Do firms need rainmakers or team players?

As much as they'd like to say otherwise, most law firms let their rainmakers have free rein. They can handpick their own teams, keep their client relationships close-knit, and make their own business plans without interference.

This works well if the revenue is flowing, but if they leave, the impact can be catastrophic.

Law firm partner moves in London went up 21% year-on-year, according to new data from City of London recruitment firm Edwards Gibson, surpassing the previous record set just last year. The research found Paul Hastings lost nearly a third of their UK partnership, including high-profile teams, while A&O Shearman and Kirkland & Ellis also lost a number of well-established partners.

Scott Gibson, Co-founder and Director of Edwards Gibson, has placed hundreds of partners at top UK and US firms over the last three decades. The rainmaker model has evolved noticeably over that time, he believes.

Inside larger firms, it is not uncommon to lose 15-20 partners a year. Over-reliance on the rainmaker model creates concentration risk, says Gibson, who was called to the bar in 1997 at Goldsmith Chambers before he moved into legal headhunting.

"Clients, revenues, and teams can walk very quickly if a key individual leaves or slows down."

Dominic Offord, Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution at Howard Kennedy, says dependence on individual rainmakers depends on the nature of law you practice and the clients you work for.

Yet the impact AI is having on legal work is undeniable. There's a growing shift towards more collaborative knowledge management and client management.

Our survey of 500+ private practice lawyers throughout the UK and Ireland found only 6% of firms are completely reliant on a handful of individuals, while 14% are heavily reliant.

The majority of respondents said they are moderately (34%), slightly (23%) or not at all reliant (18%) on rainmakers.

Emma Danks, Head of UK Corporate at Taylor Wessing, says her firm is valuing collaboration, client leadership, creativity, and innovation over pure technical output.

Jagdip Panesar, Global Head of Partner Development and Coaching at Clifford Chance, says:

This shift is also having an impact on the requirements of leadership teams.

Leaders must ensure that technology enhances, rather than erodes, the firm’s core values and sense of community, warns Panesar.

Danks says leaders will need the ability to orchestrate teams of people, and their understanding of the latest legal technology will be essential.

"Future leaders will stand out through their capacity to guide clients through increasingly complex issues."

Tony Randle, Director of Client Tech and Service Improvement at Shoosmiths, says AI will drive firms to centralise and codify know-how, shifting it from individual memory into shared systems accessible to everyone.

"This not only enables AI to apply knowledge consistently but also elevates firmwide quality by making the collective experience of hundreds of lawyers available to each individual."

Gibson remains skeptical of this shift.

"Collaboration is a longstanding aspiration for all Big Law firms, but at the top end, hiring behaviour remains largely unchanged. Firms pay top dollar for portable books of business."

When making lateral hires, Gibson recommends finding partners who will build up the knowledge of the firm.

While rainmakers still generate most of the revenue, Offord says the expectation is increasingly a "firm first" rather than "individual first" approach to work generation, which helps de-risk the business.

"You can't risk the firm's success on a one-way bet. Much like in football, a star player may demonstrate individualistic behaviours that diminish the overall effectiveness of the team, have off-periods, or depart to a competitor."

James Knight, the CEO of revenue-sharing platform firm Keystone Law, says the role of the rainmaker has never been more important.

"AI will make certain tasks easier and quicker, particularly those undertaken by more junior lawyers, but I do not expect to see AI affecting the importance of a good working relationship between the instructing client and its lawyer. This is the basis of trust and the foundation of all instructions that subsequently flow."

Interestingly, smaller firms are far more likely to admit a stronger dependency on rainmakers, with 11% revealing complete reliance and 21% heavy reliance.

One associate at a small-sized firm said:

Another associate told us key-person dependency is necessary for accountability, but also noted that law firms suffer culturally when the focus is on a select number of individuals and not the firm as a whole.

Yet not all lawyers at smaller firms felt this way. Bilal Farooq, Director of Luton-based law firm Greystone Solicitors, says AI can be used to increase collaboration and knowledge-sharing.

"Firms that use AI well will see stronger collaboration across teams, as lawyers spend less time researching and more time working together on strategy and client outcomes."

The term "rainmaker" has, in the professional services field anyway, a get-away-with-murder reputation. Yet in the practice of the law, where trust is the glue to any client relationship, the rainmaker model will most likely continue to stick. That said, the focus does need to shift away from the individual, and even the firm. Because many, it seems, are missing the mark when it comes to the needs of the client.

Do in-house counsel hire the individual or the firm?

Like a growing number of other in-house counsel, Alessandro Galtieri has absolutely no qualms saying it like it is.

A good example:

Yes, blunt, but also rather refreshing.

Whether he's on a panel discussion or in an interview, the Deputy General Counsel of Colt Technology Services is part of a now well-established breed of somewhat outspoken in-house legal counsel - Cheryl Gale, Andrew Cooke, Natalie Salunke and Candice Donnelly being other examples.

