It was nearly five years ago that the then Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, proposed breaking up one of the oldest legal monopolies in the UK by hiring private law firms to draft Acts of Parliament – the preserve of Whitehall lawyers for more than 100 years.
The subsequent experiment, which saw Freshfields drafting sections of the 1996 Finance Act, proved bruising enough for all parties to avoid a repeat performance, and the idea was shelved.
But the legislative backlog generated by the new Government has reportedly led Labour to revive the idea rather than see flagship bills such as the Financial Services and Markets Bill (FSMB) and Utilities Bill run out of time.
Given the undoubted pressure on the 40-strong Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC): barristers and solicitors trained to turn government policy into statute, it is not hard to see why many believe private firms will be needed to plug the gap.
Although the OPC is currently recruiting new staff, the long training period means the office will be overworked for years to come.
Staff retention has also been a problem, with the civil service's rigid structure keeping talented staff on lower grades, and on a salary of about £40,000-£57,000 for years.
Even so, most observers believe the potential for private firms to get involved in drafting law is limited. The previous attempt at bringing in City slickers received a mixed reception, principally concerning the reported £130,000 bill.
Edward Troup, head of tax strategy at Simmons & Simmons and special adviser to Clarke at the time, says the Treasury was satisfied with the result, but it thought that commercial lawyers' lack of experience of the arcane subtleties of parliamentary language made the exercise costly and time-consuming.
"Lawyers are good at consulting, but we are not necessarily good at drafting law," Troup comments. "Obviously, we are skilled at drafting commercial agreements, but there is a great deal of difference between that and a finance bill."
Such a venture would also incur the wrath of the powerful Whitehall unions which have already made clear their opposition.
But some observers, such as Wragge & Co utilities lawyer John Cooper, believe that parliamentary counsel could benefit from consultation or secondment with industry specialists in private practice.
"Parliamentary counsel clearly have a head start over private solicitors, particularly in terms of tax and finance law, but in specialist areas they often have very little experience of what they are dealing with and that is where there is scope for outside lawyers," he says.
And while it is accepted that drafting law is ring-fenced for the foreseeable future, the fact that the use of private firms has been floated is a reflection of the growing influence of commercial lawyers in the development of public policy.
The sheer pace of the Government's programme has allowed lawyers, directly and through trade bodies, to play an unprecedented role in the formation of flagship laws such as the FSMB, the Welfare Reform Bill and the recently-enacted Employment Relations Act.
Solicitors can also bring technical knowledge to the consultation process, which traditional Westminster lobbying firms lack.
Lovells is one of the few City firms to have a dedicated parliamentary and public affairs unit. Gordon Innes, a solicitor in the unit, claims a growing part of his work is advising Lovells' industry specialists who are involved with various government consultations.
Innes says: "What we have found is that civil servants do not have a lot of resources and they welcome comments and suggested amendments as long as you have done your homework."
Head of Maclay Murray & Spens' parliamentary unit, Bruce Patrick, says solicitors have learned to "move up the food chain" when it comes to consulting on draft law.
"Lawyers have had some frustration with being brought into the policy-making process so late, and they are now seizing the opportunity to change that," he says.
An additional result of the new approach has been the blurring of the boundaries between consultation and law-making, with many instances of solicitors drafting accepted amendments and changing key phrases in existing statutes.
Equally, the development of the FSMB has taken consultation with commercial firms to a new level, involving in-depth policy work on the bill itself, as well as the mass of guidance and regulations produced by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).
Notable examples have included the work of SJ Berwin & Co's Tamasin Little, CMS Cameron McKenna's Simon Morris and Lovells' Rachel Kent on the wording of the FSA's authorisation manual, which sets out its remit.
Further evidence of this new approach has been seen in Scotland, where firms such as Maclays and McGrigor Donald, which recently set up their own lobbying and political monitoring groups, have been active in developing links with the new Parliament.
Last year Maclays became the first private body to approach the devolved Parliament with a proposed change in the law when it put forward its own draft for an amendment to local tenancy laws.
The recent appointments of political operators such as Sir Leon Brittan to Herbert Smith shows solicitors are willing to venture outside the technical end of consultation into more contacts-based lobbying.
The influence of commercial firms has also resulted in the increased use of support regulation and licences, rather than Parliamentary instruments to implement policy.
Cooper, who helped draft trading licences to operate under the Utilities Bill while at the electricity regulator Ofgem, argues that the increasing use of non-Parliamentary instruments will create a bigger role for specialist lawyers to influence policy in the future.
Ofgem itself provided a notable example of the trend, having used Denton Hall's energy team to draft agreements regulating the wholesale of electricity.
In addition, a number of the 28 bills included in November's Queen's Speech, such as the Limited Liability Partnership and E-Commerce Bills are ripe for commercial lawyers to bring their influence to bear.
But perhaps the strongest argument for private firms becoming more involved with the law-making process can be put in commercial terms. As Patrick puts its: "You have a tremendous advantage advising your client if you have been involved in the development of the law compared to if you have come to the area cold."