In the final section of our five-part article on business development from FICPI Practice Management Committee’s Business Development & Marketing Group, we discover tips that apply no matter the firm’s size
Training attorneys for business development
Across all three perspectives on business development shared in earlier articles, one issue recurs with particular force: firms cannot expect attorneys to become effective at business development without deliberate support.
For Ronelle Geldenhuys with the small-firm viewpoint, that begins with helping younger attorneys understand themselves and the firm they represent. They need to know how to speak about what they do in a way that is meaningful to non-specialists. That means more than technical competence. It means being able to explain relevance, value and distinction.
For Sharad Vadehra from a medium-firm, support includes real exposure. Young attorneys should accompany senior colleagues to meetings, events and conferences. They should see how client relationships are formed, how cultural expectations differ across jurisdictions and how professionals conduct themselves in international settings. Learning by observation and gradual participation is, in his view, essential.
For Dima Litvak, the training issue in a large firm extends beyond attorneys to the relationship between attorneys and BD teams. Larger practices need their practitioners to understand how to use business development support effectively. If attorneys dismiss the function or fail to engage with the systems built around it, even strong BD infrastructure will underperform.
Taken together, these perspectives suggest that firms need a broader concept of professional development. Training should include not only legal, but also communication, positioning, cultural awareness, relationship management and commercial understanding. Business development should not appear as a late-career burden. It should be part of the attorney’s development journey from the beginning.
Who should do the business development work?
This is one of the most difficult structural questions for IP firms. Can business development be delegated to specialist staff, or must it always be attorney-led?
The strongest answer emerging from these perspectives is that it is not an either-or question.
Sharad argues, persuasively, that substantive business development in an IP context is best led by an experienced attorney who understands the subject matter, the clients, the risks and the nuances of technical questions. In a field where credibility and trust are paramount, that is a powerful point.
Dima’s account does not contradict this but refines it. In a large firm, there is substantial value in dedicated BD professionals who support the process, even if they are not the ones leading substantive legal discussions. They can identify prospects, gather data, arrange events, prepare attorneys and improve follow-up. In this sense, attorneys remain responsible for trust and substance, while BD professionals increase reach and efficiency.
This division may be especially useful for firms looking to improve BD without expecting already busy practitioners to do everything themselves. Attorneys cannot entirely outsource business development, but neither should they assume they must perform every part of it unaided.
Business development activities that create real value
Although strategy and culture are dominant themes, several practical business development activities emerged as particularly effective when grounded in clear purpose.
These include attending conferences regularly and using them for real relationship-building rather than mere visibility; travelling with junior attorneys to expose them to clients and market interactions; building referral networks with complementary professionals; using CRM and intelligence tools to target efforts more precisely; creating niche expertise ahead of market demand; and designing client-facing information or intelligence services that move the relationship beyond transactional work.
One of the more subtle points, made by both Phil Cox and Sharad Vadehra, is that some of the best BD outcomes emerge from seemingly incidental moments: a shared taxi, committee work, a dinner after a seminar, an informal conversation that opens the way to a lasting professional relationship. These moments matter, but they are only available to firms and attorneys who are consistently present in the relevant circles.
There is also value in pairing people with complementary strengths. As Ronelle notes, different personalities connect with different kinds of people. A team approach to events and client development can therefore broaden the range of relationships a firm is able to build.
AI and the future of business development
Artificial intelligence is increasingly part of every discussion about the future of professional services, and IP is no exception. Yet these perspectives suggest that AI is more likely to change the context of business development than to displace its fundamentals.
Dima expects firms to become smaller, more efficient and more profitable if they adopt AI successfully. Sharad sees potential for AI to support better understanding of clients and stronger service delivery. Ronelle stresses that attorneys must become familiar with AI tools because those who use them well will have a competitive edge over those who do not.
But none of these views suggests that technology will replace trust. If anything, the opposite may be true. As routine work becomes easier to automate, the human dimensions of client relationships may become even more significant. Clients may increasingly expect not just competent filing or prosecution work, but strategic guidance, anticipation of risk and commercially useful insight.
In that environment, business development may become less about selling legal tasks and more about demonstrating judgement, foresight and the ability to add value beyond process.
Retention, continuity and the fear of losing trained people
Any serious discussion of business development eventually reaches the question of retention. If firms invest heavily in training attorneys and supporting BD teams, what happens when those individuals leave?
The answer offered across these perspectives is realistic rather than idealistic. Yes, people may leave. The market is mobile and loyalty cannot be assumed. But this does not justify withholding investment. Instead, firms need to build cultures in which people feel valued, included and able to see a future.
This applies not only to attorneys, but also to BD professionals. If business development staff are treated as peripheral support rather than integral contributors, they are less likely to stay and less likely to succeed. If younger attorneys see no path to advancement or no genuine role in the firm’s future, they too will look elsewhere.
Continuity, therefore, is not simply a human resources issue. It is part of business development itself. Clients notice when firms retain people, preserve institutional knowledge and maintain stable relationships over time.
Conclusion
The journey from survival-mode relationship-building to data-driven institutional strategy is not inevitable, but it is recognisable, and the firms that navigate it most successfully are those that begin preparing for the next stage before they have left the current one. What the three company perspectives show most clearly is that business development is shaped by scale but not defined by it. Small firms experience BD in highly personal and immediate terms. Mid-sized firms must translate founder energy into systems, culture and continuity. Large firms need structure, analytics and a willingness to change.
For all sizes of firms, core essentials hold true for business development success, they must:
- Build genuine relationships.
- Train their people early.
- Create habits of consistent action.
- Align strategy with execution.
- Use tools and data without losing sight of trust.
- Understand that business development is not a separate activity performed occasionally by a chosen few.
At its best, business development is part of how an IP firm understands itself, presents itself and sustains itself. It is not just about winning the next instruction. It is about building the kind of practice that clients want to return to, that talented professionals want to remain in and that can continue to thrive in a changing market.
Read on
- In part one, read the business development consultant’s view
- In part two, read the small-firm viewpoint
- Part three brings the medium-firm perspective
- Part four reveals the larger-firm experience
- Part five brings the essential lessons and takeaways every firm should master (this part)
Next steps
Find out more about FICPI’s PMC Committee and how to get involved at: https://ficpi.org/organisation/committees/practice-management-committee
Image posed by models