I hire the partner, says Galtieri, but I renew with the platform.

We need firms that embed with us like a supply chain partner, he says, and while he would consider moving with a trusted partner to a new firm, it will take real evidence to switch.

Corporates need in-house legal leaders that can think commercially, drive innovation forward, and act as the ethical epicentres of the business. The key challenge holding most back is an exhaustive workload.

Successfully showcasing the potential value of the in-house legal function means taking on more work. Effectively promoting the impact of that work means taking on more work. Advocating for legal to have a voice in the boardroom, again, means taking on more work.

When in-house counsel were asked how colleagues would describe their team, more than a quarter said supportive but overstretched (27%). In addition, 11% said reliable but cautious, 5% said traditional and siloed, and 3% said reactive and hard to access.

A significant number of respondents said their department is viewed as commercially-minded and collaborative (28%), or strategic business partners (9%), but it's a far cry from the O-shaped pinnacle many are aspiring to reach.

In-house counsel have a strong interest in creating dashboards to track legal and risk issues. Around 40% say this should be a priority, but only 26% are currently doing it. Another key priority is setting rules and safeguards for AI tools and products. Around 40% want to focus on this and about 40% already do, indicating that AI governance is already embedded in legal teams’ roles but will become even more strategic.

Despite these ambitions, much of legal teams’ time is still spent on traditional compliance and regulatory work. Checking data use and privacy in digital projects is currently done by just over 50% of teams, although only around one-third see it as a priority going forward. Similarly, managing regulatory risks in supply chains and automation is handled by just under 50% of teams, but only around 30% want to focus on it.

AI will free up more time for junior lawyers to add more value as strategic advisers, says in-house legal leader, Candice Donnelly, who formerly was the Director of Legal, Corporate at Skyscanner.

"This isn't just legal knowledge but commercial judgment, business insight, and the ability to add clear direction into complex situations."

AI does not replace those strengths, but it can create more space for them to shine by taking on the more mechanical work, she believes.

While trusted individuals still open doors, productised legal solutions built on consistency, scalability and measurable outcomes may soon become the deciding factor in who wins and keeps in-house work.

Can the legal profession be productised?

If you are ever in need of a good catch-22, look no further than the law firm partnership track.

Law firms invest years of training and mentorship into their people, helping them build a book of business. Yet once they’ve done just that, those same people have everything they need to leave: clients, credibility, and a proven track record. It’s a business model that essentially trains its own competition.

So, with lateral hiring on the rise and AI enabling lawyers to streamline workflows, many firms are looking at alternative ways of growing revenue.

Offord from Howard Kennedy says lawyers will need to look for new revenue streams by leveraging their proprietary information and experience.

The most common additions to traditional legal services include knowledge and training subscriptions (48%), technology and automation tools (40%), operations and compliance consulting (25%), and data and insight products (17%).

An associate at a small-sized law firm said many lawyers are exploring productised legal services like automated compliance tools, contract lifecycle platforms, and subscription-based knowledge hubs.

"This approach scales expertise, creates recurring revenue streams and frees lawyers to focus on bespoke, high-value advisory work," they said.

One in-house counsel said AI is making it increasingly difficult to justify expensive law firm fees for routine work, but suggests technology consulting would be advantageous.

"Many in-house legal teams require support with legal tech transformation projects."

Alessandro Galtieri, the Deputy General Counsel at Colt, says he values signal over noise.

"I expect firms to help separate what matters from what doesn’t by horizon scanning with discipline, not hype. That’s usually a product of good systems, not individual brilliance."

Danks of Taylor Wessing says client expectations are evolving as AI opens up new possibilities.

Addressing the question posed earlier - Can the legal profession be productised? - the answer is an obvious no, but you already knew that.

Yet even the biggest technophobes in the profession could surely point to areas of the law or certain aspects of their roles that could be productised?

UK law firms have seen a big spike in private equity investment. Over the past five years, private equity investors have poured nearly £1.2bn into law firms, with an estimated £534 million recorded in 2024 alone, according to figures published by Acquira. Some noteworthy examples include the acquisition of Nelsons Solicitors and Slater Heelis by Lawfront Group, and the acquisition of the UK’s largest family law firm, Stowe, by Investcorp.

Private equity can provide firms with much-needed capital for AI, technology, and expansion, shifting the focus from traditional partnership models to corporate, efficiency-driven structures.

Yet interestingly, Gibson says private capital means that plenty of elite firms still continue to reward individualistic rainmakers who are often far from being team players.

Firms should think carefully about their strategic direction, and consider the knock-on effects each decision will have. Investing in a suite of legal products, for example, might appeal to some clients yet diminish trust for others. In the same light, a team-wide approach to client management might help one firm to drive greater collaboration and upselling opportunities, yet result in fractured relationships and miscommunication with another.