A few years ago, BBC journalist Mark Easton gave a talk to clients at DLA Piper’s London office. His title at the time was ‘home editor’ – a title with a breadth he liked. His basic theme was the informed ‘bet’ he had made that, in the future, the private sector would become more like the public sector, and that the public sector would become more informed by commercial values.

For at least a decade, that has been the direction of travel, and has affected the business context in which lawyers have advised clients. Public funding channeled to private sector providers came with strings attached – strings that included transparency, a commitment to ways of working that were deemed to be in the public interest. For their part, public bodies worked so closely with the private sector that they were expected to change some of the ways in which they worked.

Government cuts aimed at dramatically reducing its spending deficit have revealed just how enmeshed these worlds have become. So many more businesses have public sector clients – charities and the voluntary sector too have been shown to be dependent on public funding, rather than offering an alternative to state provision.

Changes in government policy will create new opportunities for the private sector, but in many cases the two are being forced apart. Public bodies are cutting external contracts before making further cuts internally, and businesses in the ‘social entrepreneur’ class are especially vulnerable.

The legal aid cuts proposed in last week’s green paper will mean the withdrawal of further funds from businesses (in this case law firms, barristers and expert witnesses) whose income emanates from the state. ‘Extra’ demands on businesses that receive public funds, such as the need to demonstrate a commitment to diversity, look less strong on the evidence seen so far. The loosening of ‘legacy’ demands on the 2012 Olympics is another example of change.

So the government and other public bodies seem set to become a different kind of client – these changes in political emphasis and the priorities of the state will have implications for how their legal advisers run their own affairs, and the context in which that advice is delivered. It’s not yet clear exactly how, but providing services in this shared public-private space will start to feel very different.