So it was rumoured, so it has come to pass. The persistent gossip in restructuring circles was that Andrew Wilkinson would be quitting Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft as the Eurotunnel restructuring winds down for a major investment bank. And so, with Cadwalader's star confirming last week that he is moving to Goldman Sachs to co-head its restructuring department, he has.

It seems apparent that Wilkinson had entertained the possibility of a move to Goldman for some time, though the talks are reported to have until recently gone cold; partly because Wilkinson was intent on entering Goldman's jealously-guarded equity.

Cynics have also questioned whether Wilkinson's move is related to pressure to justify his multimillion-dollar package at Cadwalader at a time when the slow insolvency market has given him less chance to exercise his famed work ethic.

With Goldman fresh from recruiting Lachlan Edwards from Rothschild, not to mention last year's appointment of Kirkland & Ellis restructuring heavyweight James Sprayregen, the bank has some serious talent just as insolvency professions are predicting an upturn in work (though when aren't they?).

For Cadwalader, the outlook is far less positive. As has been pointed out for years, the firm's London arm is over-reliant on restructuring in general and Wilkinson's bond-holder brand in particular. And Cadwalader's critics argue that the firm has never managed to cultivate a culture in London that encouraged a team ethos or nurtured new talent. Perhaps that is one reason why arch rival Bingham McCutchen has made ground in recent years.

Ironically, lawyers at the firm appear to agree that Wilkinson's presence has hampered progress in London, with several partners last week hopefully claiming the departure to be a "positive" development for the firm. The argument goes that, with Wilkinson gone, the firm will be free to build a team that genuinely reflects its US practice, meaning a lot more capital markets, the practice that rules the roost in Manhattan. London partners even claim capital markets already accounts for well over half of its UK turnover, against 30% or so for restructuring.

There is some merit to the logic of the post-Wilkinson regroup, but few regard Cadwalader as a serious player in the City structured finance market. In restructuring, after all, the firm had the advantage of a US-style technique and client base that perfectly suited the rising influence of hedge funds in the European market in the late 1990s, with only Bingham for competition.

In structured finance, the firm will have to compete against the likes of Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Ashurst and Linklaters, not to mention Sidley Austin, Latham & Watkins and White & Case.

It is also hard to put a positive spin on the failure to deal with the entirely predictable succession problem. "It is incredible that they had all this time to think about it and are now trying to persuade people that the remaining team is credible," says one restructuring rival. "They will really struggle to maintain anything like their current position."

Even in restructuring, where the firm still has four UK partners, the team has been so heavily built around The Andrew Wilkinson Show that Cadwalader faces an uphill struggle, though this week's four-partner haul from New York restructuring rival Weil Gotshal & Manges will help.

Cadwalader promises investment in banking, private equity and real estate finance to go alongside its structured finance core but, having built a reputation in London as a firm without the knack for team-building, it's going to take more than money.