Business development has a tendency to bring out the best and worst in solicitors – some are very good at it and some are very bad at it. Moreover, it can give rise to some mildly amusing characteristics in law firms, which can quite easily be categorised.

This article takes a light-hearted look at some of these recognisable types. It is hoped that the reader will see at least something of these types in his or her own firm.

The 'partner' syndrome

This type believes business development must be carried out by partners and that they, with all their experience, are sure to have more success than assistant solicitors or legal executives.

While this is often true – to an extent – the point remains that staff below partner level need to be strongly encouraged to develop business, and in some cases, the introduction of a partner to a target at an early stage in a relationship can be seen as overkill and indeed detrimental to the relationship or the development of the relationship. However, it is often the case that partners muscle in on targets once the relationship is established, with a view to becoming the client partner and all that entails, with unfortunate consequences.

The 'cards close to the chest' type

This type believes that disclosing much in the way of information about his/her potential clients, or involving others, means that he/she will lose the credit for an introduction.

There is indeed something to be said for these fears in some firms, but most successful business development is best done through close co-operation with other members of the firm. Hunting in packs is usually more successful than hunting alone.

The 'client hog' type

This a variant of the above type, but a rather different animal. He/she is the type who, once having won new a client, never lets it in to the sight of any other partner, at least in the same field as the work the partner does.

This is a problem symptomatic of many law firms, and is particularly divisive. Most clients like to know that their relationship partner not only has a team below him and has other partners available to do other types of work than that done by their relationship partner, but also there are other partners within the firm who do the same work as their relationship partner.

The 'geek' type

These types are prevalent in most firms. Of course, they have their appeal to some clients, but it is fair to say that most clients like to know that while these types may be invaluable within a firm, there are others that they can speak or deal with. Not all clients appreciate talking shop all the time, however important the size of the firm they instruct or the importance of the work.

The 'impatient' type

For this sort of person, nothing is worth doing unless it achieves instant results. However, it may often take some months (if not years) to develop a target into a worthwhile client. Persistence is a great asset in business development, but one does have to know when to give up on a hopeless cause.

The 'do it all alone' type

This type, while not necessarily over-protective or jealous of his clients, believes that he/she can do business development all alone and does not need any help from a business development professional or other partners. He/she may sometimes be right, but more often than not, he/she is wrong. Generally speaking, input and advice from others is almost always invaluable.

The 'all business development is useless' type

Generalisations in business development are, in most cases, unhelpful. Unfamiliarity with what a business development professional can do and how he or she can assist fee earners is often the root cause of much of this thinking, together perhaps with the naturally sceptical traditional approach of most lawyers.

The 'I am too busy' type

This is a very common syndrome; however, a busy fee- earner who generates lots of contacts and meets lots of new clients by nature of being busy and popular with this work is often one of the best people to under-take business development. Conversely, for the same reasons, the less-than-busy fee earner may be less suited.

The 'I only do business development when not fee earning' type

For the reasons discussed above, surprisingly, business development is probably easiest and best done during the course of busy practice.

The 'business development is not my job; I am only a lawyer' type

Successful business development is just as much the task of the lawyer as the business development professional, and the latter cannot achieve good results without full input from the former.

The 'expense account' type

Everybody will know somebody like this. He/she is the person for whom the business development is merely a prop to a good lunch or time away from the office escaping from irksome colleagues or boring work. No consideration is given to whether the expenditure will produce the desired results in getting in new work, and indeed no thought is given as to whether it is necessary at all.

The 'short pockets' type

He/she may enjoy a good lunch, but that person certainly will not want their firm to pay for it. This is hardly a good way to endear you to potential new clients.

The 'fleeting introductions' type

This is the type whose assistance in getting work for others is perfunctory. He/ she makes introductions to other contacts; not on their own initiative, but only in response to partners, and then does not trouble to arrange a meeting at which he/she is present. He/she merely hands their partner a telephone number to ring with vague directions to introduce themself. It goes without saying that an introduction is not worth much if the introducer does not put much weight into the introduction.

The 'nine to five' type

Successful business development often involves meeting out of hours or at weekends, with not only new clients, but also existing ones on a social or semi-social activities.

The 'I am too embarrassed to discuss fees' type

Quite often, the client does not necessarily want to raise the issue of fees, but he would like the lawyer to raise it with him rather than let the matter go unspoken.

The 'clients come to me' type

No lawyer is ever too well known not to spend more time marketing him or herself or promoting him or herself or their firm. However well known a lawyer is, he/she still needs to convert knowledge of his/her existence and competence and reputation with any potential clients to actual work. This is not necessarily an easy step; merely being well known in any field is not, on its own, enough to win work.

The 'foreign conference' type

This is a variation of the expense account type. He or she sees all useful business development as revolving around attending foreign conferences run in exotic locations for little real purpose other than the entertainment and relaxation of the attendees.

Partners invariably come back from these conferences with glowing reports of the foreign lawyers and clients they have met and accounts and establishment of strong relationships, which usually prove to be sadly unrewarding as to new work.

The 'claim the credit' type

The client partner system used by most firms means that there is usually an abundant supply of partners willing and ready to claim the credit when a new piece of work appears to come in from apparently nowhere.

The 'it's all a black art' type

This is the sort of lawyer who, while having reasonable success in business development himself, is not really willing to communicate his philosophy to others or train others in the skills necessary for business development. Indeed, perhaps he/she does not understand why he/ she is successful in this regard.

In case the reader thinks that the author does not recognise the defects in her own profession but only those in lawyers, the sequel to this article will be a discussion of equally odd characteristics and failings of business development professionals – which it is hoped the reader will also find just as amusing and instructive.

Aneesha Burnell of AB Consulting is an independent consultant with experience in telecoms and the legal sector.