Jeff Carr

11.9K posts

Jeff Carr banner
Jeff Carr

Jeff Carr

@CarrNext

Race Car Driver—Jazz|J Buffett fan—Legal Delivery System Provocateur—Legal Rebel—R3 GC (re-re-retired)—Legal Optimized|Problems Prevented|Value Delivered

Naples, FL شامل ہوئے Temmuz 2009
457 فالونگ2.3K فالوورز
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
When did it become ok to replace the perfectly acceptable “color” with the affected & pretentious “colorway”? My new principle is to never order from a company describing men’s clothing offerings in “colorways”
GIF
English
0
0
0
10
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
Compelling insightful, as we expect from Jordan! But what does this this mean for pricing? The accountability premium chargeable by an institutional provider law firm does not, or at least should not, reflect the activity to generate the output. In this case, what’s the #NewLaw business model for the firm? I for one, continue to believe that the model must reflect some form of Delivered Value — and in my world as a buyer that meant Effectiveness (were my customer goals related to outcomes/results met?), Efficiency (at or below the mutually agreed budget/cost) and Experience (as a customer, did my experience with the provider meet or exceed expectations?). In other words, DV=E3. open.substack.com/pub/jordanfurl…
English
0
0
0
43
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
Absolute drivel—lawyers should deliver value: provide service that achieves the customer’s objective (Effectiveness); at or below the agreed budget/price (Efficiency); while creating a fantastic customer experience (Experience). Customers then encourage and reward legal service provides that exceed customer expectations. It’s all about serving the customer, not the lawyer & a compensation model aligning expectations & rewarding performance. That’s #DeliveredValue, that’s DV=E3
English
0
0
0
6
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
Price is not necessarily proxy for quality or results. If one needs to tell time accurately, buy an Apple Watch, or even a low priced quartz. If one needs to impress others, buy the Rolex, which of course may well be “worth it” to the buyer. Legal service customers need #DeliveredValue, or E3 (Effectiveness + Efficiency + Experince) — oh, & that last E is customer’s experience with the lawyer, not the lawyer’s experience
English
1
0
1
14
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
$3500/hour? Truly outrageous. But I suppose “luxury good” pricing & conspicuous consumption applies. The reality is that rates across the spectrum will rise, further lifting the barrier to legal services when most customers are priced out to begin with. This is #LawLand hubris at its worst, but the blame lies with the corporate buyers from the same obliviot tribe. It’s supposed to be about the customer, not the lawyer. Blame also with the #BigLaw firms in same ridiculous arms race to irrelevancy through stratospheric associate salaries and billing rates. When the “enterprise” is a hotel for lawyers who bill by the hour, you’ve got to have stars—because it mistakes lawyers for the customer. When focused on real customers, you create & focus on teams that deliver E3 value (Effective—Efficient—Experience) wsj.com/business/lawye…
English
1
0
4
134
Todd Mitts
Todd Mitts@toddforlife·
@CarrNext This post strikes at the heart of why "innovation" in the legal sector often feels like it's moving through molasses.
English
1
0
0
59
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
“Innovation” in #LawLand is a big rock, up a steep hill, in a dark cave . . .
Jeff Carr tweet media
Todd Mitts@toddforlife

@CarrNext This post strikes at the heart of why "innovation" in the legal sector often feels like it's moving through molasses.

English
0
0
2
45
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
@BLaw And nothing really changes—except of course now 3 sets of intermediaries gorging at the trough—class action plaintiff lawyers, big firm defense lawyers & realtors—all at the expense of customers as the intermediary “tax” remains firmly in place
English
0
0
0
19
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
@dklineii Absolutely true—however, once fierce debate results in a decision, there must only one voice, one position—no back room undercutting or guerrilla undermining. A good approach is 80% consensus/100% compliance. While toxic compliance is dangerous, toxic follow up is far worse
English
0
0
1
26
Dave Kline
Dave Kline@dklineii·
Counterintuitive leadership truth: Your team needs more conflict. Not personal attacks. Meaningful disagreement about ideas, strategies, and approaches. If they always agrees, you have toxic compliance. Source dissent. Reward contrarians. Wise decisions require fierce debate.
English
17
5
76
3.6K
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
@JessBirken The best legal problem is the one you never have. As opposed to “going to court” & engaging in gladiatorial jest, counseling & structuring behavior & transactions to prevent disputes is the highest and best use of our profession—but that’s inconsistent with prevailing biz model
English
1
0
2
17
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
@LambZFTG @ElevateNic It’s been over 25 years and customers are still waiting . . . Hey all you GC’s, CLO’s and in-house counsel, YOU are the customer — actually, you’re just the agent of the customer & it’s your fiduciary duty to vote with your fees
GIF
English
0
0
0
19
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
@BLaw Law firm mergers are never, EVER, about the customer — show me one, just one, where rates & matter costs went down — nope, they are about hubris & compensation of partners — they are always a FIGleaf (F*’g Intermediary Aggrandizement)
English
0
0
0
19
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr@CarrNext·
And if you argue that level of comp is required in the war for #LawLand talent, well, that’s a war your customers aren’t asking you to fight
English
0
0
0
49