Even before the coronavirus began to spread, some law firms were experiencing an existential crisis of a different sort.

"What is our purpose?" firm leaders are asking. Across the U.K., business development teams are spending hours brainstorming how to define a firm's reason for being. Over their coffee, younger lawyers are pondering whether their firms offer something deeper.

What they are essentially asking is whether, aside from providing legal advice and making money from it, corporate and commercial law firms can and should offer anything to wider society. It is a way for them to join the debate about the socially destructive side of capitalism and feels particularly relevant given the global effects of the pandemic.

Leaders of U.K. firms frequently raise the topic, which is laudable. But coming up with an answer and putting it into practice is less straightforward.

Various firms are hoping to define themselves as diversity champions. Some are particularly proud of the pro bono work they do. One management team at a large international firm is thinking of donating a portion of its profits to charity. One U.K. firm has had discussions about whether supporting worthy causes should be optional or not.

Late last year, five law firms—Eversheds Sutherland, Goodwin Procter, Nixon Peabody, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, and Stoel Rives—along with dozens of general counsel, launched a $5 million fund to help improve diversity in the legal industry.

In February, lawyers at Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance and Slaughter and May were among a group of 63 firms and organizations that worked together to launch new model contracts and laws aiming to help businesses fight climate change.

These are undoubtedly good things, but what about what each law firm stands for? Many firms want central values that dictate their aim to make the world a better place.

One large U.K. firm has spent the best part of a year devising a plan to turn itself into a "purpose-driven law firm." Unfortunately—perhaps inevitably—the list of bullet points it has agreed on as its purpose is slightly vague and predictable. It argues that its slogans were agreed on by the firm's entire partnership and lawyers, meaning everyone is fully on board with them. But it is hard to imagine any great change coming from a term such as "making business work better for people."

Then again, at least that firm is trying. Like every firm discussing this topic, it is facing the same challenge that has always existed: how a benevolent motive fits alongside law firms' remuneration structure, which encourages little retention of capital and needs to maintain high salaries to remain competitive.

Despite these issues, the industry is wise to be taking this question seriously. The push to find a purpose is in part to appease an incoming generation of lawyers who are taking a lot more interest in these topics than their predecessors did. The battle for talent is not just about salaries, which are already sky-high. Lawyers want to feel like they work in a place that thinks about the outside world, not just its profits.

Clients are also driving change. Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis recently said it would withhold 15% of billed time payments if its advisers fail to comply with its diversity and inclusion requirements. Lawyers say it is becoming essential to turn up to pitches with more than just evidence of expertise. To gain a competitive edge, they are being asked to show they think more widely about their role in the world.

And because some firms are making noises about such things, everyone else feels the need to do the same. Funds for diversity, cross-firm climate change initiatives and charity donations are just the start of it. Expect a flood of slogans and corporate social responsibility efforts in the coming years. It's far less clear, though, whether any of it can ultimately answer the questions about purpose lingering in the minds of many.