In my more than 23 years of being a headhunter in this industry, there have been three inexorable trends: the push for advisors to go fee-based; the war for talent via the ever-increasing upfront check; and the ascension of the team model.

Five years ago, only a fraction of the work I did involved a team. Now, it seems that 75% of my firm's transactions involve such groups. Merrill Lynch was the front-runner--as the firm often is with trends in the industry--in encouraging advisors to form teams and providing training on how to run and maintain them.

The logic for doing so was irrefutable. As the business of wealth management becomes increasingly more sophisticated, it is now more difficult for a single advisor to become--and remain--an expert in all facets of the business. Team members presumably will provide complementary services for the needs of their clientele.

From the corporate perspective, encouraging advisors to partner up also makes it more difficult for advisors to leave. Merrill saw early on that two or more decision makers would complicate the decision to make an exit. And if a team were to splinter, an advisor remaining behind would have a good chance of retaining the joint assets--as opposed to having the accounts distributed to the other advisors in the branch who never had any prior contact with the exiting rep's clients.

After the tech bubble burst in 2000, and post 9/11, the big brokerage firms dramatically slowed down their training programs--if not shutting them down completely--for a time. The new programs that have emerged from the wreckage of those days address teams as a consideration very early on for advisors.

Furthermore, brokerage firms are attempting to partner up aging advisors with younger brokers who are often fresh out of the training programs. For the firms, this has the benefit of seeding young advisors with both accounts and wisdom.

But despite this new approach, the success ratios of trainees have stayed low in this industry. It remains to be seen if these "sunrise/sunset" partnerships enable the firms to both ensure the continuance of aging franchises and generate higher success rates for trainees.

So, Mr. or Ms. Advisor, you've now heard both the legitimate and the cynical reasons why your firm wants you to seek a partner. The question remains as to whether it's the right thing for you. If so, there are certain details that you should look out for in order to protect yourself and your franchise.

Partnership models, generally speaking, are either vertical or horizontal. The vertical model is one where the team is led by a single rainmaker whose practice has grown to the point where the individual needs help. This scenario includes an advisor whose assistant has become a de facto partner. Horizontal teams are formed when equals--or near equals in terms of production and assets--come together to create support and synergy.

In recent years, even these models have become more complex, where senior horizontal partners take on junior partners, creating a structure akin to a law partnership. In other words, these team-ups form relationships where busy associates at the bottom of the food chain do an enormous amount of work in order to earn their way up to their senior colleagues' levels.

It all sounds wonderful, doesn't it? Coverage when you're on vacation, complementary skill sets, succession planning--all wrapped up in one simple solution. But just as the divorce rate in our country approaches 50%, the divorce rate for partners, I suspect, is at the same rate. Perhaps this is due to the fact that so many business people are attracted to the retail brokerage industry because they want to be in business on their own, and teams just don't suit them. And while I have seen disagreements among team members that have kept them from moving as groups, the nasty dissolution of partnerships is one of the biggest reasons why advisors call me to seek my services.

These partnerships should be pure business relationships--devoid of the emotional bitterness that often permeates divorces between husbands and wives. But the fact is that advisors, once scorned, are often nastier than the most petty, vindictive spouse. Sadly, this is even true of generational teams: fathers or mothers with their offspring. And keeping the business "in the family" will sometimes mean keeping it in "my" immediate family and not in "my brother's."

So even in the case of generational partnerships or team-ups among siblings, I strongly recommend that all parties sign a "pre-nuptial agreement." This document, under the blessing of your branch manager, must clearly define what happens if the partnership folds. The trick is taking into account the supposed synergies and future growth that you plan to make happen by getting into the partnership in the first place.