But there are also less obvious sources of friction and disappointment. These stem from a more subtle mismatch of expectations, and they arise when clients are not clear about the kind of lawyering they need doing. To be fair, clients themselves may not realise that there are different flavours or "modes" of legal work. For simplicity, I propose that there are three, though they do overlap and it can sometimes be hard to tell when one ends and the other begins. Indeed, it is possible that a single relationship, a single assignment, and even a single conversation, will cycle through all three modes. But it's important for you as a lawyer to recognize which mode the client needs you to be in at any particular moment, and to play that role well.
Legal technician
The first mode is one of acting as a legal technician. This is for when I, as a client, already know what I want to do, and I also know how I'd like it to be done. I just need someone to draft the magic legal language to make it happen, and file the right forms with the right authorities. A great deal of legal work falls into this category, for example: drafting standard form employment contracts, submitting compliance certificates, and renewing leases are routine, repeatable tasks that are well understood by the client. It just makes sense from a risk, cost or convenience perspective to have a lawyer do it.
So what makes a good legal technician? Well, for a start, if decision to use a lawyer for this work is driven by risk, cost and convenience, then it behooves you to get the job done quickly, quietly and with a minimum of fuss. Use templates, and recycle shamelessly. Don't make undue demands on the client's time, and don't try to impress the client by doing anything fancy. The client doesn't expect you to reinvent the wheel for them. In fact, they will be grateful for the quick turnaround. Just focus on using the "Find and Replace" function on your computer properly. A word of warning: be very, very sure you have removed all instances of the previous client's name. (I have received "tailored" documents which have been poorly scrubbed. Nothing makes a client feel less special than seeing another client's name on their expensive work product).
There is other "legal technician" work that is more bespoke, but where the clients are still way ahead of their lawyers. (For example, drafting a revenue share agreement between two companies who are launching a joint venture.) This is the danger zone for associates - even partners - who want to add value by making things more "lawyerly". This is all well and good, as long as it doesn't disturb the delicate, nuanced, already-worked-out business parts that the parties live and breathe 24/7. Lawyers, especially intelligent lawyers, will try to put their stamp on a deal or a document, let's say by making it modular for re-use, or future-proofing it, or making it crushingly, vindictively protective of their client's interests. I've sometimes had to push back on such attempts, explaining that 1) we are writing a contract, not building a space shuttle, 2) by time the new regulations come in, we will all be dead and gone, and 3) by aggressively "protecting" my interests, we've made it impossible for anyone to work with me. So, in cases where the parties are well-informed, well-intentioned, and sophisticated, a lawyer should try to remain unobtrusive, and intervene only to avoid gross harm.
One final point: regardless of whether the work is routine or bespoke, clients expect lawyers to be confident users of modern tools of the trade. If I hire a carpenter, I expect that person to show up with a power drill, not just a handsaw and a spirit level. If I hire a business lawyer, I expect them to have a head for numbers, an understanding of how to use standard business tools (such as financial models) and widely available technology (such as spreadsheet programmes). Some commercial lawyers still believe its OK (even prestigious) to be fumbly and reticent when it comes to math. It's not.
Legal Manager
The second "mode" is one of acting as a legal manager. By this I mean the task of co-ordinating, mobilizing and motivating people so that things get done. It is not strictly speaking legal work, but because it involves legal processes, legal instruments and legal outcomes, it must (with occasional exceptions) be carried out by lawyers. Sadly, many law schools do not teach these skills, and the only way to pick them up in a structured way is to do a management course, or to be lucky enough to get some in-house training at a law firm or company. (Bar associations and continuing legal education courses can fill the gap, but they seldom focus on the operations aspects.) There is one more problem: even if the training is available, lawyers are not always rewarded for acquiring these skills. Lawyers are rewarded by their firms for billing hours and bringing in business, more than they are for doing a good job of managing people, projects and processes. And that reward structure cascades down through the firm. Which is a huge pity, because that's the opposite of what clients would want.
I believe there are three dimensions to the legal manager mode. Let's start with managing people: I need my lawyers to "play well with others". There is almost no task that can be handled by one person alone, and so at a very basic level you need to be able to enlist others to your cause. This applies to you whether you are the smallest cog in the machine, or the generalissimo calling the shots. You need to be able to understand other peoples' incentives, and how they perceive the risks and rewards associated with a course of action. Knowing this will help you approach the right people for the right things, and frame your requests in a way that is more likely to elicit co-operation.
The next piece is managing projects. Many of the most important things businesses need help with, are large and complex and have many moving parts. The only way to deliver on these tasks, is by creating and following sensible project plans. For any project larger than the purchase of a coffee at the canteen, I would expect a lawyer to think through what resources they need, how long various activities will take, and the risks and critical dependencies that could affect the likelihood of success. I love to work with those lawyers who can not only deliver an outcome, but also do so on schedule and under budget.
Finally, there is a dimension of business legal work that few lawyers appreciate until they are put in charge of it, which is process management. Lawyers don't often think of legal work as an industrial production process, but they should. Whether it is the functioning of a court system, the execution of a transaction, or managing a stream of loan applications, a lot of legal work can be abstracted into a series of processes that connect inputs and outputs. Lawyers who master even the basics of operations management, are able to build their own industrial processes that get things done reliably and at scale.
Legal Advisor
The third mode is, finally, the one that people actually think of when you say "business lawyer", that of legal advisor. Despite my having highlighted a number of situations where I just need a technician or a manager, there are still plenty of cases where I genuinely need an advisor: I don't just want to know if something is legal, I want to know if it is a good idea. I don't just want to get something done, I want someone to help me find the right balance of risk and reward. And I don't just want someone to manage a piece of work, I want a trusted partner who can scout ahead, manage relationships, and negotiate on my behalf. When my lawyer acts as an advisor, there is not an awful lot of difference between the conversations I might have with them, and the ones I might have with the managing director of a bank or a senior partner at a management consultancy. Each has their own core technical skill, but each will also have a wide-ranging understanding of business, society and the way the world works. I will look to these advisors to help me manage risk, to keep my options open, and to spot opportunities and pursue them.
It is tempting for young lawyers to think that being a legal advisor is the be-all and end-all of commercial practice. It really isn't, and I think that misconception arises because people confuse professional prestige with value creation. Most of what I actually need for my business are technical inputs and project management or process management for business problems that have a legal dimension. Do those well, and you will add value, and earn my love and my respect. Or at least some of my hard-earned cash.