Better Rainmaking Through Relationships and Data

I was recently interviewed by Bloomberg Law for its Behind the Headlines series.  In the interview (click here to view), host Lee Pacchia and I discuss the evolution of rainmaking -- otherwise known as business development or sales -- in law firms.  In the heady days of yesteryear, rainmaking involved networking, establishing and nurturing relationships, ensuring that when clients and prospective clients encountered a legal issue, the rainmaker was top of mind and received a call.  Of course it's slightly more complex than that, as good rainmakers will say that you also have to be credible and competent in your field.  Others will say that working the cocktail circuit isn't enough, particularly with sophisticated buyers, so coming to the table with industry knowledge and solutions in mind is important.  All of this is true.  It's also true that, for the most part, successful rainmakers are a relatively small segment of the Biglaw population.  Most successful partners have had some success in bringing in work, and while many can cover their own compensation and overhead, quite a few don't generate enough business to make a dent in the typical large firm's overhead.  A disproportionately high percentage of revenues are concentrated in a relatively small number of business generators.  And these rainmakers know it, hence the heavy courting of laterals with portable books of business. The essence of the interview is describing how rainmaking has become more challenging in the tougher economy.  Clients are severing long-standing relationships to seek lower-cost providers.  Others are putting immense price pressure on traditionally premium practices.  Still others are demanding budgets and certainty and project management expertise in order to minimize surprise and manage change.  The stereotypical gregarious rainmaker with a winning smile and a firm handshake who can work a room like nobody's business is giving some ground to a more sophisticated, data-driven approach.  This is good news, because as rainmaking evolves more partners have a greater chance to succeed.  Here are five additional thoughts to the points I made in the interview:

Don't chase every dollar.  Revenue is not the same as profit.  In the traditional law firm financial model, the way to generate profit is to bill hours.  The more hours billed, the more profits generated.  This works... to a point.  Most firms track their top clients by revenue.  This is a nice starting point but as a data point to guide future business decisions it's incomplete. Without understanding the corresponding profit for the matters, we might be celebrating dollars that are dilutive rather than additive to the firm's PPP.  So many firms have some version of the top rainmaker handsomely rewarded for bringing in a $5 million client... that costs the firm $5.5 million to service.  When we look at lifetime value of a client, which incorporates repeat business, cost to acquire new engagements, depth of practices engaged by the client, and more, we find that some business is not worth pursuing. It's critical to analyze which work is profitable, which clients are profitable, and devote greater resources to winning and keeping work that is lucrative.

Relationships always matter. But not all relationships are equal.  When I work with practice groups to understand what process they have in place to identify and pursue new business opportunities, the first discovery is that few have any process whatsoever.  However, those firms that reward, and fund, business development activities (not results) will generate an exhaustive list of client lunches, event sponsorships, association dues and game tickets.  By putting in place a simple opportunity pipeline populated with a few key data points, it becomes much easier to distinguish between the lunch with Mary, the chief legal officer of a Fortune 100 company on the outskirts of town, whose company has entrenched legal providers handling most of her premium work, and very rarely encounters "bet the company" issues, and who has dined on the firm's dime 23 times in the last five years without sending a single piece of business, and lunch with Ted, the deputy GC of a small subsidiary of a mid-size manufacturer of aircraft components, who has hired the firm 4 times in the last 3 years for increasingly complex matters and whose company has been named a co-defendant in a high-profile products liability case filed after an airplane crash in Singapore... which just so happens to be where we've recently opened an office.  We may also discover that game tickets have generated, or at least been a factor in, $125,000 in new business in the last year, but our monthly breakfast briefings that cost, in total, $23,000 to produce have generated $432,000 in new engagements, 50% of which are with new clients.

Relationships can't overcome bad economics.  Every partner reading these words has had a longtime client sever ties in recent years.  These are golf partners, law school pals, people we've joined on vacations, even people whose kids' weddings we've attended.  And yet, when push comes to shove and their CFO is breathing down their neck, they change law firms in order to maintain their budget and keep their jobs.  Wouldn't it be helpful to know which clients are changing outside counsel more frequently now than they have in the past?  Wouldn't it be helpful to know if the economics of certain  industries are creating budgetary pressure on legal budgets across all competitors in the space, giving us time to prepare for the tough call?  Wouldn't it be helpful to know which practices, or even which tasks within given practices, our clients feel are declining in value and for which they will refuse to pay premium rates in the future?  This information is out there for anyone looking for it.

