lawyer + client: is it a transaction or a relationship?
About a year ago, I read and really enjoyed David Maister’s book, The Trusted Advisor. So, I was happy to see Gerry Riskin’s recent post linking to Maister’s article Do You Really Want Relationships? In that piece, Maister details the differences between business transactions and business relationships, positing that most professionals (read lawyers) embrace the latter approach to client interaction. In transaction-based affiliations, the professional acts as an expert by taking the reins from the client and declaring: “Leave this to me, I’ll get you the result you want.” The expert wants “the client to cede authority to the warrior to do battle as she or he sees fit.” This stands in sharp contrast to the relationship-minded advisor who strives to add “guidance, input, and counseling to the client’s own thought and decision-making processes. The client retains control and responsibility at all times; the advisor’s role is subordinate to this, not that of a prime mover.” Maister acknowledges the strong draw of the transaction, particularly for the many professionals who “find comfort in the rational, the logical, or the analytical.” But, he says, most clients would “prefer to hire a true advisor if they could find someone skilled in taking that approach.” He also asserts that, ultimately, transactions “are not in the best long-term interests of either professional or client.” Maister then suggests ways to transition from client transactions to client relationships. However the transition is made, he concludes, we must “put the client’s interest first and keep the faith that this relationship-building act will be repaid through future reciprocity.” Maister makes many great points. Echoing his message is this post from Jim Calloway citing The Ten Commandments of Good Client Relationships (pdf).
