Ambiguity Impedes Corporate Lawyers
Here’s the biggest complaint about clients — especially tech startups — that I hear from lawyers who practice corporate law and securities law: They can’t articulate their value propositions (their brands).
This cloud of ambiguity will waste billable time and yield suboptimal results — causing unnecessary tension between you and your client. Worse, the client may blame you and hire another lawyer.
Don’t tolerate ambiguity. Encourage your clients to fix their brands, to get clarity. Send them to me.
By the same token, make sure that you communicate clearly, without jargon, to your client. Do not contribute to the cloud of ambiguity.
|
Former US Solicitor General Theodore Olsen wrote: “Legalese is jargon. All professions have it. All professions use it as a substitute for thinking, and they all use it in a way that makes them appear to be superior. Actually, they appear to be buffoons for using it. The legal profession may be the worst of all professions in using jargon. It’s not necessary to communicate that way. You’re really not communicating, and you’re not really thinking.” |
Benefits
The stronger your client company’s brand, the more success it will enjoy — and the easier and faster it can pay your legal bills.
|
A brand conveys clearly, concisely, compellingly, and memorably:
NOTE: If explanations for the aforementioned are murky, nebulous, ambiguous, jargon-filled, and technology-centric, your clients have failed at branding. |
Companies tend to describe themselves generically and functionally (“we manufacture widgets” or “we’re a software company”) instead of articulating the value — in customer language — that they deliver.
This makes it difficult for you to help your clients:
|
Branding Basics
