At least according to the Financial Times, in an article about the difficulty of crossing the chasm from senior associate to rain-making partner.  In part the difficulty is a familiar one and one we've rehearsed before:  Lawyers are simply not trained in client development.  Certainly not associates (quelle horreur!) and not, with the rarest of exceptions, partners either.  Not-training associates in rainmaking actually has a strong economic logic to it, so I will eschew the temptation merely to chalk it up to the aristocratic world-view of the partnership or other pseudo sociocultural rationalizations.

The economic logic is simple:  Senior associates who develop a loyal book of business are in a vastly superior bargaining position vis-a-vis their firm than their client-less peers.  They can, without boasting, let it be known they could take their business elsewhere if they aren't anointed partners.  (In the immortal words of Shoeless Joe Jackson, "it ain't braggin' if you can do it.")  No rational firm would encourage this, so expect the quo to be status in terms of associate training.

On the other hand, not-training partners is simply self-defeating, and at last some baby steps are being taken to offer coaching and guidance.  This is, indeed, a cultural question ("real lawyers aren't touts"), as evidenced by US firms being markedly better at it than UK firms.  But when one's rank of full-equity partner depends in the long run on client development, the motivation to learn is sharp.