Rethinking burnout boundaries and client fit

(Part 2 of a series, “When the Numbers Don’t Add Up”)

Burnout in tax and accounting firms is often framed as an internal problem — too much work, too few people, not enough time. But that narrative only tells part of the story. Increasingly, firms are recognizing that burnout is as much about who they work with as it is about how they work.

In this second installment of the “When the Numbers Don’t Add Up” series (first installment: Gallegos et al., “Inside the Pressure Cooker: Taking Care of Yourself and Your Team During Tax Season,” 57–3 The Tax Adviser 68 (March 2026)), we shift the lens outward to examine how client behavior, expectations, and overall fit can either energize a firm or quietly drain it. Through candid reflections from AICPA Tax Practice Management Committee volunteers, this column explores several themes:

• What are the early warning signs firms often overlook?
• How has the definition of a “quality client” evolved?
• What is the importance and value of being intentional with client pruning and protecting boundaries?

The message is both empowering and practical: Burnout is not an unavoidable cost of growth. Firms have more agency than they think — and it often starts with the courage to say no.

Looking back, what types of clients have most directly contributed to stress or burnout in your firm, and what signals did you miss early on?

Brandon Lagarde: Clients who do not respect clear boundaries and have unreasonable expectations are certainly the leading cause of stress and burnout. But boundary– and expectation–setting is a two–way street. If you are intentional and deliberate about setting boundaries and expectations and a client simply ignores them, it is time for that client to move on. An early warning sign that is often easy to miss is the client complaining about their former CPA. We are only hearing one side of the story, and that side usually paints the former CPA in a negative light. But what was really going on with that relationship?

Pamela Slatten: A common element in the clients that didn’t fit in with our firm was lack of respect. When they didn’t respect our knowledge and experience (by dismissing advice or believing we were priced too high), they showed us time and again that they didn’t believe we added enough value to be worth their efforts. Our best clients are those who seek us out for our expertise, request feedback as they make decisions, and understand that the knowledge we have is valuable and worth paying for. A significant, but small, early tell has been how they treat us during the initial call; those who say they are shopping for accountants but don’t consider whether you are shopping for the right fit of clients have mostly continued that disregard throughout the client relationship. And those are the clients who hurt team morale and make everyone feel exhausted rather than recharged.

Megan Durst: I’m embarrassed to admit the signals I’ve missed over the years. You name it, I’ve likely allowed it. One example is letting clients drop off their return on 4/14, then getting the return done without any extra charge.

Kent Klaus: I think the clients that created the most stress or burnout were those that viewed our services as a commodity that they could get from any firm. As a result, there was a constant push to lower our fees, to meet tight deadlines, or to make “investments” — all because the client kept reminding us that they could get the services elsewhere. In some cases, these were clients that had been sought after for years and were on target lists for other services of the firm. This led to internal pressure to keep the client at all costs. The combination of internal and client pressure sometimes made it difficult to keep the team motivated. 

Mark Gallegos: The clients that most consistently contributed to burnout were not defined by size, technical complexity, or even stated profitability. They were defined by behavioral friction. These were clients who lived in a constant state of urgency, resisted structure, and treated deadlines as flexible suggestions rather than shared commitments.

Early warning signs showed up quickly, such as chronic late delivery of information, repeated last–minute requests framed as emergencies, scope creep disguised as “quick questions,” and a tendency to blame prior advisers for past issues. Often, these behaviors were rationalized as anxiety, transition stress, or lack of education, making it easy to empathize and overlook the pattern.

What we missed early on was that patterns matter more than explanations. When a client repeatedly disregards process or timelines, it’s rarely temporary. Over time, those behaviors don’t just affect one engagement; they ripple through the firm, disrupting workflow, increasing rework, and quietly eroding team confidence. Burnout, in our experience, is driven less by volume and more by unpredictability and lack of mutual respect.

Teela McCullar: They are the clients who are needy, messy, or impatient and complain about their fees at the same time. It’s OK if someone needs a lot of handholding or maybe needs us to assist them with cleaning up their books before preparing a return, but to expect that and then not want to pay for it is frustrating for all involved. They also need to understand our turnaround time and that we do have other clients. In looking back, some of these clients complained about their former CPA not giving them enough attention for what they were paying, so now I always ask a prospective client why they are leaving their current CPA and what they are looking for so I can see if I’m able to meet their expectations.

How does your firm define a ‘quality client’ today (beyond revenue), and how has that definition evolved over time?

Lagarde: A quality client is one that values the firm’s work. And value is not defined by the amount of money they are willing to pay for your services. When you have a client that truly appreciates what we do for them and shows that appreciation just by simple things like sending an email to the manager and expressing their appreciation for the staff that worked on their tax return or other project — that is a “quality” client. 

