Practices document onboarding and almost never document what comes after it, which is odd given that the after is where the entire relationship lives. A client management workflow is the repeating cycle of serving somebody you already have: the recurring work, the periodic review, the changes that arrive unannounced, and eventually the ending. Each of those has a shape that can be written down once, and writing them down is what stops a practice depending on one person remembering which clients need attention this month.
The recurring cycle, with its own start and end
Most client work repeats on a rhythm: monthly, quarterly, annually, or by season. Treat each cycle as a small piece of work with a beginning, a set of steps and a definition of done, rather than as continuous activity. Cycles that are not bounded are the ones that get quietly late, because nothing about them ever declares that they should have finished by now.
The review that catches everything else
Once a year, or at whatever interval suits your trade, someone looks at the client as a whole: are the details still right, is the service still the right one, has anything changed that we should know. This single recurring step catches stale data, unnoticed growth, dissatisfaction that has not yet been voiced, and the fact that a client has been paying for something they stopped using.
Changes, and the ending
Clients change contacts, addresses, ownership and requirements, usually by mentioning it in passing. The workflow needs a defined way to capture a change so that it reaches the record instead of one person's memory. And the ending needs steps too: final work, documents returned, access removed, record marked former, retention clock started. Endings handled well are also how clients come back.
Questions people ask about client management workflow
Is a client management workflow different from a project workflow?
Yes. A project ends. A client relationship repeats, and the difference matters because tools built around projects treat the gaps between cycles as nothing happening.
How detailed should the workflow be?
Enough that somebody new could run a cycle without asking, and no more. Detail beyond that ages faster than it earns, because it describes things that change.
Where should the workflow live?
Attached to the client record if possible, so the current state of each client is visible without cross referencing a separate document. A workflow kept somewhere else becomes a description rather than a system.