In this article, Jim Stapleton, former Chief Marketing and Business Development Officer at Littler Mendelson and then Blank Rome, considers how characteristics commonly associated with legal practice can inhibit effective client feedback, drawing on experience from earlier in his career.
Introduction
Jim began his professional career at two of the Big Five accounting firms in the United States, where he was involved in implementing independent client feedback programmes. In the accounting sector, SEC regulations require firms to rotate client relationships, which reduces structural barriers to conducting formal client reviews. He later held senior business development and marketing roles at law firms including Littler Mendelson and Blank Rome, where client relationships are typically managed at an individual level.
Professional context: accountancy and law firms
In accountancy, the requirement to rotate client relationships means that structured feedback programmes are more straightforward to introduce and maintain. In the legal profession, however, client relationships are often owned by individual lawyers. As a result, decisions about whether clients are invited to participate in formal feedback reviews frequently rest with the relationship partner.
This difference in relationship structure affects how readily firms adopt independent review programmes and how consistently feedback is gathered across clients, teams and offices.
Why independent client feedback requires a different approach
While regular engagement with clients is a fundamental part of legal practice, independent client feedback interviews are not the same as routine client conversations. A formal review requires neutrality, openness, and an ability to step away from advocacy.
Independent interviews aim to surface the full range of client experience, positive and negative, without defensiveness, debate or premature problem‑solving. Creating the conditions for candid feedback depends as much on how the conversation is conducted as on the questions asked.
Behaviours that can undermine independent client feedback
-
Arguing the point - Neutrality and openness are essential during client feedback interviews. Acknowledging client perspectives using neutral language helps encourage open discussion.
-
Being overly solution‑driven - The primary purpose of an independent client review is to listen. Even where solutions appear clear, they should be reserved until the client’s feedback has been fully shared and understood.
-
Ignoring or minimising concerns - Clients expect acknowledgement of all issues raised. Responding appropriately to concerns reinforces confidence in the feedback process.
-
Deflecting responsibility - Client feedback interviews require ownership of issues discussed, regardless of where responsibility may ultimately lie.
-
Assigning blame - Pointing to others, particularly client teams, can undermine trust. Issues are more effectively addressed when recognised and handled constructively.
-
Turning interviews into sales discussions - Client interviews should remain focused on listening. Discussion of potential solutions or additional services is more appropriate once the feedback process has concluded.
Independent client feedback interviews provide opportunities to gather insight across all aspects of the client experience. Active listening and receptivity are central to enabling this exchange.
Jim can be contacted at James Stapleton - Client Sciences