Philip Tate (former sales at LexisNexis, Wolters Kluwer & Salesforce), examined why the legal profession maintains resistance to sales terminology despite fundamentally operating as service businesses dependent on client acquisition. This discussion explored cultural barriers preventing lawyers from embracing structured sales methodologies and emerging solutions reshaping legal business development.
The Cultural Resistance to Sales Terminology
Tate opened by acknowledging lawyers’ preference for “business development” over “sales.” He observed that whilst lawyers resist sales language, they engage in selling activities daily.
“Lawyers may not like to think of themselves as selling services, but in reality, that’s exactly what they’re doing. They often reframe it in their minds as building client relationships rather than making a sale.” Tate explained. “And the truth is, is there any difference? This is not transactional. This is very much about those relationships that you build.”
The Discipline Gap in Legal Business Development
Tate identified specific disciplinary deficiencies undermining effectiveness: “Even down to things like lead qualification, pipeline management, the measurement of the pipeline, being accountable for what you are bringing over the line, and even prospecting.”
Law firms often invest significant resources responding to RFPs without analysing historical success patterns. Tate used the analogy of “chasing the white van” – pursuing opportunities with minimal win probability whilst neglecting systematic qualification processes.
“What very few firms do is analyse that RFP and think we never win business like this. Is it really worth us responding?” he noted.
Proactivity versus Reactivity
The conversation emphasised shifting from reactive to proactive client engagement. Rather than waiting for clients to initiate contact, successful business development requires consistent touchpoints throughout relationships.
“You want to try to be ahead of the RFP, so if you are constantly reaching out to that client with thought leadership or just checking in with how you’re doing,” Tate explained. This proactivity ensures firms remain “front and centre” when clients require services.
Addressing client perceptions of lawyer outreach, Tate acknowledged: “The truth is right now that probably is true that lawyers are contacting them when they’re trying to get a sale.” The solution involves genuine relationship building focused on client value rather than immediate revenue generation.
Technology and Data Integration
Law firms’ fragmented technology infrastructure prevents effective client analysis. Tate emphasised that CRM systems alone cannot solve these challenges: “It’s the underlying platform that you need because technology in the past has been very much standalone and therefore the sharing of data hasn’t been great.”
Without integrated platforms, artificial intelligence cannot effectively support business development efforts or create meaningful client intelligence.
The Cross-Selling Challenge and Partnership Structures
Cross-selling remains problematic due to partnership structures and individual incentives. Tate observed: “I don’t think that firms are great at cross-selling. You’ve gotta move away from the mindset of what’s in it for me, because ultimately you’ve got to rely on other people cross-selling for you as well.”
Traditional partnership structures create tensions between individual autonomy and collective effectiveness. The emergence of Chief Revenue Officer roles provides board-level oversight whilst respecting partner relationships.
Skills and Personnel Challenges
Not all technically excellent lawyers possess interpersonal skills for client relationship management. “Not everybody’s cut out to be in sales or else everybody would be in a sales role,” Tate noted. “There are people that like to sit behind the computer screen that like to read the books but might not necessarily ever be that client facing person.”
He referenced Hogan Lovells’ sales transformation programme as exemplifying systematic embedding of business development capabilities from recruitment through onboarding.
Measurement and Accountability
Traditional billable hour metrics conflict with business development activities requiring time investment without immediate revenue. Tate emphasised: “You’ve gotta find more time, but that’s where it becomes challenging because whilst it’s probably been going on for the last 25 years, this statement around the billable hour is dead. That’s how everybody’s measured.”
Strategic Evolution
The session concluded with recognition that legal firms must embrace sales discipline regardless of terminology preferences. Tate’s final observation: “Call it whatever you like. It doesn’t really have to be called sales, but ultimately I think the way in which businesses are going to evolve is to have that discipline in place through technology to hold you accountable, to make sure that you’ve gone through each of the steps of the sales process from qualification all the way through to closing the deal.”
Success requires systematic approaches to lead qualification, pipeline management, and client relationship maintenance. Firms treating business development as measurable discipline will gain competitive advantages over those maintaining traditional, relationship-dependent approaches.
