It’s a truth (semi) universally accepted that BD rarely disappears because lawyers don’t care about it.
In fact, in my experience, it’s often the opposite. BD tends to become extremely important to lawyers at around six years PQE, particularly if they have partner aspirations. That’s usually the point at which questions about progression, visibility, and long-term trajectory start to feel very real.
In most firms, people understand why BD matters. They’ve sat through the sessions, nodded along to the strategy, and genuinely want to get involved and do their bit.
And yet, when work ramps up, BD is still the first thing to drop.
What if the problem isn’t motivation, but design?
What if we’re inadvertently setting overwhelmed associates and junior partners up to fail?
Where BD actually breaks down
In my experience, the cracks tend to show up in three places:
1. Team-level priorities are unclear (or unrealistic)
BD is often positioned as important, but not prioritised.
People are given long lists of things they ‘should’ be doing, without any real sense of the sequence, impact, or what actually matters most at their level.
I’ve worked with senior associates who were trying to develop 15 different BD tactics at once. Articles, LinkedIn, networking, internal visibility, referrals, sector work, pitches — all while already stretched by fee-earning work.
Interestingly, their first question was never “how do I do all of this?”
It was always: what do I do first?
That tells me motivation isn’t the issue — if anything, the opposite is true.
And when no one can meaningfully answer the “what do I do first?” question, BD stops being energising and becomes more like paralysing.
So everything grinds to a halt.
2. There’s little education on what actually works
Many lawyers are asked to “do BD” without ever being shown how it fits into real working lives.
As a result, teams often default to activity that looks strategic on paper but is hard to sustain in practice.
Campaigns are a good example of this.
Campaigns sound proactive and look impressive in plans and reports. But they’re also difficult to run when people are already working 12–15 hour days. They require coordination, momentum, and headspace.
When pressure hits, they understandably stall.
Meanwhile, some of the simplest and most effective BD activity, such as staying in touch with clients, following up after matters, having decent, human conversations, is overlooked because it doesn’t feel like a ‘proper’ initiative.
3. BD isn’t broken down at individual level, or tailored to the individual
Even where teams have a clearer sense of what ‘good’ BD looks like in theory, many lawyers still struggle to translate ‘do BD’ into activity that feels manageable or appropriate for them.
Common questions come up again and again:
– Is it OK to reach out to intermediaries that are already known by others in the team?
– Should I be trying to emulate what a rainmaker partner does, even if it feels awkward or a bit too soon?
– What’s expected of me now, as opposed to later in my career?
In some cases, that uncertainty is reinforced by what people see around them. Partners may be well-intentioned, but BD is often treated as something to be tightly controlled. Client relationships are ‘owned’, intermediaries are protected, and junior lawyers are expected to observe rather than initiate.
For an associate or senior associate, that can create tension: am I being proactive, or am I overstepping? When permission isn’t explicit, risk-averse lawyers will more often than not choose caution, simply because they don’t want to get it wrong.
There’s also a human reality here. Most lawyers aren’t trying to become high-profile rainmakers overnight. They’re trying to do a good job, protect their reputation, and progress sensibly. When the only visible examples of BD are loud, senior, or highly extroverted, many people conclude that BD simply isn’t “for them” yet.
That’s not a personal failing. It’s an education gap.
It’s an opportunity for firms, partners, and BD teams to work with individuals to define BD activity that fits their role, personality, and stage of career — rather than expecting everyone to mirror the same behaviours.
If firms want BD to stick, it has to work for different personalities, energy levels, and career stages — not just those who are most confident or outspoken.
What actually helps BD survive pressure
The teams that manage to keep BD going don’t do so by pushing harder or asking for more, they get clearer.
In practice, that often looks like agreeing a small number of BD activities that cannot be dropped, even when work is heavy.
For example:
- three priority clients who always warrant a check-in
- one visible piece of activity, such as a LinkedIn post tied to an event or matter
- two personal messages to key contacts to invite them into a conversation
Not everything runs all the time, but there are no zero-BD weeks – i.e. you don’t drop BD and then pick up when your diary is clearer.
At individual level, people are supported to translate BD into specific, bite-sized actions that fit around real workloads — not aspirational plans that only work in quiet periods.
And BD stops being treated as something separate from client work. When it’s framed as part of how relationships are developed and maintained, rather than an extra task competing for attention, it’s far more likely to make the cut.
The uncomfortable (but much needed) truth
BD doesn’t fall to the wayside because lawyers don’t care enough. It falls to the wayside because it’s often designed for ideal conditions, delivered in abstract terms, and expected to survive without enough structure or support.
If firms want more consistent engagement — particularly earlier in people’s careers — the answer isn’t more pressure or more rainmaker stories.
It’s clearer priorities, better education, and BD activity that fits the reality of the busy legal industry rather than fighting against it.
