Report comment

The report itself makes interesting reading. The key finding is that clients are concerned that their law firms do not understand their business in sufficient depth and so are swapping firms more frequently, bringing work back in house, or looking to alternative structures.

I think that the reality is that in order to develop an understanding of sufficient depth between client and firm requires commitment on both sides. There is no way that you can realistically expect a law firm to build up an understanding of your business off a handful of transactions. Chopping and changing providers and bringing work in house will only make that worse. To get to a level of understanding that the report seems to indicate desirable is probably only feasible through a single-supplier arrangement - which is probably what the report means when it refers to "non traditional solutions". There does seem to be a small but growing appetite for this. It would take a brave firm to invest in client-facing IT systems and process-mapping without a commitment from the client that it will get work in return.

The report also notes the disconnect that you can get between the GC and the client, acknowledging that the client's legal department often does not understand the business either.

I am not sure whether the comment about the senior partner not understanding the business was taken out of context. Why should a client expect a firm's senior partner to understand their business - the important thing is that the fee earners at the coal face understand it.