A few days ago, on The Legal Podcast, we interviewed, from Miami, the General Counsel of a multinational operating in more than 40 countries. At one point in the conversation, he shared an internal practice that illustrates better than any theory how the relationship between companies and external law firms is evolving. He asked his international legal team to carry out an apparently simple exercise.

They were to rate, from 0 to 5, all the firms they worked with in their respective jurisdictions. No context. No prior discussion. No explanation of the purpose. Just one question: What score would you give this firm?

Once the responses had been collected, he made a clear decision: firms scoring below 3 ceased to work with the company. With those exceeding that threshold, the approach was different: to identify precisely what they needed to improve in order to strengthen their position.

His conclusion was straightforward: “Today, a General Counsel does not simply need good lawyers. They need firms that operate at the pace of their business.”

Speed. Practical orientation. Commercial awareness. Execution capability. The level of expectation is no longer exceptional. It is structural. And this small experiment reveals something uncomfortable for many firms: most believe they compete on legal quality. In reality, they compete on relevance.

Firms no longer compete for matters

For decades, the legal market has operated on three variables: reputation, technical excellence and personal relationships. These remain necessary, but they are no longer sufficient. The most sophisticated legal departments have changed the logic. They no longer manage discrete matters; they manage portfolios of providers. Within that portfolio, each firm occupies a very specific position, even if it is rarely articulated. The question is no longer which firms act for a client, but which firms actually matter.

The model that defines real relevance

If one observes how General Counsel allocate trust, budget and access, a consistent pattern emerges. They do not classify firms by prestige; they classify them by their practical utility in decision-making. This gives rise to four clearly differentiated positions:

Execution firms. Technically sound. Professional. They perform well when given clear instructions. However, they are not part of the core circle of trust. If they disappear, the work is redistributed.

Expert firms. Specialists engaged when a relevant technical issue arises. Respected, but their relationship is contingent on the specific problem. If an equivalent expert appears, they can be replaced.

Operationally trusted firms. This is where real value begins. These firms understand how the legal department functions: how to report, how to budget, how to reduce internal friction. The General Counsel trusts not only their legal judgement, but also the experience of working with them. This creates something critical: switching costs. When a firm reaches this position, it ceases to compete for individual matters and begins to compete for continuity.

Structural firms. Very few firms reach this level. These are the firms a General Counsel consults before a legal issue is even defined. They are involved where there is uncertainty, sensitive decision-making or complex risk. These firms do not merely answer questions; they help frame the right questions. And when a firm helps define the problem, it rarely competes on price, rarely enters competitive tenders, and rarely loses access. Not because it is more expensive, but because it is harder to replace.

The most dangerous illusion in the legal market

There is a widespread perception among partners that doing good work guarantees growth. It does not. Doing good work guarantees continuity. Growth depends on something else: becoming difficult to replace. And that rarely arises from technical expertise alone; it arises when the firm reduces uncertainty for the client. Many firms believe they have strong relationships when, in reality, they have merely adequate ones. The difference is substantial. An adequate relationship maintains work. A strategic relationship multiplies it.

How a firm loses relevance without realising it

Irrelevance does not begin when a client is lost; it begins much earlier. It begins when the firm ceases to participate in important conversations. When it is no longer consulted at early stages. When it shifts from being invited to think to being called upon to execute. That is the real moment at which loss of position begins. Yet almost no firm measures it, because firms measure revenue, not influence.

The strategic decision many firms are avoiding

Every firm should consciously decide what it wants to be for its clients: A firm that responds well. A firm that resolves well. Or a firm that helps clients decide well. The market will continue to need all three. However, economic and relational power will increasingly concentrate in the last category. Because in an environment of growing complexity, General Counsel are not looking for more lawyers, they are looking for less uncertainty.

The question that defines your true position

Would you like to continue reading?

You can read the full article in Ámbito Jurídico here.