Don't confuse strategic pricing with suicide pricing.  It's important to understand the recent remarks made by my friend and colleague, Bruce MacEwen, who is one of the brightest minds I know.  In an earlier Bloomberg Law interview he described the suicide pricing taking place as firms offer substantial discounts to win business.  This is absolutely happening, and in time these firms will become known because they simply can't sustain their infrastructure for very long with non-profitable revenue streams.  But I am also aware of some savvy practice group chairs in other firms who are offering favorable pricing that, to an casual observer, looks like suicide pricing but in fact may be strategic pricing.  Simply put, if I can lower my cost of legal service delivery by eliminating wasteful steps through process improvement, then I can maintain profitability even at a lower price point.  Every firm has wasteful steps, as defined by the client, and this is reflected in the firm's realization rates.  Whether through undisciplined write-downs that partners take before invoicing, or negotiated write-downs after invoicing, the firm's realization rates reflect the difference between price and value from the client's perspective. And here's a scary thought - as more clients embrace billing analysis and benchmarking, it's going to get even tougher.  We're still at the nascent stages of downward price pressure in this market.

Stop smirking, mid-size law firms. You're next.  I have a number of mid-size law firm clients and they are experiencing, in general and in aggregate, one of the busiest stretches ever. As one partner said to me, "Recession? What recession? I've never been busier and I'm getting very little pushback on rates."  True.  One thing the recession proved is that there are fantastic lawyers in mid-size firms whose expertise rivals that of Biglaw. And because these mid-size firms in mid-size cities offer mid-size rates, clients are calling.  The trouble is, if there is no differential value offered by these mid-size firms other than slightly lower rates -- no project management, no alternative fees, no predictable budgets -- then the clients will eventually press forward with fee arbitrage and select firms in the next lower tranche, offering similar quality at slightly lower rates.  And the mid-size firm partners, particularly those who staffed up quickly to meet rising demand, will be left with high overhead and rapidly declining revenues.  Rinse and repeat.  And when the bigger firms start embracing process improvement to lower their cost of delivery and can thrive at lower rates, then the pressure on the mid-size firms will come from above and below.

If you aren't having these discussions in your board rooms and practice group retreats, then you had better get started.  Despite what you may have heard or assumed from the prognosticators of doom, the crisis facing the modern law firm is eminently solvable and law firms can and will thrive.  The question is, will you be on board the bus or under it?

Timothy B. Corcoran delivers keynote presentations and conducts workshops to help lawyers, in-house counsel and legal service providers profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, click here or contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

The Role of Procurement in the Selection of Outside Counsel

My friend Dr. Silvia Hodges recently asked me to contribute to a book she was compiling and editing, Buying Legal: Procurement Insights and Practice, published by the Ark Group in association with Managing Partner.  The book is a collection of articles from 32 leading authorities discussing the increasing partnership between the corporate legal department and the corporate procurement function to select and manage legal expenses, including outside counsel.  The book is divided into two parts, Section A is designed to benefit outside counsel and Section B is for in-house counsel and procurement professionals.  However, I recommend that anyone involved in the buying or selling of legal services would do well to read the entire book. The involvement of procurement in the purchasing of legal services is swiftly becoming the ‘new normal.’ And not just for sourcing low-end, routine or commoditized legal services – but increasingly for higher-stakes legal work too! This critical new report will equip law firms and in-house legal and procurement teams with the necessary tools to make these new relationships successful.

It’s packed with original research, case studies, opinion pieces, practical approaches, and checklists that address the key challenges and opportunities that buying and selling legal services creates – from relationship building and management, to financial and strategic decision-making. Industry leaders, Riverview Law, Wragge & Co LLP, PwC, Dechert LLP, Kennedys Law LLP, Corporate Executive Board, Institute for Supply Management, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Validatum, Vantage Partners LLC, Trusted Advisor Associates and many more provide insightful case studies and advice on key topics, including:

