header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 October 2008
Issue: 7343 / Categories: Opinion , Employment
printer mail-detail

Arresting development

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Chris Parr details how to win clients and influence people

Law firms seem to assume that all partners are, to some extent or another, “rain makers”. Each partner is required to devote a certain amount of time to winning new business. However, partners are the highest rated fee earners in the firm and so taking them off fee-earning is not wholly sensible.
Skill-set

If the partner is good at marketing and selling (two very different skills) then there are fewer issues. But what of the partner who is a great lawyer, with the rainmaking skills of a box? The firm might relieve those partners of their marketing duty. However, this means that those who do have the right skills must take on more work and more responsibility for the future of the firm.

This approach is storing up a further problem. If a firm relies on a few partners to bring in the bulk of the work, what happens if one or more of them stop working for the firm? There are many reasons why that will happen

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll