A well-respected law firm CMO asked me recently: “What makes an effective business development plan for a lawyer?”

At first blush, that seems like a simple question, but the more I thought about it, the less simple it became. I’d be curious to hear others’ views, but I ultimately landed here: An effective business development plan acknowledges the complexity of law firm sales and sweats the details. Call it sales management.

To understand why detail-management matters so much, it helps to look at how sales experts define what we’re dealing with. Miller Heiman, one of the pioneering professional-services sales organizations, defines a complex sale this way (my paraphrasing): it unfolds over months or even years, involves multiple stakeholders, and requires hundreds of interdependent actions. Those actions must be identified, sequenced correctly, and completed on time. Miss or delay one step, and the pursuit can stall. Miss steps often enough, and the whole effort can crater. That’s why, in my opinion, accountability in complex sales must be binary. Every participant is given defined responsibilities, and for each, performance is judged simply by this: You had a task. Did you do it, yes or no?

Consider some of those hundreds of interdependent actions. Did you:

• Make the phone call?
• Complete a business and competitive intelligence dossier?
• Schedule the conference room?
• Notice and share information about an industry development?
• Monitor the client’s stock price today?
• Give to the client’s favorite charity?

Each task is small on its own. Together, they create a level of complexity that demands expert management. No matter how capable or motivated they are, most lawyer ... and, candidly, most professional staff under current firm structures ... don’t have the bandwidth, specialized expertise, or temperament required to oversee undertakings of this scale. But it would be wise to understand and emulate how parallel organizations have addressed the need.

For years, the Big Four accounting firms and major management consulting firms have employed client-facing senior sales managers whose sole job is to oversee complex pursuits and client expansions. These are not junior coordinators, but rather seasoned professionals who design pursuit strategy, sequence actions, assign responsibilities, and enforce deadlines.

Under this scenario, partners, as owners of the business, remain responsible for the legal work and for the overall pursuit, but execution is tightly managed by sales experts and business administrators.

Law firms are now edging in the same direction. Some have invested in client or pursuit managers or senior BD leadership. Others are experimenting at the practice-group level. The direction of travel is clear: complexity demands professional management.

What Most Firms Can Do Right Now

Most firms don’t have Big Four-style sales leadership, and likely won’t anytime soon. But that doesn’t mean they’re stuck. Firm leadership can dramatically improve outcomes by introducing structure and discipline through four practical steps.

First, appoint a pursuit owner. Every major opportunity should have one person responsible for execution: someone who sweats the details and tracks tasks, deadlines, and dependencies. And, if possible, that person should be someone other than an attorney, given the client-service responsibilities that only lawyers can provide and which can create bottlenecks impairing the entire pursuit.

Second, standardize pursuit playbooks. Define required steps for complex opportunities: research, stakeholder mapping, content development, internal reviews, and follow-ups. Make them mandatory and uniform across the firm so that all personnel speak the same sales language.

Third, make accountability explicit. Tasks should be assigned to named individuals with deadlines and measurable outcomes that can be answered “yes” or “no.” No shared ownership. No ambiguity.

Fourth, review every major pursuit. Not just wins and losses, but process shortcomings and successes. Of course, examine what didn’t work: missed steps, unclear ownership, stalled momentum. Then, make room for celebration of what DID work: timely internal reviews, strong cross-practice collaboration, early client engagement, or crisp follow-up execution.

This last point deserves emphasis: professionals involved in the grueling nature of large campaigns can become discouraged during long pursuits. Recognizing successful completion of interim tasks (even seemingly the smallest ones) and moving one step forward at a time creates positive energy, builds momentum, and reinforces the belief that a signed engagement letter, even if still months away, is achievable. Process reviews aren’t just about fixing problems; they’re about sustaining the human beings doing the work.

The Outsourcing Option

Increasingly, firms are outsourcing parts of this work. Standard pursuit components, such as research, competitive intelligence, pitch coordination, CRM hygiene, and even door-opening and pursuit management, can be handled by external specialists. For firms that cannot justify full-time senior sales leadership, outsourcing provides access to the same discipline, absent the headcount. It allows firms to professionalize their sales execution before making permanent investments. And it allows resource-constrained firms, especially small and middle-market firms, to compete effectively as never before.

Artificial Intelligence tools are accelerating this trend. External partners can now leverage AI to accelerate research synthesis, improve consistent competitive monitoring, and streamline CRM maintenance—tasks that once required significant staff time. However, the strategic judgment calls—which opportunities to pursue, how to position against competitors, when to escalate client engagement—still require experienced human oversight. The firms seeing the best results are those combining AI efficiency with seasoned pursuit management, whether in-house or outsourced.

Why BD Plans Fail

Understanding what makes plans effective means recognizing what makes them fail. The most common failure modes I’ve observed include pursuit ownership that’s shared (which means no one owns it), playbooks that exist but aren’t enforced, accountability structures that allow “partial credit” rather than demanding yes-or-no answers, and reviews that only happen after wins or losses rather than continuously throughout pursuits.

The bottom line: the most important component of business development effectiveness is understanding the complexity of law firm sales efforts and ensuring that pursuits and client expansions are guided by discipline and management. The specific mechanism—whether Big Four-style sales leadership, the pursuit of owners with standardized playbooks, or outsourced specialists supported by AI—matters less than the commitment to professional execution.

I’d be interested in other perspectives. What, to you, characterizes effective business development planning? What makes it work…or not?