Not “a blind spot.” “The blind spot...” Yes, we’re saying there is one thing that, all by itself, robs you of the income your marketing and sales effort should produce. If you fix only one thing, and change nothing else about how you pursue business, you’ll double your income without increasing your level of effort.

1. “No Decision”
The Blind Spot
that
Prevents Lawyers
from
Doubling Their Income
Craig Levinson
Mike O'Horo

2. The Blind Spot
Not “a blind spot.”
“The blind spot...”
Yes, we’re saying there is
one thing that, all by itself,
robs you of the income
your marketing and sales
effort should produce.
If you fix only one thing, and change nothing
else about how you pursue business, you’ll
double your income without increasing your
level of effort.
There are many, many things lawyers can and
should do to increase their business development
effectiveness. We built the RainmakerVT suite of
virtual learning tools to help you do that.
Here, we’re going to share the Big Secret that
makes the difference between frustration and
success. Please read on.
2

3. Only 2 Ways to Increase Revenue
1. Increase the number of sales opportunities
2. Convert a higher % of opportunities into
sales
3

4. Option 1: Create More Sales
Opportunities
Most lawyers go this route.
Creating more sales opportunities
can be done, but it's expensive,
and often pointless. If you’re not
converting the opportunities you
have now, how will having more
leads that you fail to convert help you?
“I’m converting only one out of seven
opportunities. If I had 14 opportunities, I double my
business even if I’m no better at selling.”
Your logic is flawless. However, it ignores two
critical factors:
• Time
• Money
When it comes to marketing and sales, most
lawyers find they have a shortage of both.
Worse, since you have no idea where the first
seven opportunities came from, you have no idea
what it takes to get seven more.
4

5. How Much Does It Cost to Create
More Opportunities?
Law firms don't track such things, so lawyers can
only guess at their closing ratios or cost-of-sales.
Two of the premier consulting groups in the legal
industry took an informed stab at estimating it,
based on anecdotal evidence they collected over
the past two decades. They put the Cost of Client
Pursuit at between $35,000 and $100,000 -- to get
a client with annual fee value between
$100,000-200,000.
Surprising, isn't it? What could make it so
expensive?
Because it’s an average. Like venture capital, the
investments that pay off have to cover the ones
that don’t.
When you spend three years “developing a
relationship” with people in a company, win or
lose, that cost becomes part of your average Cost
of Client Pursuit.
5

6. So, let’s take a closer look at what it means to
increase the number of opportunities.
At the midpoints of the consultants’ ranges, you’ll
spend $67,500 to acquire a $150,000 client.
Operating overhead is 60%, leaving a 40% gross
profit ($60,000). As you see, you lose money on
this client Year One. Unless you keep it for
multiple years and grow it, you can’t afford such
“successes.”
Gross fee revenue 150,000
Operating overhead 60% 90,000
Cost of Sales 67,500
Gross Profit/Loss -7,500
Any or all of these numbers may be higher or
lower, and some of the cost-of-sales total may be
part of overhead. That’s not important.
What’s important is, if your overhead is under
control, there’s only one remaining variable
that you can influence: Cost of Sales.
6

7. 2. Convert a Higher % of
Opportunities into Sales
We said that one factor determines your Cost of
Client Pursuit beyond all others.
It’s called the “No Decision” Factor.
Years ago, a landmark Ohio State University study
showed that, in 30% of selling situations, nothing
is purchased. This figure is for full-time,
professional salespeople. Since lawyers are part-
time, relatively inexperienced salespeople, the
percentage of opportunities in which they lose out
to “No Decision” has to be even greater.
Why is eliminating “No Decision” so important?
Simply, no matter how hard you try, how skilled
you get, how diligently you develop relationships,
nearly one-third of those who might have hired you
will NEVER make a decision that leads to any law
firm being retained.
Unfortunately, lawyers have no way to know which
one-third that is. Until now.
7

