"The primary goal of this project is to drive greater fee opportunities to those firms that provide the greatest value proposition to us… we strongly encourage your proposals to be simple, straightforward and compelling… be bold."

Despite its sometimes awkward mixture of jargon-fuelled management speak and starkly direct language, the request for proposals quoted above from a major bank for its upcoming adviser review makes strangely compelling reading.

The document directs law firms that are considering pitching to be daring, bold and basically cut their rates to ribbons if they want to keep a place on its revised panel. The message is certainly explicit – the bargain on offer is for pitching firms to cut into their own margins to gain the "substantial opportunity to take market share from competitor law firms whose proposals remain under consideration".

The letter also clearly sets out the bank's expectations regarding proposals from pitching firms. No payments for internal expenses, no payments for aborted deals in some product lines, trainees charged out at no higher than paralegal rates and discount models that work across the board. If you believe there has been a fundamental change in the dynamics of the institutional legal market since the recession, this letter is about as close to articulating that new reality as I have seen.

In places it reaches almost a comedy of brutal understatement. Perhaps the best line is: "Generally, narratives regarding the excellence of your firm's credentials should be excluded. If you feel strongly about including such narratives, please be brief and refer to external reference points, if available." The sarcasm of the sub-clause really takes it to the next level.

With a string of major banks currently undergoing hard-nosed panel reviews you can bet similar letters are being sent to law firms across the financial centres of the globe on a regular basis. In fact, I'd wager the only reason such letters haven't already become commonplace is that panel reviews are generally shrouded in such excessive secrecy that the sharing of practical ideas by clients has been badly impeded. This has been fortunate indeed for law firms, who had better hope no-one starts putting on conferences to teach more in-house teams to write letters like this.

I suppose it is debatable whether such tactics will ultimately make law firms question their love affair with the banking community in the way they came to question their relationship with insurance clients. But emotionally law firms aren't anywhere near that point yet with the banks. Expect more interesting correspondence.