Every lawyer wants one of these, or at least thinks it would be good to have one. After all, so the thinking goes, trophy clients confer prestige on both lawyer and law firm, and there is the promise (more accurately, hope) of regular and abundant fees.
But are they really worth the trouble? I am not entirely convinced.
All too often it is the "trophy" aspect that drives the decision, rather than the business case. There may, of course, be advantages from a marketing angle in being able to say, "We are acting for XXXX", or to use a quote from a household name, but weigh that against the time and resource expended in securing them, the costs and resource involved in servicing them, and (dare I say it) the reputational risk of losing them.
Pitching for (and winning) a high profile client in a sector or area of expertise in which you already have an established reputation is a different matter. Here the business case will (or should) be clear. But should you be pursuing a prospect primarily because of who or what that prospect is, rather than how they will fit into what you do? Building a new area of practice on the back of a trophy client is not always sensible - I have seen it done, and seen it done successfully, but there is always a cost.
And by their very nature trophy clients tend to be high maintenance: demanding of time and attention, on all matters. Again, this may not matter but there is the risk that this will skew the practice and that other clients will suffer.
So before commissioning the research, preparing the pitch, honing the presentation, telling all your partners, and getting the date in the diary, take a step back. Be sure that the advantages are real - and the potential disadvantages manageable.