• Benchmarking the procurement of legal services
• Pricing and negotiation strategies
• Bulk buying of legal services
• Understanding the requirements of the procurement department
• Successful complex tendering
• Current trends in the procurement of international legal services
• Procurement departments’ sourcing strategies
• Building relationships with the CPO
• The role of procurement in purchasing legal services
• The positive and negative effects of discounts
• Top tips for successfully procuring legal services
• Trusted tactics to get the most from spending on outside services
• Demonstrating law department value through analytics
• Using technology to source legal services; and much more

The chapter I submitted is titled "Why CEOs Love Procurement" and discusses how corporations continually seek a competitive cost advantage.  This is particularly critical in challenging economies or markets when revenues are flat or declining.  A modern CEO doesn't just look at growing revenue or decreasing overhead, but looks to lower the cost of goods sold and service delivery.  For law firm leaders faced with declining demand, increasing price pressure and competition from above and below, it's critical to understand the role of procurement in managing a corporation's expenses.  Lawyers who believe procurement is a euphemism for "selecting the lowest cost provider" are misguided.  Differentiation on factors other than price are critical, yet most lawyers and most law firms market in ways that are indistinguishable from the competition.  As I wrote a few years ago when I first tackled the role of procurement:  "A law firm that can demonstrate its prowess in managing to a budget through effective project management, that keeps the client fully informed of any changes to expectations, that staffs appropriately and doesn’t 'overwork' matters or expect clients to subsidize young associate training, is in a better position to present clear, quantifiable evidence of its higher rates."

For a brief excerpt, visit here.  To purchase the book online, visit here or here.

Timothy B. Corcoran delivers keynote presentations and conducts workshops to help lawyers, in-house counsel and legal service providers profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, click here or contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

Embracing the New Normal - The College of Law Practice Management's Futures Conference

Calling all lawyers, law firm managers, consultants and vendors! The College of Law Practice Management and Georgetown Law invite you to the 2012 Futures Conference, October 26-27, at the Georgetown Law Center, Washington, DC. Where better to examine leading-edge law practice management issues than to tap our Fellows and guests who are making the future happen now? We’ll discuss:

• The New Model of Law Firms
• “Value” From the Eyes of Different Beholders
• Managing Partners of the Future
• The Myriad Challenges of Diversity
• The Consumer Law Revolution (and What It Means for Biglaw)
• 2012 InnovAction Awards Presentation (hosted by yours truly, the awards chair)
• New Normal from the GC Perspective
• Also, for first time, the Legal Academy Practice Research Report —where academics cast a cold eye on your most vexing issues.

The roster of speakers and presenters is unprecedented and includes Jim Sandman, Susan Hackett, Eric Margolin, Amar Sarwal, John Michalik, Thomas Grella, Fredrick Lautz, Charles Vigil, Ward Bower, Aric Press, Toby Brown, Mark Chandler, Tanina Rostain, Stephanie Kimbro, Michael Mills, Marc Lauritsen, Mitt Regan, Juliet Aiken, Heather Bock, Lisa Rohrer, Verna Myers, Ron Friedmann, Mark Cohen, Ben Lieber, Andy Daws, Patrick Lamb and Steve Nelson.  For more details on each speaker, visit the conference website.  If you don't know most, or even many, of these speakers, then you can't possibly be serious about adapting to the new normal.

Learn more about the sessions from conference co-chair, Ron Friedmann, here.

Download the complete Futures Conference brochure here.

Expect a lively and engaging event. Panel presentations with active audience input will combine with breakout sessions to help you understand the forces jolting the legal market today.

Registration is Open 

Register online here for the Futures Conference. Be sure to watch the Futures Conference 2012 meetings page for more information on the program schedule, speakers and special events.

Special thanks to event sponsors (Platinum) Greenfield Belser, Attorney at Work and Practical Law Company, (Gold) American Bar Association's Law Practice Management section, the Canadian Bar Association, International Legal Technology Association, Ricoh Legal and Thomson Reuters and (Silver) Alexander Open Systems, Altman Weil, Inc., Association of Legal Administrators and the Legal Marketing Association.

