Now that Tyco and Eversheds have taken their genuinely ground-breaking partnering deal to the next level, it is increasingly clear how much the two have riding on it being a success. But the key question, as much now as ever, is whether Eversheds can make the deal profitable. Given the details that Tyco has released regarding the relationship, it will certainly require the national giant to execute the work with efficiency and skillful project management on a scale and to an extent that is highly unusual in legal services.

Eversheds is expected to put in around 25,000-30,000 hours a year for a mandate set to generate around £5m annually, aside from three performance-driven bonuses. Given that Eversheds is also expecting to provide between four and five secondees to Tyco, down from a year one commitment of eight, that is no mean feat. And the turbulence of the relationship in its first year has done nothing to silence the sniping from critics that the deal is unworkable (though 11 major law firms thought it workable enough to pitch for the original tender). Matters were not helped by an initially strained relationship between Tyco and adviser as Eversheds buckled under the strain of its trophy client's workflow. Part of that initial problem is that Eversheds was, to a certain extent, selling a product that didn't exist. It has been said before but the much-touted partnering models like DuPont that Tyco had been compared with are really little more than pretty standard panel arrangements. One rival partner observes that "you either sell the sausage or the sizzle", arguing that Eversheds was better on selling sizzling style rather than delivering meaty substance.

Better late than never

But – and this is where credit has to be given – while Eversheds may not have had a product when it began, but it has built one with admirable speed after it realised what it had taken on. This is down to the global account management system that the firm built with a seven-figure investment to log and manage the Tyco work and the influence of Stephen Hopkins, the polished performer Eversheds drafted in to get the deal back on track with great success.

None of which changes the fact that it is hard to see how Eversheds can turn much of a profit, even if it secures all the bonuses – the size of which both sides are curiously tight-lipped over despite the detail that has been released on everything else. And, for all the effort and exposure, this is a client, however assiduously it has courted attention, with merely a mid-cap legal spend. Neither is it clear whether Tyco can extract enough out of the deal to make it worth tying itself so tightly to a single-service provider. For this reason alone, the broad sense from other general counsel is that there is little appetite to try anything this radical.

But Eversheds at least can extract value in three important areas: project management, international and marketing. Eversheds has accumulated handy skills and systems, even if cynics may argue that this sort of thing is not a million miles from the kind of bulk work commoditisation the nationals were desperate to get away from a decade ago. By common consent, Tyco also concentrated minds on turning Eversheds' loose international grouping into a more polished network. But even more valuable is the marketing edge it has given the firm, which has helped it sign up other clients on more modest versions of the same model. Equally as important, Eversheds has badged itself as an inventive legal practice that can think and act imaginatively. That adds major value to a firm once saddled with a steady but pedestrian image. On that basis, even as a loss-leader, the deal has probably already paid for itself.