Business Development

What a Law Firm RFP Response Should Look Like

The average RFP response describes the firm. The ones that win work describe the client's problem and the firm's specific approach to solving it. Here is what that looks like in practice.

11 min read

Most RFP responses are interchangeable. Swap the firm name on page one, and a reviewer who had not seen the original could not tell which firm submitted it. That is not a writing problem. It is a strategy problem.

The fundamental error is treating an RFP response as a firm profile rather than a client communication. A firm profile describes what the firm is. A winning RFP response demonstrates that this firm, specifically, understands this client's situation and has a concrete plan for addressing it.

The opening that separates winners from the rest

Responses that open with "we are pleased to submit this proposal" or "established in [year], our firm has grown to [number] attorneys across [number] offices" are immediately telling the reviewer that the rest of the response will be about the firm.

The most effective opening is a precise restatement of the client's stated situation followed by a one-paragraph summary of the firm's proposed approach. This tells the reviewer immediately that the firm read the RFP carefully, understood the underlying problem, and has already formed a view on how to address it.

The credentials come later. They are necessary context, not the lead.

Naming the team

RFP responses that say "our team of experienced attorneys with deep expertise in [area] will provide exceptional service" are describing a category of attorneys, not a team. The client does not know who will actually do the work, and when they do not know, they cannot evaluate that part of the response.

Winning responses name the specific attorneys who will handle the matter. The lead partner, the day-to-day attorney, the relevant specialists. Each person gets a paragraph that describes not just their practice area but the specific relevant experience they bring to this client's situation.

This requires a commitment. If the firm names a partner in the response and a different attorney handles the matter, that is a relationship problem. The firms that win RFPs consistently name teams and honor those commitments.

Using matter examples that actually matter

A "representative matter" section that reads "we have represented clients in complex litigation involving [generic description]" does not demonstrate capability. It demonstrates that the firm has done some version of related work.

The most useful matter examples describe a situation that is genuinely analogous to what the client faces. They explain what the matter involved, what the firm's specific role was, and what the outcome was. If confidentiality prevents using client names, describe the situation in enough detail that the relevance is clear. Anonymous examples that are too vague to be useful are no better than generic descriptions.

Firms that maintain well-organized matter databases produce better RFP responses because they can search for genuinely analogous work rather than pulling the most recent matters and hoping they are close enough.

The fee section

The fee section of most RFP responses is the section that gets the least work and the most attention from clients. Vague language about billing at "competitive rates" or "consistent with industry standards" signals that the firm has not thought carefully about how to price this relationship.

Clients evaluating RFP responses are generally trying to understand two things: what they will pay and whether the firm understands how they think about value. A fee structure that is described specifically, including billing rates by attorney level, any proposed alternative fee arrangements, and the firm's approach to scope management, demonstrates that the firm is thinking about the client's economics, not just its own.

If the RFP asks for a fixed fee or alternative arrangement, respond to that directly. Firms that respond to a fixed-fee request with a detailed hourly rate schedule are answering a different question than the one being asked.

Related reading