emailfacebookinstagrammenutwitterweiboyoutube

Georgie Hall, partner, mediator and collaborative lawyer at Prettys Solicitors


Talk it over

Georgie Hall, partner, mediator and collaborative lawyer at Prettys Solicitors, on how its innovative ‘Talking Works’ case resolution method results in happy clients and makes commercial sense

Georgie Hall, partner, mediator and collaborative lawyer|Prettys Solicitors|

Q What’s the Talking Works method?

A With Talking Works, we match the client to a solution method designed specifically for that client, having listened to what is important. Mediation, collaborative, kitchen table and roundtable work are used alongside traditional methods. Professionals such as financial advisers, accountants and family counsellors can also be involved at an early stage. The component package is based on the needs of the client. For example, roundtable is different from collaborative discussion: with collaborative, the rules are pre-set and specific, whereas with roundtable you design the rules to fit the need.

Q What are the benefits of the process?

A Traditionally, when a client comes in, solicitors have been taught to assess the legal position and offer a legal package. Talking Works allows us to be responsive to the individual’s needs. Some clients have a good relationship with their partner and don’t want solicitors to increase the formality or create communication issues. For example, they would like to resolve problems themselves, but don’t feel confident that they’ve taken everything into account. In these cases, I say, ‘Let’s talk through the issues and give you the legal framework so that we can work out what’s sensible for you to be dealing with directly. One aspect may need legal intervention, so when you get to that point, we’ll do that, but you can handle the rest yourself, touching base as you need.’

Q What was the main driver behind Talking Works? Wouldn’t traditional mediation be enough?

A We introduced the method in 2009 and it was a responsive situation – driven by the market. The perspective of a lawyer being all-powerful was disappearing and people were asking, ‘Why can’t I resolve issues differently?’ Sometimes mediation alone won’t fit client needs – for example, there may be a confidence issue.

Q Can it be used with other types of legal work?

A Yes, and this is my passion!
Prettys intend to roll out Talking Works across other areas, such as employment. You have an employee and an
employer – who wouldn’t want a more constructive conclusion? Your conclusion will either be that you’ve converted the problem and retained the employee, or that the relationship wasn’t a good fit. The more constructive the process, the less angry they will be. The process can also help with corporate cases. If, instead of escalating and litigating arguments between shareholders, we work with them in a discursive process, their business won’t suffer as much damage.

Q Have you experienced any drawbacks to Talking Works?

A One point that you have to check is that the other person will react cooperatively. Before the first meeting, I get information from my client about the personalities involved, to be as informed as possible. You need a review process because things might not work out like you think they will. For example, if one person is not providing proper disclosure, you cannot properly consider financial division. If the situation is not resolvable, we cannot use a discursive  process because it won’t achieve a fair outcome. Some solicitors might not like working in the Talking Works way because it puts them under pressure, so you have to think about the training you provide. Everybody in our team is trained as a mediator, and two of us are trained collaboratively.

Q It sounds like a real win for clients, but what about the impact on profitability?

A You have to have a fresh attitude toward fees. If you work in one way, you could earn £10,000 in fees. If you work in a way that’s best for a particular client, you might only earn £4,000 but that client will tell others to come to you. The person charged £10,000 might think the result is expensive and that process has been applied to them as opposed to created for them. Charging more for one case doesn’t necessarily make commercial sense. I finished a case for a client in 1997, and she recommends a client to me at least twice a year. When I’ve done training for other lawyers on this, I’ve explained that they need to think ‘differently commercially’, it’s not about ‘don’t think commercially’.

This article can be found in LPM October: Process apping

LPM Conference 2024

The LPM annual conference is the market-leading event for management leaders in SME law firms

ESG, a priority?

Are ESG policies a burden or do they go a long way for SME firms?