As a paid-up law firm watcher, there is a thought that's been bugging me in recent months: I can't work out the point of offshoring in legal services. I'm referring mainly to the model of sending support services to countries such as India on the basis that you can slash costs by hiring much cheaper but highly-qualified staff.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the size of the talent pool in India, nor that staff are a lot cheaper than in expensive cities like London. But I can't get around the fact that such initiatives have high upfront costs and cause major disruption. And all that to probably ultimately reach a lower standard of work than you had before.

None of that would be a deal-breaker if the economics of the model are stable - but are they? If, as a big City law firm, you figure it will take five years to really polish your offshoring or outsourcing services but that the ongoing cost savings would be so significant that it would be worth the time and effort, then the case is clear. But it seems that sending work to such centres is not only a hassle, it's also a short-term fix. The very factors that make countries like India attractive destinations – a fast-growing and well-educated middle class and a rapidly expanding economy – all but guarantee that the cost advantages will be dramatically eroded in a matter of years. That was obvious three years ago, but it's twice as obvious now; the UK economy is on course to contract by 4% this year, while in India it is set to grow 5%.

Barring a massive reversal of trends, in five to 10 years the relative cost advantage of basing staff in such markets versus the UK will be very different – which suggests that firms will have to up sticks again and relocate to a lower-cost market, going through the whole shooting match once more.

Which brings me to my final observation: why don't UK law firms make far more use of low-cost centres closer to home, both in the UK regions and Europe? I don't say that as some little Englander trying to protect jobs from globalisation; more that it seems a longer-term solution to the challenge of building a more competitive cost base. While there will be some of the same logistic hurdles as with offshoring, at least you know you can commit long-term without a sudden explosion in living standards making the whole thing pointless (barring some miraculous renaissance in Newcastle).

And surely there's scope for more than back-office work to go regional – much legal support and mainstream practice could be conducted from lower-cost regional offices, leaving a lean, client-facing operation in the City. I know that some City firms do use regional back offices, but the scope is generally modest. Is there any logical reason a City firm couldn't have 60% of its UK staff in the regions, with remaining 40% in the Square Mile? I'm told the model works well in investment banking. And there's no reason why effective use of regional centres couldn't be used alongside offshoring. But it seems odd to lean so heavily on Mumbai when you can't even make it to Macclesfield. But maybe I'm missing the point – I'd be genuinely interested to hear any feedback from law firms on why offshoring works for them.