Legal professionals are primed and ready to discuss their services when they are given a chance. But are they approaching the discussion in a way that gains credibility? There are several common methods to discussing services but legal professionals need to understand that their style will influence a potential client's trust.
The first way of talking about services is the "nothing but positive" approach. The service is perfect and for everyone. There is no reason not to engage because there is nothing but upside! Of course, this works sometimes but it casts a lot of doubts in the process. Once a client realizes that an attorney is positive about everything they offer, it puts the attorney's judgment or motives into question.
The second way of talking about services is a qualifying approach. The legal professional discusses the positives of a particular service but also qualifies the type of individual that benefits from the feature. They don’t pretend that every client will get equal value out of particular service. They highlight benefits specific to the client but don’t shy away from potential deficiencies. They are giving a more direct review of the service for the client's situation. There is a lot of credibility to be gained from this approach but the legal professional does run the risk of discovering a poor fit and ending the opportunity.
The third method is brutally honest. This is typically executed by a gruff legal professional who says things like, “This service isn’t the one you want because of X. Option B is the move to make.” They don’t shy away from the negatives of a particular approach but rather tell potential clients what should be done rather than asking relevant questions. This approach is usually credible, unless they are shamelessly pumping the highest priced solutions. However, the credibility comes with the risk of providing a bad suggestion. Since the legal professional is prescribing “ideal” solutions, missing the mark can permanently tarnish their relationship.
In the long run the second approach is typically the most fruitful. The first approach sets unreasonable expectations and will eventually erode credibility. The third approach gives honest reviews but doesn’t take the individual client into account which can lead to a bad experience.
Of course, it can be difficult being objective because most attorneys believe in their services wholeheartedly. The best method to remain objective is by understanding the client. If you ask good questions and gather a specific vision of what the client needs, you can clearly see how your services can help. In the event your service is a poor fit, you lose a potential client but spare the trouble of a poorly suited client. In the process you will be leaving a solid trail of credibility in your wake which will produce future opportunities.
