Glancing at our latest Big Question survey, it's clear that while the magic circle concept still excites controversy, no-one doubts the power of the brand. Views are understandably more mixed over whether the name reflects genuine superiority. Some respondents go as far as to accuse lazy journalists of forcing the tag on an unwilling profession (my favorite was the guy ranting about reptiles). Others put forward that most seductive of arguments for magic circle-bashers: clients don't instruct on the basis of it.

How can I put this delicately? I can't - both of those ideas are nonsense. Now, Legal Week makes no claim to have invented or originated the term, and has no vested interest in promoting it. We use it because there's obviously a group of advisers operating on a different level in corporate and securities work. Does that make them 'better' in a wider sense as business advisers? Probably not, and their retreat from full service practice gives top 50 rivals many areas in which to lead the field. But for high-stakes corporate matters, yes, they are the best. And in my experience, it is the rivals that have the least illusions about that fact that are the most effective competitors to the group.

As to claims that clients don't instruct on brand, it is just not supported by the facts. On full service practice lines, clients would be as or more likely to rate an Addleshaws or Eversheds as Linklaters. But, once again, for bet-the-company issues, clients clearly do instruct heavily on the basis of brand. What else would you call the famed IBM factor in law other than clients' tendency to bring in the tried and tested option on the big deal?

The issue of journalists inventing tags is more ambiguous. The business media usually only has much power to shape perception when pointing out trends that reflect reality. Even with a cynical view, for journalists to shape perception there must at least be the belief that something real is being highlighted, even if belief is just wishful thinking. In this sense the profession has played along with its unquestionable mania for hierarchy, which never ceases to amaze. Golden circle, silver circle, global elite etc – the profession has played an active part propagating these concepts, whether they were that intellectually convincing or not. I guess that's a product of a profession with a strong sense of social status.

None of which means the magic circle won't evolve, or that the group is unchallengeable. In business things change and once-impregnable institutions can falter – just look at some of finance's once-celebrated icons. As such, the magic circle probably has a shelf life as a new hierarchy emerges. It's also far from certain that all five members will retain their top-tier status in the long term. But in the meantime, the circle remains a fact of life.