Does the global law model help or hinder the top-level adviser?

Commercialising the law has sometimes made partners less, well, commercial

Can lawyers also be strategic advisers? It's the question that keeps on giving despite the huge changes in the profession over the last 20 years that have fostered a more commercial outlook. Yet while lawyers undoubtedly think of themselves more as businessmen than in previous years, there is a case to be made that the peculiarities of the UK legal industry have pushed members of the profession away from being strategic business counsel.

Key trends in this regard are the imposition of lockstep-based partner pay models, the institutionalisation of client relationships and, perhaps most importantly, the huge increase in specialisation within commercial law. These were necessary for the UK profession to manage a period of modernisation and huge growth, both at home and abroad. It also helped to promote a more responsive, service-orientated culture.

But it is clear that the corporatisation of law doesn't always nurture the development of the all-round strategic adviser in the school of a Marty Lipton or a Nigel Boardman; the downside of institutionalising your client relationship is that it can make links with top plc clients not only broader, but also shallower. Likewise, the development of highly-specialised practitioners can, if not carefully managed, position the corporate adviser as a narrow technical specialist.

If these trends have sometimes had a negative impact at the senior end of the profession, there is also reason to harbour doubts regarding the kinds of people entering law. It's become widely acknowledged that academic standards have risen - many current partners admit they wouldn't have made the grade these days. But law firms are hiring from a narrower social strata and range of academic institutions than in previous decades.

The full impact of this homogenisation of the junior ranks is not yet apparent. Certainly there is a debate to be had over whether this new generation, which heavily defines itself by academic standards and often has a strong sense of entitlement, has the commercial mindset to transcend purely legal roles.

Indeed, a good number of the current group of senior corporate partners that are regarded as having the strongest client links and rainmaking skills would not fit into the neat boxes expected of aspiring lawyers now. Some understandably ask: where are the big characters in law?

But perhaps the biggest reason to question whether the revolution that the UK legal profession went through will hinder lawyers' attempts to position themselves as strategic advisers is a comparison with more traditional legal markets.

Looking at the City against New York, Paris or the Italian legal market, you would have to conclude that, while the boutique model of a Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz or a Bredin Prat has very considerable limits, the ability to produce and sustain practitioners with real strategic advisory clout is not one of them.

Perhaps the question for the UK's top firms is whether they should now revise the model that served them so well during their expansion to bring back some of the qualities that fostered the board-level heavyweights of previous generations. Of course, the status quo is currently working pretty well.

But if you assume, as seems reasonable, that real structural change is brewing in the legal industry that will hand clients more options and influence, there will be a huge value to City law firms in positioning themselves more robustly as strategic advisers. In such a world, the lawyers who can't sell themselves as high-level counsel will surely face being pushed down the food chain.

• For more, see Career Clinic: Do big personalities exist at law firms?