Managing Intellectual
Property publishes league tables for IP firms in
different countries. Sole practitioners are unlikely to be mentioned. The more
clients one has, the more likely it is that a number of clients will recommend
one. One practitioner is likely to have
fewer clients than two -- and two are likely to have fewer clients than four or
five.
A sole practitioner, no matter how effective he or she is, will be
limited by the amount of work he or she can do. In addition to billable work, sole
practitioners and partners in small firms will generally also spend time doing
accounts, marketing and other tasks that are dealt with by dedicated staff in
larger firms. Many sole practitioners do more billable work and earn better
than junior partners with similar experience in a larger firm, but they still
won't rank in the league tables.
In Israel,
the International Business Directory,
Dun & Bradstreet, ranks patent firms only by size. When they publish their
annual rankings, most Israeli business papers base an article on their press
release. The headline in the accompanying newspaper articles usually relates to
leading firms. This means that the smaller firms, no matter how good they are,
will never be mentioned and can't be leading firms (it also explains why fully
or semi-retired staff members have their licences paid for by the firm so that
they can play the numbers game, and why there is more than one patent attorney
with Alzheimer’s that is still listed as practising to make up numbers).
I assume that Dun & Bradstreet rankings for IP firms in other
countries are generated the same way and receive similar press coverage.
Established firms, including small ones, tend to work for a solid
core of regular clients. One does, however, need constantly to try to bring in
new clients, as existing clients do sometimes disappear. Sometimes they run out
of cash. Sometimes they are taken over. Sometimes their patents all issue or
are abandoned. It hardly matters why, but such clients cease to generate work
and need to be replaced. In a recession, and the world seems to have been in one since about
2008, there is less work around. Existing clients often do less IP related
work. New clients typically come in by recommendation, and I am not
convinced that participating in international conferences and holding events
necessarily works. However, I still attend conferences and hold events because
it is fun.
I have a number of nice certificates showing that I have accumulated
academic qualifications, and one stating that I am a licensed practitioner, and
a new one each year showing that I pay my dues. However I don't have trophies
and medals as a leading practitioner since directories rarely assess
practitioners, but rather assess firms. I was, therefore delighted to be
recognized as a Leading Practitioner by a UK based company, ACQ, that publishes
a directory of leading practitioners in which I can take out a full colour
advertisement for a small fee. I can also purchase a trophy with my name
engraved on, or more than one (for office, conference room and mantelpiece). It does seem a little self-indulgent to
purchase such trophies and to pay for an advertisement in a magazine that
no-one reads in order to leave it on one's coffee table in the waiting area.
For the same money we could have a family holiday.
Are clients sufficiently gullible to be taken in by such trophies?
Presumably. After all, the companies offering them have been around for a
while. Someone buys their trophies. I did go into the ACQ website, and can see
that there are patent firms that pay to advertise there.
Posted for Michael Factor by Jeremy
No comments:
Post a Comment