Freshfields still finds it hard to say what it wants from banking, but what's the problem?

They were the appointments that promised so much yet delivered so little – but what, if anything, do the swift departures of Maurice Allen and Mike Goetz from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer say about the City firm's wider finance practice? The message from Freshfields is that it just didn't work out as either party had hoped. There's plenty of truth to that, but it's hardly the full story. For a start, it is striking the level of naivety both parties seem to have brought to the deal – arguably the most eye-catching lateral appointment Freshfields had ever made in the City. Certainly there appeared to be a lack of communication on both sides as to how it would work, which contributed to later frustrations.

perry-nobleIt is also hard to entirely agree with Freshfields' assertion that the episode says little about its banking practice. The hires were strongly linked to previous finance chief Perry Noble (pictured), who was managing a practice that suffered much turbulence during Freshfields' 2006 partnership restructuring, not to mention the loss of two well-regarded partners to Linklaters. With the firm concerned it was underweight on senior finance partners, outside of restructuring at least, two such high-profile finance hires underlined that finance remained important.

But Noble soon retired and it was apparent that the dramatic worsening of the debt markets between the pair's arrival and departure had an impact on at least some influential partners' willingness to expand in finance. Despite hiring two senior partners and making up two internal partners – Tazim Hall and Alex Mitchell – around the same time, Freshfields did not, and never intended to, recruit additional associates.

But perhaps the underlying point is that ambiguity remains regarding what Freshfields will do with finance. On one hand its global ambitions seem to mean it needs a finance practice with strength and depth. On the other, the firm does not really want to build a multi-strand bank-led practice, requiring higher leverage and covering more commoditised areas of the market. Whatever the spin, this remains a corporate-driven firm (though clearly one that wants much more than a corporate support team in finance).

Perhaps it doesn't matter. While the hires themselves didn't work out, Freshfields' finance practice (divided into banking and restructuring on one side and structured and asset products on the other) has performed robustly with revenues significantly up during the last financial year. That is in no small part thanks to its highly-rated restructuring practice, which won roles on high-profile matters including Kaupthing, Northern Rock and Babcock & Brown.

Given that the firm has avoided the kind of restructurings seen this year at many rivals, a neutral observer might wonder if there's anything wrong with the status quo. Yet Freshfields does still on occasion break into grand rhetoric regarding its aims to build up in finance. Surely the danger is the firm will face an ever-growing gap between its stated ambitions for finance and the reality in terms of its investment. In the long run, such a disconnect is more likely to disengage talented partners than a lack of bold vision.