8. Fur Coats in the Desert
Imagine that you sell fur coats over the phone.
You’re working from a list of high-income people
who’ve bought other luxury goods by phone.
You’re working hard, making the calls, extolling the
merits of your coats. Results are poor. As you
struggle, you might start thinking there’s
something wrong with the coats, price, or sales
capability.
You’d be partially right, but not for the reasons you
think.
What if, unknown to you, a third of your prospects
live in Phoenix (assume it's an auto-dialing system
where you can't see area codes). What if nobody
you called in Phoenix thought to tell you where
they lived, assuming you knew?
You might spend years calling those people, trying
to cultivate relationships with them. You might
even cultivate some and make some friends. But
it won’t make any difference in your real sales
problem, which you don’t even know about.
8

9. Most people in Phoenix don’t have to make a
decision about a fur coat. Yeah, maybe there’s a
case for owning one during a handful of cooler
nights during the Winter, but does it really matter if
they have one or not? Will they be unable to
survive the Winter without one?
Endless Pursuit
Without a way to discern each prospect's location
(and not even knowing to ask about it), you’ll
continue to sink time, effort, and money drilling
“dry holes,” with no chance to succeed.
You’ll waste time and effort that could be directed
toward live prospects in Chicago, Toronto, and
Boston.
Worse, you won’t have any reason to stop calling
the Phoenix people, so your selling cost becomes
infinite.
That’s why we find the $35,000--$100,000 per
client pursuit figure believable. Lawyers call on
people who don’t have to make a decision,
sometimes for years, despite no chance to win.
9

10. It Can Be Very Simple, If You Let It
For lawyers, eliminating “no decision” isn’t as
simple as asking prospects where they live, but it’s
not much more complicated.
There are two simple processes that, combined,
will painlessly eliminate “No Decision prospects”
and enable you to replace them with viable
opportunities.
Before we explain those, let’s see why it’s so
important. Chart A shows the profound effect
eliminating “No Decision” has on net revenue.
Chart A
30% No-Decision
No-Decision Eliminated
Gross Annual Pipeline Value of 100 20,000,000 20,000,000
Prospects in Pipeline
Less No-Decision Factor 6,000,000 $0
Net Pipeline Value Less No-Decision 14,000,000 20,000,000
Value
Closing Rate (40%) 5,600,000 8,000,000
Cost of Sales ($35,000 x 100) 3,500,000 3,500,000
Net Revenue 2,100,000 4,500,000
10

11. Chart B shows how a 50% increase in the number
of opportunities has less of an effect on Net
Revenue than does eliminating “No Decision.”
30% No Decision
Gross Annual Pipeline Value of 150 Prospects in 30,000,000
Pipeline
Less No-Decision Factor 9,000,000
Net Pipeline Value Less No-Decision Value 21,000,000
Closing Rate (40%) 8,400,000
Cost of Sales ($35,000 x 100) 5,250,000
Net Revenue 3,150,000
Eliminating those who won’t decide anything
increased revenue by 43% compared to having 50
more prospects in your pipeline. By eliminating
“no decision,” you eliminate spending $35,000 on
each of them. That’s where the increase comes
from.
So, forget about increasing your pipeline. First,
shrink it. Here’s how to do just that.
11

12. It’s All About Decisions
Law firms are implementing best practices in
Management, Operations, and Information
Technology. To maximize revenue and PPP, it’s
equally important that they embrace modern
Business Development methods.
To do so, it’s critical to teach their lawyers the “No
Decision” concept and application.
First, understand that humans only make the
decisions they must make. Because decision-
making involves risk, we delay until we can’t any
longer, because the consequences of not deciding
are greater than the risk or discomfort of deciding.
Here’s an illustrative exercise we used for years in
our workshops.
We’d ask, “By show of hands, how many of you
are reasonably confident that some day you’ll
die?” Chuckling, everyone raised a hand. Next,
we’d say, “Keep your hand raised if you’ve already
made arrangements your personal beliefs
12

