Relationship management

By Todd Burlingame, Client Relations Manager, Morrison & Foerster

Many law firms talk about client service, so we wanted to find out what firms were doing about it.

Earlier this year, we conducted a survey of law firms to learn more about the structure and prevalence of formal key client programmes (KCPs) with designated staff focused on building deeper relationships with strategically important clients.

Our own client relations group was created in 2008 to implement a KCP within the firm, so we were keen to find out how many firms have these programmes, how they are staffed, and whether they use client teams.

It is particularly helpful to learn about some of the common practices utilised in KCPs across firms because, presumably, those are the approaches that are working. The discussion of our survey results below focuses on the common themes we noted among respondents that have KCPs.

The survey was sent to 52 law firms and received responses from 30 firms. The range in law firm size for survey respondents was from 350+ to almost 4,000 attorneys, with a median size of 900 attorneys.

Survey findings

There are many interesting findings from the survey and several similarities in approach to KCPs.

We found that 80 per cent of the respondents have KCPs and many firms use similar criteria in choosing clients for participation in their KCPs. Current and potential revenue generation, strategic position, and synergy with firm strategies are commonly cited as reasons for selecting certain clients to participate. Two firms also mention “interest in participation by the relationship partner” as a factor in client selection.

Unsurprisingly, the relationship partner’s active and enthusiastic participation in the programme can be one of the most important factors in the success of the key client team. If relationship partners do not actively participate in the programme, it is difficult to move forward on team goals
and objectives.

Most firms describe their KCP goals using terminology consistent with the following ideas: “to develop stronger, mutually satisfying client relationships”, “to deepen our relationships with key clients”, “to improve client service”, “to expand the amount and type of work we provide to our key clients” and “to grow revenue”.

The way KCPs are structured to achieve these goals, however, varies somewhat among firms. Although almost all firms use client teams as part of their programmes, there is a wide variation in the number of clients included in each programme.

The 17 firms that responded on this topic reveal a median of about 30 clients per programme. Consistent with the divergent number of participating clients, the number of client teams at firms also varies, with most firms reporting between 20 and 50 teams.

Interestingly, the size of client teams varies from between three and 25 team members, with an average of about eight members per client team.

A significant percentage have non-practicing attorneys on their programme staff. Of the 17 firms which utilise client teams, 13 have partners, staff and non-partner attorneys on client teams, three have partners and staff, and only one firm has partners only. Assigning programme staff members to individual client teams is the norm among respondents: 15 out of 16 respondents follow this practice. No firms report having consultants or freelancers in the programme.

Almost all respondents report that their KCP is part of another department, predominately marketing and/or business development.

Curiously enough, of the 18 firms that answered the question on the age of their KCP, eight have programmes which are one to three years old, seven are three to five years old, and two are more than five years old.

Of the six firms that do not have a programme, four are considering one. This data seems to indicate a growing trend in adopting KCPs as a way to manage and deepen important client relationships.

To see how these programmes are managing and evolving over time, we plan to conduct follow-up surveys in the coming years. Stay tuned.

The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Kelly Brown to this article.

Copyright & permissions