Insights
The gap between law firm marketing spend and attorney behavior.
Loading articles…
Insights
Loading articles…
TL;DR
Law firms lose competitive pitches not because they are less qualified, but because they fail to differentiate. Most firms respond to a pitch opportunity by demonstrating their depth and credentials. So does every other firm in the room. The firms that win consistently answer a different question: not “why should you hire a firm like us?” but “why should you hire us, for this problem, now?”
I have watched law firms walk into competitive pitches with stronger credentials than everyone else in the room and lose. I have watched smaller firms with less experience and shorter track records win work from clients who had every reason to go with the bigger name.
The difference was almost never the quality of the legal work. It was the quality of the answer to one question: why you, for this, now?
Most firms never answer it.
When a law firm receives a request for proposal or an invitation to pitch, the instinct is to demonstrate qualification. Practice group depth. Relevant matter experience. Attorney credentials. Responsive infrastructure. Commitment to the client relationship.
These are all legitimate things to communicate. They are also the exact same things every other firm in the pitch is communicating.
Qualification is the floor, not the differentiator. A prospective client issues a competitive pitch because multiple qualified firms exist. The question they are trying to answer is not whether you are qualified. They already believe you are, or you would not be in the room. The question is which firm, among several qualified options, is the right one for this situation.
Most firms never shift from answering the first question to answering the second.
Prospective clients in competitive pitches are evaluating several things, most of which never appear in a proposal document.
They are evaluating whether the team in the room understands their problem. Not law in general. Their problem, in their industry, with their specific constraints and risk profile.
They are evaluating whether they believe the people in the room will actually do the work, or whether the senior partner who showed up for the pitch will hand it off to junior associates they have never met.
They are evaluating whether they trust the firm to tell them things they do not want to hear. Not whether the firm is accommodating, but whether the firm will say “this is the wrong approach” when the client is pursuing the wrong approach.
None of these questions can be answered by a credentials page.
The firms that win competitive pitches consistently tend to answer three questions that most firms skip.
First: what do we believe is actually happening here? Not a restatement of the RFP language. A genuine point of view on the client’s situation that demonstrates the team has thought about it and has a perspective. This is the most differentiated thing a firm can bring to a pitch, and the hardest to fabricate. Either you have thought about the client’s problem or you have not.
Second: what would we do differently from how this has been handled before? If the client is switching firms, or running a competitive process because the current situation is not working, they want to know what the new approach looks like. If a firm does not address this, they are implicitly endorsing whatever has been tried before.
Third: who is actually going to be in this relationship? Not the credential page of the partner roster. A specific answer to the question of who picks up the phone, who attends depositions, who writes the briefs, and who is accountable when things get complicated. The firms that lose pitches often present a team and then substitute members without telling the client. Clients remember.
Most pitch preparation time goes into proposal production: formatting, credential pages, matter lists, and cover letters. This work takes time and it should be done well. But it is not where pitch outcomes are decided.
The preparation that changes outcomes happens earlier: the conversation with the relationship contact at the client before the formal pitch process begins, where the firm learns what the client actually cares about beyond the formal RFP language. The internal session where the pitch team debates what they genuinely believe about the client’s situation and how to say it clearly. The decision about which attorneys to bring and whether those attorneys will actually be doing the work.
Most firms spend 80 percent of their pitch preparation time on the document and 20 percent, or none at all, on the strategy. The winning firms tend to invert that ratio.
Competitive pitches are evaluated after the presentations end. The firm that follows up first, with something specific rather than a generic thank-you, has an advantage that most firms leave on the table.
The follow-up that works is not “we appreciate the opportunity and look forward to your decision.” It is: here is a specific thing we heard in the room that we wanted to address, or here is a piece of information that is directly relevant to the question you raised. Something that shows the firm was listening and kept thinking after the pitch ended.
Most firms do not do this because the pitch team disbands immediately after the presentation. The partner goes back to their practice. The marketing director returns to the next project. Nobody owns the follow-up.
The firms that win more than their share of competitive pitches have someone who owns every pitch from proposal submission through decision, including the follow-up. That person makes sure the process does not end at the presentation.
Most of the firms that consistently lose competitive pitches they should win are not losing because of quality. They are losing because the pitch process is treated as a production exercise rather than a business development exercise.
The document is important. The presentation matters. But the firms that win reliably have decided what they actually believe about the client’s situation before anyone opens a slide deck. They have committed to a team that is specific and credible. They have a point of view. The pitches that look like wins before they happen, the ones with the strongest credentials and the biggest brand names, lose to smaller firms with clearer answers more often than managing partners want to admit.
Common Questions
The most common reason is a failure to differentiate. Most firms respond to competitive pitches by demonstrating their qualifications. Those attributes are table stakes when all of the firms in a competitive pitch are qualified. The firms that win answer a different question: why this firm, for this client's specific problem, now?
Beyond credentials, prospective clients evaluate whether the pitch team genuinely understands their specific problem, whether the attorneys presenting will actually do the work, and whether the firm will tell them things they do not want to hear. These drive decisions more than credentials do in most competitive situations.
Effective pitch preparation starts with understanding the client's actual situation, not just the RFP language. The pitch team should develop a genuine point of view on the client's problem before building any document. Most firms spend 80 percent of their preparation time on the document and 20 percent on the strategy. The winning firms tend to invert that ratio.
Spending the majority of preparation time on proposal production rather than developing a clear perspective on the client's situation and how the firm would approach it differently. The firms that win pitches consistently tend to have a strong point of view and communicate it plainly.
Very. The firms that follow up promptly with something specific have a material advantage. Most pitch teams disband after the presentation and nobody owns the follow-up. Assigning one person to own the pitch through final decision, including post-presentation communication, is a practice most firms do not have and most winning firms do.
Related Reading
Next Step
If your firm is losing competitive pitches you expected to win, a direct conversation about what the pitch process is missing is a useful place to start.
Connect on LinkedIn