Shannon Hudson: This is an area of extreme importance to our firm and culture. We (the partners) pride ourselves in our selectiveness of client acceptance and maintenance. Each year after tax season, we hold a firmwide “Tax Season Debrief” where we meet as a team and discuss the usual items: What went well? What was challenging? What could we have done differently? And a favorite topic of the team, “What clients are detracting from your joy?” When clients show up on that list, we take it seriously. We analyze what makes them a joy detractor and if that can be fixed. This process has highlighted what makes a “quality client” with traits such as responsiveness, kindness, being respectful to the full team, and being communicative. We have a high appreciation for the clients that value our time and opinion and come to us before doing something, not after.

Durst: What I’ve learned to look for is how the client aligns with our firm’s values. I watch the quantity of communications, the pushback for invoices for additional services, and the way the client shows up at the office or speaks to the team. Is every project they have urgent? Do they call or text you at night or on the weekends?

I think my definition of a quality client has gotten more intentional and structured as our team reached a capacity that was unsustainable. From there, we defined a “quality client” differently and have been happy with the results.

Angela Alexander: A quality client is one who wants to work together to grow their business or enter into the relationship as a partner. When a client understands what we do and works together with us to achieve the best results, that is a quality client. We don’t do this work to complete a financial statement or tax returns, although the deliverable is important. We pair with clients to work together, achieve their goals, and work through the difficult times together. A client who discusses things with us throughout the year, brings up questions, and lets us assist is my favorite client because what we do has an impact. 

Julie Welch: The best quality clients recognize their need for professional services and understand the value of the advice we provide. They ask questions before a transaction happens whenever possible, and they provide complete facts when there is a question or proposed transaction. They also treat our staff with respect.

Gallegos: Our definition of a quality client has matured significantly. Revenue still matters, but it is now a trailing indicator rather than the primary filter.

Today, a quality client is one who respects deadlines, understands the downstream impact of delays, values proactive planning, communicates clearly, and treats the firm’s people as professionals, not commodities. Alignment now matters as much as economics.

This evolution came from experience. We learned that high–revenue clients who consume disproportionate time, ignore boundaries, or negatively affect morale are often far less profitable than they appear. As firms move further into advisory services, alignment becomes nonnegotiable. Advisory work requires trust, transparency, and collaboration, and clients unwilling to meet the firm halfway ultimately limit the value that can be delivered.

Have you ever intentionally disengaged from a client for reasons tied to culture, communication, or respect? What made it successful or difficult?

Lagarde: I wish that we were better at disengaging from clients who did not respect our team, our time, or what we do for them. We have done it in the past, but it can be very difficult — especially when the client has been a client of the firm for many years. When someone is a complete jerk to you or your team, it can feel pretty good to know that you no longer must deal with that person! It doesn’t make the conversation any less difficult, but there is a feeling of relief once it is done. Sometimes you just must rip the Band–Aid!

Hudson: We’ve found that when people don’t enjoy the work they’re doing or the people they are working with (clients included), you don’t get the best product out of them. Because of this, we make a conscious effort and decision to work only with clients that fit our firm’s culture. While disengaging clients can be stressful, uncomfortable, or anxiety–producing, once the process is successfully complete, we’ve found that it provides a sense of relief. In the events where it was successful, we’ve sent a termination letter, citing our reasons for the disengagement and offering a conversation where appropriate. Most of the time when there’s a culture issue, the client (or soon–to–be–terminated client) doesn’t have an issue with it, and the parting of ways has been amicable. In instances where the client is resistant to the termination, we have allowed a “second chance” with guardrails and boundaries. We’ve communicated clear expectations around timelines and deadlines, and in some instances, you can make a difficult client better!

Durst: We review our client list on an annual basis. The first review of the list comes from a lens that isn’t monetary at all. The clients that are the first to be disengaged with at the appropriate time are out of alignment with our core values — they would be the ones that talk inappropriately to our team, show up without an appointment, or consistently ask for additional/out–of–scope work and then may complain about their bill.

Gallegos: We have intentionally disengaged clients for these reasons. The difficulty was rarely technical; it was emotional and psychological. Disengagement often triggers fear around revenue loss, reputational risk, or the concern that leadership is “giving up.”

What made disengagement successful was preparation and clarity. When expectations, scope, pricing, and communication standards had been clearly set and reinforced, the decision felt principled rather than reactive. In those cases, the conversation centered on fit, not fault.

Disengagement was hardest when boundaries hadn’t been enforced consistently. If problematic behavior is tolerated too long, the decision can feel abrupt to the client, even when justified. The lesson learned was that consistent boundary enforcement isn’t just about managing current work; it preserves optionality for the future.

Internally, the impact was often immediate and positive. Teams felt validated, trust in leadership increased, and capacity freed up faster than expected. In several cases, it opened the door to better–aligned clients within months.