The Butterfly Effect of Delays and Overbilling

In a recent Legal Project Management workshop that I conducted, several law firm partners and I were discussing the importance to clients of predictability in their legal budgets.  Most agreed that if a couple dozen outside law firms submitted invoices that were delayed and over budget by even a modest amount, the aggregate impact would be troubling to the client.  However, few agreed that on an individual basis, any one invoice could cause much harm.  I explained that something as simple as a $15,000 surprise on a legal invoice on a $100,000 matter could have far-reaching impacts.  Those familiar with chaos theory recognize the butterfly effect as the potentially large impact of seemingly innocuous small actions, popularly characterized as the flapping of a butterfly's wings leading some weeks later to a hurricane in another corner of the globe. There was also a popular film of the same name demonstrating this concept.  The partners found it helpful for me to illustrate mathematically how this concept plays out in a corporation. I won't go into great detail into corporate budgeting here, but let's stipulate that businesspeople spend a lot of time building budgets for every function, for both the cost and revenue sides of the ledger.  And then they hold periodic "re-forecast" reviews to address the inevitable changes that take place, such as revenue for Product A coming in under budget, revenue for Product B trending well above budget, personnel costs below plan, supply chain costs above plan, and so on.  Imagine it's late November and Big Co. has just concluded its final re-forecast session of the year and all changes have been noted and locked in.

Smith & Jones LLP, is one of Big Co.'s trusted law firms, and has been handling a thorny litigation matter for the better part of a year.  The firm sends Big Co. an invoice for $55,000, which is $15,000 more than the relationship partner estimated at the last budget review meeting in September.  There has been no update since.  The invoice reflects billable hours conducted in September and October, and because of the usual delays in collecting daily time entries and the arduous pre-bill review process, the invoice isn't sent to the client until late November.  The General Counsel is aghast and reacts pretty strongly, even though the invoice reflects reasonable fees for legal work that was essential to achieving a favorable outcome in the litigation, though admittedly this includes some work that the firm did not anticipate back in September.  The billing partner is baffled by the GC's reaction, because the firm achieved the outcome that Big Co. wanted.  Let's examine the chain of events this delayed over-billing triggers.

First, the GC's compensation includes a meaningful portion based on the ability to remain within budget.  Had the GC been aware of the potential over-billing even a few weeks earlier, she could have worked with the Chief Financial Officer to shift priorities and funds to address the need.  Now, sadly, the GC is likely to lose some personal compensation because the surprise occurred so late in the fiscal year... there goes the shore house rental next summer!  Secondly, the GC has to visit the CFO with hat in hand and sheepishly admit that she didn't really have a handle on the legal budget that was reviewed in exhaustive detail mere weeks before.  By contrast, her colleagues managing Big Co.'s supply chain were able to reasonably estimate the immensely variable costs of shipping, manufacturing and labor, and her colleagues managing Sales were able to forecast revenue in a very competitive marketplace within a small margin of error.

What options does the CFO have at his disposal to deal with the overage?  Most good CFOs employ clever hedging strategies that can produce emergency funds in a pinch.  But so late in the fiscal year, there aren't a lot of options.  He can consider a layoff, but to net $15,000 in payroll savings in the coming month, after severance costs, would require a fairly sizable layoff of junior employees, or showing the door to a highly compensated individual or two.  But Big Co. doesn't relish the optics of conducting a layoff in the middle of the holiday season, so that option is off the table.  The CFO then looks at other expenditures to see what can be eliminated, but his insistence that every function phase the budgets precisely means that no functional budget has any excess unspent funds at this late date.  So we have to look at generating new revenue to cover the shortfall.

Let's imagine Big Co. operates with a gross margin of 10%.  This means that to cover a $15,000 expense overage, it must generate $150,000 in gross revenue. If Product A has a unit price of $10,000, Sales must move 15 new units in the next four weeks. Of course we can't forget the 5% commission associated with the sale of each new unit, so we need to bring in another $7,500 in revenue, for a total of 16 units, to cover this cost.  As it turns out, the sales cycle for Product A is typically 3 months, and the Sales team has by this point in the year picked all the low hanging fruit.  To move new units in the compressed time frame of one month requires an additional 5% commission incentive and a 10% price break.  Now we need to sell 18 units to cover the legal invoice over-billing.  But let's not forget that revenue for Product A can't be recognized all at once.  This product has a revenue recognition schedule of 50% at sales closing and 50% at final delivery, which is typically 6 months later.  Since only half the revenue can be immediately recognized, now we must sell nearly 40 units or almost $350,000 in the next four weeks.  Imagine the delight of the Vice President of Sales when the CFO calls to demand 40 additional sales of Product A with less than a month left in the fiscal year, a period which includes a fair amount of down time due to the holidays.

