The default is often the partner (or partners) with the biggest book of business with that client. There's a logic to it. But we need to look deeper and address the elephant in the room: when it comes to CRPs we are often trying to institutionalise relationships for the firm from personal relationships that partners have built over time - relationships they would like to maintain if they ever left the firm.
You are balancing individual interest with the collective – albeit the collective also helps the individual. That's the nature of partnerships.
If your CRPs aren't performing how you would like, you need to think about how you best align those interests. They can be aligned, but it needs some deeper thinking and nuance.
What makes a good CRP isn't necessarily the person who's billed that client the most, as they may not be person whose relationship would be best for the firm even if they have the loudest voice and significant political capital.
The key seems to be mapping out what a good relationship with a client would look like, comparing that to your existing relationships, and finding ways to bridge that gap with the partners you have. I've seen situations where multiple partners each think they have the best relationship. This calls for some honest and robust conversations.
Clients don't care about your internal politics. But you need to work through them, remembering we may be asking partners who have built their practice with a single-minded focus on their own book, to suddenly think more broadly and collaboratively - in some ways, to change the very way they've built their practice.
It's a Venn diagram of competing interests. You want to find the overlap. It's there, but often only discovered when taken out of the cut and thrust of day-to-day practice.
Want to think more deeply about your client relationships and firm dynamics?
Book a confidential fit meeting to explore how I can support you in aligning partner incentives and institutionalizing key accounts.