On the 4th February 2020, the night before the annual Private Client Forum Americas, we invited our members to discuss ‘Client relationships in 2020,’ over dinner.

This is a topic that is a lynchpin on perception within the industry and with clients. It is a question of balancing common law with fiduciary law – and questioning, in the light of society as it stands, how do clients really view their advisors? True, more often than not, private client lawyers have diverse interests and dynamism with clients – but those relationship factors are not new. How can we ensure those relationships survive in the wake of new areas of law – particularly with modern families and the shifting of traditional familial roles? Do we need to develop a new USP?

The conversation mainly condensed into two main strands: first- the tectonic shifts in the social sphere of the 21st century and how they affect the law, and second – how to deal with them, both in delivering advice and relationship maintenance.

The first topic which our members considered, and the general theme of the entire dinner, was the aging of clients and the shift between generations. One noted that they were used to their older clients, but the world is changing and those clients will be replaced by the younger generation if they haven’t already. From the Next Generation viewpoints, the field of wealth management is anachronistic. “We need to groom the next generation of clients,” it was argued, “or we will lose their children, and their grandchildren, until we are no longer relevant or relatable.”

This generation are reliant on technology in a way that is unprecedented. When thinking outside the box, having a moral compass, and sticking to a specialty don’t make a difference – is it technology that will offer the private client lawyer of the 21st century an edge? One delegate replied in the affirmative – if it’s solutions based, it can be used to enhance client touchpoints. Either way, technology cannot be rejected entirely, it must be moulded to fit the lawyer’s systems and practices or it will quickly displace them – even if it’s something as simple as using WhatsApp to communicate. However, with this shift in how advice is delivered, it’s important to establish boundaries and to waive what once would have been ‘responsibility fees’.

This shift from one generation to another naturally brings about other societal changes that affect the private client lawyer. A member posed the question: can laws be codified to represent a society that is changing as quickly as ours, with such a level of public scrutiny (from social media, tabloid journalism and so on), in a way that we can keep up? For a generation that relies on non-binary, sliding scales of identity, this might be a key question in the retaining of younger clients.

The main focus at this point of the conversation is on family law – the evolution of relationships, the increase of co-habitation and non-traditional families – these all bring about seismic shifts to how the private client lawyer approaches their clients. It has already led to an enormous increase of pre-nuptial agreements, co-habitation and so on – it is up to trust and estates to collaborate to fix an outdated marriage system. Cases such as the Californian Marvin v. Marvin 18 Cal.3d 660 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106] (and the colloquially termed ‘Palimony’) are becoming the norm – and private client lawyers need to stay ahead of the game to remain relevant.

A few members link this theme to other societal changes; with the other key theme being the dissolution of traditional gender roles. Many women are their own breadwinners and discrepancies in salaries are more complicated –  advisors need to be much better at drafting laws that are more responsive to these changes. Any relationship that is in any way non-traditional should be taken into account, as they shouldn’t have to give up rights just because the law can’t keep up.

One member noted that this was much of the difficulty with retaining clients. With these changes, the law lagging to keep up, and the explosion of the internet and all its pseudo-advice, it’s becoming more and more difficult for the private client lawyer to prove their value for money. The new generations will question more and pay less. One member noted that this wouldn’t be an issue if the lawyer takes an educative tactic: teaching the client how to take advice, and that in certain cases there is no replacement for a wealth of experience and training. Where once it was a perk to be a highly trusted advisor, as well as a lawyer, now it is imperative to be both. Not only that, one member argued, but the lawyer must adapt how they deliver their advice to be more palatable.

A member later posed a question to the table, asking whether their firms look at how they deliver advice. Do they change it? Do they need to? One responded that the key to delivery is in collaboration: a client will listen and care if they have been a part of the source. While it’s easy to dismiss the younger generation as obstinate, they are also more adaptable to change and thus might open some more interesting dialogues. To get them involved in the process might just help retain those younger, more difficult clients. One member advises that to have an older and younger pair of lawyers give advice should be an absolute standard, particularly in family law.

The conversation touches on how this topic could be continued: from Shapiro’s “Wise Man” theories of cyclical governments and their impact on the law, to the increased tension surrounding climate change and corporate responsibility.