Alexander: I have had to disengage with clients, and that is never an easy decision. The reason tends to be more out of respect for my staff and myself than for fee issues.

As an example, I had a client where the return was not complex, but we went from a single return to three. When he received the returns, he decided he wasn’t going to file his two children’s returns, which were not required to be filed. When he received a bill for three returns, he turned belligerent about the fees and took it out on staff. I did reduce his fee but also disengaged with him immediately. I will not allow clients to be unkind.

What boundaries (deadlines, communication rules, pricing discipline, scope clarity) have had the biggest positive impact on your team’s energy and morale?

Lagarde: We implemented a busy season client delivery deadline a few years ago, and it has substantially reduced the number of “last–minute” clients that show up on April 10 and expect their return done in five days. We are still struggling with a delivery deadline for clients who we know we are going to extend. We still have too much data flowing in close to April 15 and client expectations that we can turn around an extension and Q1 estimate quickly. We attempted to impose an “extension” deadline a couple of years ago — meaning a client had to send us estimated income or other information by a certain date for us to provide a good extension number. But when it came down to it, if a client sent us information to help prepare an extension on April 10 (after the self–imposed deadline) — we felt that we couldn’t ignore that information when preparing the extension estimate, despite telling the client that we would. We also have yet to develop similar deadlines for the fall deadlines. We believe that imposing strict fall deadlines could improve the workflow during that time of year as well. It is a work in progress for us.

Durst: Personally, I believe the first biggest positive impact was having boundaries of any sort. When you’re growing your practice, it’s easy I believe that you need to answer a client’s phone calls after your office hours or cram a return in after the deadline you’ve imposed. It has been helpful for my mental health to be clear about my boundaries.

A few years ago, we implemented a deadline for submitting your tax documents. If you didn’t submit your returns 20 to 30 days in advance (we’ve worked with these dates, depending on our capacity), there was an expedite fee. If you didn’t submit them 10 to 15 days in advance of the deadline, we couldn’t promise they would be completed on time. That was a game changer. The clients like the structure of knowing what’s expected of them, and the team likes knowing what work needs to be completed by the deadline.

Klaus: I think the biggest driver of high energy and morale was finding a way to show each member of the team the impact they had on the client relationship and client deliverables. Whenever I could put a team member in front of the client to share in their appreciation, it made a huge difference for that team member. And it goes without saying that the clients that were more expressive of their appreciation to the team also were a big motivator. Where possible, we tried to schedule outside events that involved both clients and team members.

Another morale booster was defending the team‘s work when questioned by the client. We all make mistakes, but the client needs to be kept in check if their expectations are not reasonable. 

 The other items listed — pricing and scope — generally followed a good client relationship. Involving the client and team members in joint conversations where possible made it easier for team members to accept whatever “deal” was worked out. 

Michael Whitmore: The biggest thing that’s worked for us is being very upfront at the start — timing, scope, and fee — so expectations are clear. If a client subsequently asks us to rush something or doesn’t follow through on what we all agreed to, I’ll tell them we can accommodate, but it will require an additional fee. That simple “yes, and here’s the cost” has dramatically reduced boundary issues. In most cases, the client pauses and decides they don’t actually need the rush. Staff have really liked this approach, too. It reinforces that their time is valued and protects morale.

Gallegos: The most impactful boundaries weren’t about rigidity; they were about predictability and fairness.

 Clear deadlines and firm cutoff dates reduced last–minute stress. Scope clarity reduced rework and frustration. Pricing discipline reinforced the value of the work and minimized resentment tied to underpriced engagements.

The biggest morale shift came when leadership actively protected those boundaries. When leaders reinforce expectations, even when it‘s uncomfortable, it sends a powerful message that the firm values its people, not just its revenue.

McCullar: We stick to our deadlines in our engagement letter of when documents need to be in if a client does not want to be placed on extension, which is four weeks before the deadline. We used to let many clients break that rule, but now we hold firm and we communicate it when items are submitted, as well as reminding them of that rule. We also don’t go below our firm pricing minimums, so we know that we are taking clients who value our services. It improves everyone’s morale on a project when they know we are being paid fairly for the work we are doing.

What advice would you give a firm leader who knows they need to prune their client list but is afraid of the short-term revenue impact?

Lagarde: It is the old 80/20 rule. If you really looked at your client base, you would quickly find that 80% of your revenue comes from 20% of your clients. If the pruning is done with intentionality, thought, and care, your practice and team will thrive with the new opportunities to focus on the clients that provide the most satisfaction, and that will have a trickle effect across the entire practice. Your team will be more satisfied, and you as the firm leader can focus on the areas that are important to improving your practice. Clients that drain the battery can wreak havoc on your practice and your team. 