The CFO is not pleased with the GC's performance; the Sales VP is extraordinarily displeased with the GC -- the department that already slows down every sale by requiring grueling contract reviews; the GC's family is unhappy because the summer break will now consist of a staycation; and the GC is unlikely to retain Smith & Jones LLP again because of this transgression.  Yet the the billing partner remains blissfully unaware, because in his mind the firm achieved the desired outcome through good lawyering, which is what should matter most to the client.  Had the partner alerted the GC in September, or even October, that some additional wrinkles in the litigation would incur some additional hours, then this overage could have been addressed in the re-forecast exercise.  Had the firm employed some process improvement techniques to reduce the delays between posting time and invoicing, the GC would have had an early warning.  Had the firm relied on a budget and legal project management tools, the deviation from the expected course would have been obvious to all immediately, not months later.

When I walked through this anecdote with the partners at my workshop, I relied on several pages of a flip chart, lots of barely legible scribbling and some off-the cuff calculations.  We had some fun doing the math and acting out the reactions of the various parties.  But make no mistake, this is a deadly serious issue.  As a Chief Legal Officer reported in a client interview I conducted for a law firm client some months ago when we discussed billing policies, "The first time a law firm makes the mistake of over-billing without notice, I'll scold them and give them another shot.  If they do it again, I'll write down the invoice and simply refuse to pay it.  If they do it a third time, I will not use the firm again and I make it a point to tell my colleagues in other companies of my experience."  I asked the CLO if he tells firms when they're fired under these circumstances.  "Never," he declared.  "They probably assume they're still on the short list but that I just don't have any relevant matters.  Or maybe they assume some competitor has undercut them on price.  Rarely do they even call to find out why I haven't hired them lately.  And those that do call, I don't have the time to explain how their delays and over-budget fees complicate my life. Instead I just tell them their rates are no longer competitive."

Law firm leaders, as you look at your own operations, it's important to know the consequences of your firm's actions.  Like the butterfly flapping its wings and causing a tsunami a world away, do your actions -- or inactions -- create devastation that you never see or hear?

Timothy B. Corcoran delivers keynote presentations and conducts workshops to help lawyers, in-house counsel and legal service providers profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

Nobody's Somebody Everywhere

I'm continually amazed at the curious phenomenon common to the legal profession, where we anoint to celebrity status certain lawyers who appear to have mastered a particular subject matter. It goes beyond wishful thinking and bleeds into blind optimism that somehow we are as world-famous, if not world-class, as we think. I visited four cities during one busy week recently, meeting with something like twenty law firm clients of all shapes and sizes to discuss trends in legal marketing and business development.  In separate conversations at three different firms, legal marketers described one of their top lawyers as "One of the best, if not the best, in the country in this practice area."  This would be a startling coincidence, as the cities and firms I visited could best be described as a random sample from the NLJ 250.  What are the odds that of all the practice areas, and of all the firms in this group offering these practice areas, and of all of the lawyers in these firms engaged in these practice areas, I was sufficiently fortunate to cross paths with the top practitioner three separate times? Astounding!

The stark reality is that not every accomplished lawyer is a celebrity.  And even those who have mastered their domain and are indeed shining lights in the profession are often little more than transient blips in the daily lives of the business professionals who hire them.  Ouch.

I've written previously about this concept, which hearkens back to our school days.  Imagine the coolest guy or the most popular gal in your high school.  Now imagine your hero transplanted overnight to a different school a thousand miles away.  Will Miss Popular or Mister Big Man on Campus be afforded the same privileges and adoration by the fawning class immediately upon arrival?  Isn't it more likely that some measure of their "success" is a function of time and location and isn't readily transferable, at least not immediately?  I say this with the greatest amount of respect for the exemplary credentials and accomplishments of the many lawyers I've hired and on whom I've relied over the years in my corporate career:  I simply can't recall your names, even though by and large I valued your contribution in addressing my business issues.

