Over the past 15 years man y companies have drastically altered their business practices, ethos and language in order to move from the culture of 1950s England to 1990s America.Some law firms have followed, some not.

In-house lawyers often feel they straddle two cultures and that it is not always a comfortable position.The Centre for Dispute Resolution (CEDR) has run in-house lawyer seminars for 12 years in conjunction with the Law Society's commerce and industry group.

Its chief executive, Professor Karl Mackie, says: 'The trend has been for in-house lawyers to become much more managerial and to accept they may have even smaller departments, and at the same time understand they have to procure legal services in a much more rigorous way and prove they are adding value in doing so.'In-house lawyers were once almost an add-on professional service, but now they have been subsumed into the business.Any new problems in business generate a new breed of adviser offering solutions.

Established consultancies, including Hodgart Temporal and the David Andrews Partnership, have moved from advising law firms to providing advice for in-house lawyers as well.

One two-man practice, Independent Corporate Mentoring, (ICM) began as a niche specialist consultant to in-house legal departments two years ago.These consultants all offer either an overhaul of the entire legal services part of a business, or help with choosing the right external legal services.

They stress the importance of value rather than price.

ICM says it helps a legal department to be able to demonstrate to the employing company that it is providing value for money.

ICM analyses in-house systems and processes, finds out from the board what the company wants from its legal department, and suggests appropriate strategies.ICM also encourages the company to draw up a model 'relationship statement' of various skills it requires from external lawyers, and ways of measuring whether the external advisers are delivering.Peter Coleman, one of the two men running ICM and formerly legal affairs director of Grand Metropolitan Estates.

says in-house lawyers need to learn how to control and demonstrate quality.

'They need systems.

They need to know how to get value for money; more value for less money.

That means systems which ensure they give good instructions to the law firm.'One experienced head of legal services can see the pros and cons of using a consultant.

Julian Armstrong, general counsel at Esso UK plc for 15 years and a former chairman of the Law Society's commerce and industry group, says that in his position at Esso he would not pay money for advice he could get from non-lawyers in his company who are expert in purchasing.

'Purchasing a lawyer is no different from buying an oil rig,' he says.But in other firms there could be a need for a consultant.

Mr Armstrong says: 'I've stood up at courses and given templates for deciding on what sort of lawyers you want to hire and how many, but it is going to be different from one business to another.'Mr Armstrong says the key is for the in-house lawyer to have sufficiently close relationships with a small number of firms to be able to build on an understanding of what the company wants and needs.

In this way the in-house lawyer will not have to start from scratch every time he or she gives instructions.Another veteran head of in-house legal services, Bob Downey, company secretary of the food, perfume and washing powder giants Proctor and Gamble, believes he does not need formal skill matrices and checklists to demonstrate value for money.

'Experience is the key,' he says.

Mr Downey already has established relationships with law firms, and usually hires barristers directly himself.

'Ultimately I will be judged by whether I keep the customer satisfied,' he says.However, at least one customer of ICM feels that the experience of a month's consultation, which provided a framework for measuring the firm's panel of lawyers, was beneficial.Bronagh Kennedy of Bass Taverns, a one-woman legal department in the largest division of Bass, went to ICM because of Peter Coleman's experience as an in-house lawyer in a similar field to her firm.

She wanted to be able to be systematic in the way she chose and reviewed external law firms.'I'd identified there was definitely a need to have a structure in place,' says Ms Taverns.

'I could have struggled along trying to sit down and map it out for myself but why not reduce the learning curve?Using a consultant is not a substitute for hard work.

You still have to do that yourself, to identify what your needs and processes are.

A consultant says: "Here are the key things which need to be covered, and here's how to cover them".'Heads of legal departments will frequently review whether they have adapted to the new business world, and if not, whether a consultant is the answer.

If they think it might be, then paradoxically, they will have to apply the same cost-benefit analysis to the exercise as the consultancies are urging them to apply to law firms.