13. prescribe for that certain outcome.” Every time, at
least two-thirds of the hands came down.
Our capacity for delay and denial is limitless.
Measured against our denial behaviors in the face
of an acknowledged certainty, how do we convince
ourselves that, just because a prospect could or
should do something about a problem, that he or
she will?
In business, “No Decision” primarily results from
selling against a problem whose impact its
stakeholders perceive as sufficiently low that they
have the luxury of doing nothing.
Lawyers can expose this easily and quickly by
• exploring the Cost of Doing Nothing, and
• understanding how to achieve Stakeholder
Alignment
Definitions:
• Stakeholders are people who have
professional and personal reasons to care
about the decision under consideration, i.e.,
13

14. the decision outcome will affect them directly.
Literally, they have a stake in that outcome.)
• Cost of Doing Nothing (“CoDN”) process is a
disciplined sequence of questions that reveal
whether or not a prospect has a problem
about which he or she MUST do something.
• Stakeholder Alignment is an extension of the
CoDN process. It helps one guide his or her
internal “Champion” through a process that
quickly reveals whether or not the other key
stakeholders in the decision share the
champion's opinion about the CoDN being
too high.
• The Champion is a prospect stakeholder
who, through your facilitation, has concluded
that this problem’s CoDN is unacceptable.
The Champion is motivated to have the
company reach a decision for his/her own
reasons, that relate solely to his/her self-interest
and have nothing to do with us.
(The CoDN process is critical when evaluating the
validity of formal selection processes, such as
14

15. “beauty contests,” many of which are set up
merely as a lever to get incumbent law firms to
lower their rates or grant other concessions. They
are rarely legitimate opportunities for non-
incumbents.)
Exposing the Cost of Doing
Nothing: A Real-Life Example
Jim works at a 15-lawyer firm in Charleston, South
Carolina. He handles all of the litigation matters
for his client, XYZ Technologies, also based in
Charleston.
Catherine is XYZ's General Counsel. She retains
six small-to-medium Charleston law firms, each for
a different legal specialty. She uses one
prestigious New York law firm (which she inherited
when she took the job four years ago) for all of
XYZ's corporate work.
Lately, Catherine has complained about the
“outrageous” rates charged by the NY firm. Jim's
instinct, which is typical, is to approach Catherine
and say, “I know you're not happy with the rates
the New York firms are charging for your corporate
15

16. work. We can do that work just as well for half the
price. Can I get you to sit down with my partner,
Pat Smith?”
This is not the best approach for Jim to take.
Why?
1. Catherine will recognize that this sales pitch is
primarily in Jim's self-interest, not hers.
2. Jim is using up a favor (“Meet my partner”).
3. The approach lumps Jim with the five other
Charleston firms who likely will approach
Catherine in the same clumsy fashion.
4. Jim learns nothing about whether or not
Catherine must make a decision about shifting
the work from NY to SC.
If Catherine doesn't have to decide, “No Decision”
wins again, despite whatever earnest effort Jim
and his competitors make.
Fortunately, Jim resists his instinct. Instead, he
embraces a disciplined, Cost of Doing Nothing
investigation.
16

17. A Respectful Approach
Jim approaches Catherine.
“Catherine, I know you're not happy with the rates
the New York firms are charging for your corporate
work. Everyone's probably telling you that their
firm can do the same work in South Carolina for
much cheaper. Whether or not that’s true is
irrelevant. Which SC firm is the best choice is the
wrong question. Until you decide whether or not
it’s in your best interest and a good decision to
move to move the work away from NY, you don’t
need any SC firm. Wouldn’t it be more helpful to
set aside parochial interests and help you evaluate
the real issue?
For now, forget about which Charleston firm you
might retain if you decide to make the shift.
We're your advisors. Why don't we sit down – and
this is completely on the house – and let me help
you gain some clarity about whether it's in your
best interest even to consider taking this business
away from the NY firm?”
17