A couple years ago I gave a talk to a group of lawyers assembled for a conference in a South American country.  After I had returned to the airport and while sitting in the business lounge awaiting my flight home, I suddenly became aware of a large number of thick-necked men in dark suits roaming about and a growing sense of hustle in the airport staff.  One beefy man was evidently assigned to watch me, as he stood a short distance away gazing alertly in my direction.  In time a private plane pulled up on the tarmac outside the ground floor lounge and a non-descript man in a natty suit disembarked and was accompanied into the lounge by several stern men, and when the bags were retrieved they all disappeared in a flash out a side door.  To this day I have no idea who this dignitary was, although he was clearly of some importance to the locals.  However, I have a distinct recollection of annoyance, as whoever he was delayed all air traffic for a short time, including my departure, which put my later connecting flight at risk.

This anecdote came to mind recently when I was chatting with a General Counsel after we participated on a panel discussion together.  We were both invited to speak at a law firm partner retreat, sharing anecdotes and best practices between in-house counsel and outside counsel.  She admitted some reluctance, because though she had recently concluded a successful and quite large transaction with the firm's help, she was not delighted with the performance of one of the senior partners.  He and his team delivered excellent legal advice, she reported, but she was constantly chasing the partner for budget updates and she was regularly negotiating invoices that reflected much higher fees than she had agreed to.  Each conversation followed a predictable path:  the partner would patiently (and somewhat patronizingly, she added) explain why the nature and complexity of the transaction allowed little predictability, and the partner claimed that other clients happily paid his fees because he delivered the desired results.  The partner would then agree to write down a portion of the invoice and the cycle would repeat the following month.

But it was the other predictable conversation that troubled her more:  the divisional CFO would request a quarterly budget update for her transactions, the invoices on this matter would exceed budget every quarter, and even when she negotiated a write-down and added cushion she was left in the unfortunate position of explaining and justifying the budget exceptions.  Again and again.  To the person who signs her paycheck.  Not surprisingly, the CFO didn't know the sterling reputation of the lawyer, didn't have an appreciation for the complexity of the legal matter and accordingly at the conclusion of the transaction he strongly suggested that this lawyer not be re-hired for future work based on his "poor" performance.

While there are several learning opportunities here, a key takeaway is the lawyer's misguided sense of importance in the client's operation.  His lack of interest in providing budget predictability was, to the ultimate buyer of the lawyer's services, an indication of poor performance.  The renowned reputation of the lawyer, the presumably high quality of legal work product and the successful conclusion of past engagements meant little.  Too often lawyers lose business without realizing it.  My friend the GC wasn't planning to "fire" the lawyer but she would protect her integrity and her future legal budgets by simply not re-hiring this particular partner.  She was, she shared to little surprise, inundated with unsolicited approaches from other capable lawyers who might deliver the same result but with less surprise and stress.  It wasn't the overall cost, she reiterated, it was the constant uncertainty and failure to adhere to a budget that troubled her.

At a recent conference held at the Opryland Hotel outside Nashville, I was dashing to a very early breakfast meeting when I passed a young man in a cowboy hat strumming a guitar while sitting alone in an empty side lobby.  "What a curious time and place for the hotel to arrange entertainment," I thought as I sped by.  When I returned an hour later, this same young man was at the head of a long line, signing autographs and posing for photographs.  As it turns out, he was a well-known country music star who had just concluded an  interview on the Grand Ole Opry radio station conveniently located within the hotel (who knew?).  Several dozen fans came out to hail the star and he caused quite a commotion.  Don't ask me who he was, because the sum total of what I know about country music and its talented stars could be written on a guitar pick.  But that's the point.  I wasn't this young man's target audience so to me he was merely a curious diversion on the walk back to my hotel room.

Whether you're a practicing lawyer who believes that you're a star in your field, or a marketer asked to cater to the needs of one of these many stars, be sure to first ask some tough questions: Am I selling only a reputation or am I selling solutions to my client's business challenges?  Have I confirmed what constitutes a quality work product for this client on this engagement?  Am I confident that my contact and the person who pays the legal bills share the same definition of quality work product?  Am I working as hard to keep this client satisfied as I worked to win this client in the first place?

It's hard work to achieve the many accolades and laurels that accomplished lawyers are awarded.  But let's be sure not to rest on those laurels, particularly if there are hungry rivals waiting to delight your clients.  Your reputation alone may not be sufficient to win, and keep, work from dissatisfied clients.  And it might might be humbling, but extraordinarily helpful, to acknowledge that your reputation might not mean all that much in the first place.