What Law Firm BD Programs Get Wrong - And What It Means for Innovation Teams

Legal industry consultant Patrick Moran published a piece this week documenting four real cases of law firms that built well-intentioned business development programs and watched them collapse. The original reporting is worth reading directly - you can find ithere. The short version: a co-pay model that punished rainmakers, a reimbursement structure that killed fourth-quarter activity, a mandatory sales rep program that partners quietly refused to use, and an eleven-page application process that made BD funding feel more political than accessible. Four firms, four different structures, one consistent outcome.

Moran's conclusion is one we recognize: most law firms don't fail at business development because attorneys resist growth. They fail because the systems they build quietly teach attorneys to avoid it.

The same logic applies directly to legal innovation and technology initiatives, and it shows up in the talent market in ways that are worth naming clearly.

The Structure Problem Is Not Unique to BD

A firm can commit real resources to building out a legal tech or innovation function and still end up with an initiative that stalls, loses internal credibility, or cannot retain the people hired to lead it. The failure modes Moran documents in BD - access to resources that feels political, role structures that create friction rather than removing it, approval processes that exhaust the people they are meant to support - are not limited to BD programs. They show up wherever a firm builds a new initiative and then wonders why participation is low and the early hires keep leaving.

What makes innovation and legal tech roles particularly vulnerable is that the professionals who are best at this work have real market options. They are not choosing between a broken innovation function and unemployment. They are choosing between your firm and another environment where they will have genuine mandate, visible internal support, and a structure that was actually designed to let them succeed. The firms that get this right understand that the design of the initiative, not just its funding, is what determines whether it can attract and hold the talent it needs.

What We See in the Market

The candidates we work with who focus on legal innovation and technology roles ask a set of questions in the evaluation process that map closely to what lateral partners ask about BD infrastructure. Who actually has decision-making authority on this team? What does resource access look like in practice? How much internal credibility does the function have with firm leadership and with the attorneys it is meant to serve? What happened to the person who held this role before?

Those questions are not cynicism. They reflect experience. Legal tech and innovation professionals who have worked inside firms that built initiatives without solving the structural questions know exactly what it looks like when a well-funded program quietly stalls. They have learned to evaluate for it.

Firms that can answer those questions with specifics, with recent examples, clear reporting lines, and a concrete account of what mandate actually means day to day, close searches faster and with candidates who stay. Firms that answer in generalities tend to see offers declined or short tenures after the fact, and both outcomes are expensive.

Getting the Talent Side Right

Getting the structure right before a search opens matters more than most firms account for. That includes being honest about what seniority level actually matches the mandate, how the team is positioned internally, and whether the conditions exist for the person you hire to succeed in a way that is visible to the firm.

If you are building out a legal tech or innovation team and want a more grounded conversation about what the market looks like and what high-functioning teams are actually doing, you can reach us atonwardinnovation.ai.

This piece was informed by "How 4 Firms Accidentally Shut Down Business Development," Patrick Moran, BTI Consulting, May 27, 2026. His original reporting is recommended reading.