Slatten: When we culled the clients who were not a good fit for our firm, we freed up the capacity to treat our other clients the way they deserved. Clients who don’t fit your profile leach time from the entire team, whether you can see it in recorded billable time or the admin team keep fielding the calls that pull them away from other work. We were able to refocus on the relationships with our clients, identify more ways to help them, and offer enough additional services to our remaining clients to more than make up for any lost revenue stream. And we freed up capacity to grow without adding team members. The clients who don’t fit your firm take up far more time than they offer in terms of revenue. Start slowly if necessary, and get more aggressive with the culling as the results prove themselves. It’s worth it.

Durst: There’s two ways to look at this, and I’ve done both.

First, if you get a new quality client who is paying the appropriate amount and aligned with your company values, then use that as an opportunity to disengage from a problem child. What we learned from this exercise is that we typically disengaged from someone who needed double the time as a quality client. So we got a new client, disengaged from a bad client, and had more time in the day.

The second option is to disengage from the clients we all know are problems. From there, you have more mental bandwidth and time available to find the good–quality clients or availability if the good–quality client calls.

Whitmore: Cull the herd. There are more good clients than there are good staff. In my experience, the clients that are a pain to deal with are often less profitable, and they absolutely damage morale. Also, new clients have never been easier to find, given the amount of work out there, fewer people entering accounting, and Baby Boomers retiring. Getting rid of poor–fit clients creates space for good ones.

One practical tip: Get staff feedback on which clients should be culled. Staff often have information that leadership doesn’t see, especially when a client is rude to the team but friendly to the partner. A client that treats your staff poorly is a poor client.

Gallegos: The mindset shift is to focus on capacity and sustainability, not just topline revenue. Holding onto misaligned clients often blocks growth by consuming time, attention, and emotional energy that could be redirected toward better opportunities.

Short–term revenue loss is visible and scary. Long–term costs, burnout, turnover, and stalled advisory growth are quieter but far more damaging. In practice, pruning often creates space for higher–quality clients faster than expected, especially when firms are clear about whom they want to serve and how they deliver value.

Pruning isn’t a retreat, but it’s a sign of strategic maturity. Firms that intentionally shape their client base are better positioned to evolve, attract talent, and deliver higher–impact work. Saying “no” to the wrong clients is often what enables a firm to say “yes” to the right future.

Protect your people

These Tax Practice Management Committee volunteers come from firms of all sizes, but one theme is unmistakable: Burnout is rarely driven by volume alone. It is driven by misalignment — clients who disregard boundaries, devalue expertise, or introduce chronic unpredictability into the firm’s workflow. Left unaddressed, those dynamics quietly erode morale, trust, and capacity.

By redefining what a quality client truly looks like, enforcing boundaries with consistency, and treating client selection as a strategic discipline rather than a revenue reflex, they are reclaiming control over their time, energy, and culture.

Pruning a client list is never comfortable. But as these practitioners demonstrate, it is often the inflection point that allows firms to grow more sustainably, serve better–aligned clients more deeply, and build environments where professionals can thrive. In today’s talent–constrained, advisory–driven landscape, protecting your people may be the most important client strategy of all.

---

Contributors

Angela Alexander, CPA, MSA, is director with Barnes Wendling CPAs in Cleveland; Megan Durst, CPA/ABV, CVA, is principal with Dark Horse CPAs in Zanesville, Ohio; Mark Gallegos, CPA, is a partner with Porte Brown Accountants & Advisers in Elgin, Ill.; Shannon Hudson, CPA, MST, is a partner with Altair Group PLLC in Bedford, N.H.; Kent Klaus, CPA, MBA, is a senior instructor at DePaul University in Mount Prospect, Ill.; Brandon Lagarde, CPA, J.D., LL.M., is partner, Tax Services, with EisnerAmper in Baton Rouge, La.; Teela McCullar, CPA, is a managing director with Barnard Vogler & Co. CPAs in Reno, Nev.; Paul Nienow, CPA, MST, is managing partner with Nienow & Tierney LLP in Irvine, Calif.; Pamela Slatten, CPA, J.D., MBA, is an attorney and director with Marietta CPAs in Indianapolis; Julie Welch, CPA/PFS, CFP, AEP (Distinguished), is the managing partner with Meara Welch Browne PC in Prairie Village, Kan.; and Michael Whitmore, CPA, is a partner with Aldrich CPAs and Advisors LLP in Spokane, Wash. April Walker, CPA, CGMA, is lead manager—Tax Practice & Ethics, Public Accounting, for AICPA and CIMA. Walker is staff liaison, Whitmore is chair, and the others are members of the AICPA Tax Practice Management Committee. For more information about this column, contact thetaxadviser@aicpa.org.