18. A Simple, Reliable Process that
Clients Appreciate
Jim asks five simple, direct questions that reveal
the strategic, operational, financial, and emotional
impact of shifting XYZ's corporate work from
NY to SC. This process results in the client
assigning a dollar estimate of how much money
they would save (or make) each year by taking the
action being considered.
Catherine says switching firms could easily save
XYZ $400,000 per year.
With $400,000 per year in savings, switching
seems like a no-brainer, right? Not necessarily.
Jim has only explored one category of impact –
financial. People don’t make decisions solely for
financial reasons.
Do we always buy the cheapest house, car, stereo
-- or doctor, or accountant? Money is important,
but it’s only one factor.
Let's look at the rest of the picture.
18

19. Even if the perceived economic impact is a huge
multiple of the likely cost of the solution, Jim
cannot assume that it constitutes an imperative to
act.
Only insiders at XYZ know whether $400,000 per
year justifies going through the offsetting
operational, strategic, and emotional costs of
switching firms.
As the collaborative investigation continues,
Catherine admits that she's not particularly fazed
by the hassle of switching firms. It's a bit of a
hassle, but she's done it before with little
interruption to the day-to-day workings of her
department.
Jim's questions raise a red flag, however, and they
help Catherine crystallize the fact that she has
some real concerns regarding her job security.
Yes, she'll be a star for saving the company so
much money, but she admits: “I can't seem to
shake one concern – the fact that I'll be the sole
person responsible if the Charleston firm screws
up the corporate work. I guess I take comfort in
19

20. the fact that I'm safe if the incumbent NY firm
screws up, because I didn't hire them.”
Jim now sees clearly that the negative personal,
emotional impact on Catherine will very likely
continue to trump the positive financial impact of
making a switch.
Jim tests this by offering what seems like an
obvious conclusion, "Catherine, it sounds like
there's no way you can accept the risk of
switching. Am I hearing you correctly?" It's always
wise to test apparent "deal-killers.”
Contrary to traditional law firm thinking, this a
significant win for Jim.
Catherine has confirmed that, at least for now,
trying to cross-sell the corporate work has no
chance to succeed, and Catherine certainly won’t
welcome such an attempt from Jim (or anyone
else).
Jim has avoided drilling an expensive "dry hole."
Rather than wasting time on that, he can now
focus on more legitimate opportunities.
20

21. By doing so, he's also earned some goodwill, and
reinforced his standing as a valuable advisor to
Catherine, one who will subordinate his own
interests in favor of helping her solve her decision
problem.
Finally, while Catherine wastes time and energy
fending off the other Charleston lawyers trying to
get the untouchable corporate work, when Jim
calls, he’ll always be welcome because she’ll
know that it’s not a pitch.
Results
Facilitating a decision creates immediate benefits:
• Cost of Sales stops immediately; it’s like getting
a check for $35,000.
• Lawyers have more time to pursue legitimate
opportunities.
• The CoDN process is preferred by qualified
buyers, because it places their best interests
above those of the firm.
21

22. Contrary to what you may hear from old-school
sales trainers, aggressively pursuing a sale is not
the most effective way to get hired. Helping a
prospect make a good decision is.
If you're the lawyer who helps a prospect come to
the realization that the CoDN is too high – and that
he or she must take action – you've delivered real
value, and you’re well positioned to land the
business. After all, if, as a result of your guidance,
the prospect got sufficiently comfortable to reach a
decision, which is she more likely to do? Hand it
to the lawyer who helped her figure it out, or go
shopping, hoping to find another lawyer in the
hope that he or she has an equal grasp of the
problem?
There’s no way to know for sure, but we’re pretty
confident that we know which way to bet.
22

23. Summary
Here are the advantages of eliminating “No
Decision”:
• Frees time and money to replace “No
Decision prospects” with viable prospects
• Immediately ends cost-of-sales, and reduces
the firm's overall cost (see Chart A)
• Helping a client make a good decision is the
way to cross-sell other services, reducing the
firm's overall cost of sales (Charts A & B)
• The simplicity of this decision process:
• ensures that lawyers learn it easily,
letting them convert a greater
percentage of opportunities
• expands the pool of potential
rainmakers
• enables junior lawyers to tee up
opportunities for more senior
partners
• enables many more lawyers to
effectively mine business from existing
clients
23