintiff’s class action attorneys to bring claims against food companies for any use of the word.

Article By:

Michelle Gillette

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Is a Limited Liability Company (LLC) good for Canadians buying in the U.S.?

If you are Canadian, the answer to that question is: it depends.

People purchasing real estate in the U.S. are faced with different challenges depending on whether they plan on using the property personally or renting it. In this article, we will address the latter issue and its different implications.

A Tax Efficient Structure

There are two main issues to be considered when renting property in the U.S.; income tax and liability. Because rental properties generate income, it is necessary to determine the most tax efficient structure in which to hold the property. On the other hand, because a third party (most likely a tenant) will be using the property, it is essential to create a structure that also offers creditor protection to protect against potential civil liability claims from such third party. A limited liability company (LLC) provides both those elements.

In the U.S., an LLC allows a purchaser to benefit from the low individual tax rates and therefore avoid the higher corporate tax rates inherent to owning property in a corporation. A corporation is an independent taxpayer and is taxed at a higher rate. However, an LLC is not an independent taxpayer but rather a “flow through” entity, which means that its revenue is taxed in the hands of its owner. Therefore, if the owner is an individual, the LLC’s revenue is taxed at the low individual rate.

Creditor Protection

Although one of the main goals of tax planning is to minimize tax, the main advantage of the LLC is creditor protection. When owning property in your personal name, you are exposed to liability claims from creditors such as a tenant who may have suffered injuries on your property while renting it. Should a judgement be rendered against you finding you liable for the injuries, the creditor could seek execution of this judgment not only against your U.S. property but also against the rest of your assets. However, when owning property in an LLC, only the assets in your LLC (i.e. your U.S. property) are within reach of the creditor.

The Issue for Canadian Buyers

After reading this, you may be thinking an LLC is the best solution for your U.S. real estate purchase. Unfortunately this structure can be disastrous for Canadian residents due to double taxation. Under the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty, a Canadian resident is granted foreign tax credits for any tax paid to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Those credits can be used to offset the tax owed to the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) on the same revenue or capital gain. Although the IRS considers the LLC as a flow through entity and taxes only the owner personally, the CRA does not recognize the flow through nature of the LLC but rather considers it a separate taxpayer, therefore creating a mismatch on said foreign tax credits. In this type of situation, the CRA will tax the owner of the property on the full amount of the revenue or capital gain and will not allow the use of any foreign tax credits for what was paid to the IRS. This is the known and dreaded double taxation. The owner of the property will pay taxes twice on the same revenue or capital gain, once in the U.S. and once in Canada. Depending on the values and amounts involved, Canadian residents can be required to pay in excess of 70% of taxes on their property income or capital gain due to double taxation. In extreme circumstances, this rate can even climb up to 80%.

That being said, even though LLCs should be avoided in the above-described situation, LLCs can be a valuable tool in a carefully planned structure. As general partner of a Limited Partnership for example. When used in such a structure, an LLC can help provide an extra layer of creditor protection to a Canadian resident while creating very limited tax consequences.

As you probably realised by now, the way you own property in the U.S. is crucial and putting your asset(s) in the wrong structure can lead to very unpleasant surprises. Always talk to a cross-border legal advisor before making any decisions in order to make sure you are aware of all the tax implications.

Article By:

Antoine Brosseau Wery

Altro Levy LLP

7 Steps to Attract and Keep Great Clients

There are certain actions that I see attorneys committing time and again that drive clients from their doors, and the lawyers who commit them are clueless about why their competition is getting new clients and they are not.

Here are 7 steps I have found work well for attracting and keeping great clients:

Don’t try to be all things to all people. You should be measuring your success in terms of profit, not just revenue. If you are signing everyone who walks in your door or calls you on the phone, you are probably discovering that many are not your ideal client, and are wasting your precious time and resources without hope of a satisfactory outcome.

Set expectations. Most relationships with clients that go south do so because of unmet expectations. Be realistic about the services you provide and the outcome they can expect, and do it up-front.

Communicate. You don’t mean to ignore them, but you’re busy and time slips by. If you had a process in place for communicating with them regularly, this wouldn’t be a problem.

Talk to them in their language. Some attorneys have a very bad habit of making clients feel stupid by using too many legal terms in conversation. Stay on your client’s level and always make sure they understood what you were trying to communicate.

Return calls promptly. When clients need you, they don’t like to keep leaving voicemail messages….worse still is a full voicemail box. Offer your cell phone number or a way they can reach you when they need you.

Listen. Most clients just want to be heard, especially by their own attorneys. This takes time on your part, and an effort to understand their point of pain and how to solve it.

Stay visible. Is the only time a client ever sees you when they are ready to sign on the dotted line? If you only make an appearance when money is on the table and then hand clients off to junior associates, you have just created a major disconnect in the loyalty chain.

The National Law Forum

Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013 – September 30 – October 01, 2013

Like this: