Bringing In a Specialist Without Losing the Relationship

The concern is real and I hear it in some form nearly every week.

An advisor recognizes that a client's situation calls for expertise he does not have. He also recognizes that introducing another firm creates a relationship he does not control. So he weighs a certain risk against an uncertain benefit, and often he does nothing.

I do not think that is cowardice. I think it is an unresolved structural question, and it is worth resolving because the professions that face it constantly have already worked out the answer.

How medicine handles it

An internist who suspects a cardiac problem refers to a cardiologist. He does this routinely, without anxiety, and he does not lose the patient.

Why not? Because the roles are defined and everyone in the arrangement knows what they are. The cardiologist addresses the cardiac question and reports back. The internist retains the whole of the patient. The patient understands that being sent to a specialist is evidence of good care rather than a transfer of custody.

Nobody in that arrangement is confused about who the primary physician is. And notably, the patient's confidence in the internist increases rather than decreases, because a physician who recognizes the limits of his own specialty is demonstrating judgment.

The same structure works here. What is usually missing is that nobody has stated it out loud.

The three roles

When we work with an Alliance Partner, the arrangement has three positions and they do not overlap.

You are the advisor. You hold the relationship, you know the client's full situation, and you decide what gets brought to him. Every recommendation passes through you. When the engagement is finished, the client's ongoing relationship is with you, exactly as it was before.

We are the analysis. We build the comparison. Conventional outcome against the alternatives, in writing, with assumptions stated. We coordinate with the client's CPA and attorney, and we bring in the specialist firm that would implement anything recommended.

The client's own advisors verify. His CPA and his attorney review the work independently before he commits. I built that step into my own description of this method years ago and I have never wanted to remove it. There is wisdom, as an ancient proverb has it, in many counselors.

No Commander-in-Chief goes it alone. He forms a war cabinet, a circle of specialists, each of whom owns a domain and none of whom owns the decision. The decision stays with the person whose situation it is.

What we do not do

I will state this in the negative because that is what advisors want to hear.

We do not solicit your client for other services. We do not prepare returns. We do not manage assets. We do not execute the structures we recommend, which are implemented by specialist firms under their own engagements. When the analysis concludes, so does our involvement, unless you bring us something else.

Our business is the analysis. If we behaved otherwise we would receive one introduction per advisor and no more, and I have been doing this long enough to know that the second and third introductions are where the relationship actually lives.

How to frame it for the client

Advisors ask me for language. Here is what I would say, and it works because it is true.

That there is a specialist question inside his transaction. That you want it looked at properly rather than approximately. That you are bringing in a firm that does this work full time, that his own CPA and attorney will review whatever comes back, and that you will be in every conversation.

That is a strong position, not a weak one. You are the advisor who saw a technical question and got it answered by someone qualified, rather than guessing at it or letting it pass.

The failure mode to avoid

There is one way to do this badly and it is worth naming.

Do not hand the client off. An introduction is not a transfer. If you make the connection and then step out of the conversation, you have created exactly the situation you were afraid of, and the client will reasonably conclude that the new firm is now handling this part of his affairs.

Stay in the calls. Read the analysis before the client does. Be the one who explains what it means. Ten minutes of presence at the right moments is the entire difference between a referral that strengthens the relationship and one that dilutes it.

The alternative you are actually choosing

The risk of introducing a specialist is manageable and it is structural. You control it with defined roles and continued presence.

The risk of not introducing one is that the question goes unanswered, the transaction closes, the number arrives, and your client learns that something might have been available to him. He will not blame you for lacking the expertise. He will wonder why you did not go find it.

That is the harder conversation, and unlike the first one it cannot be managed with structure.

This information is general and is not tax, legal, or investment advice. Every situation is different. Work with your own CPA and attorney before acting on any strategy.