Law firms, consultants and think tanks are all pushing to carve out a reputation for agenda-setting research and commentary. Alex Aldridge reports

Philip Wood QC ambles into one of the meeting rooms of Allen & Overy's (A&O's) Bishops Square offices and launches into a series of surreal asides, including but not limited to 1930s Yorkshire, his love of colouring in and how there are too many laws in the world.

The face of – and brains behind – A&O's new Global Law Intelligence Unit, who holds visiting professor posts at universities including Oxford, Cambridge and London School of Economics, plays the eccentric academic role well. But spend a bit longer in his company and it is clear that he also possesses the commercial nous you'd expect from someone who has spent 40 years in corporate law, including a high-profile stint as A&O's head of banking in the 1990s.

Wood dislikes the term 'thought leader' – "it's so pompous," he says – but as a senior member of his profession with intellect and off-the-wall charisma, he fits the bill pretty well. And, as A&O is betting, such individuals possess significant business-generation potential if put to use in the right way.

Leadership background

Thought leadership has its roots in the management consultancy sector – the expression probably first having been used by strategy+business magazine editor Joel Kurtzman to designate interview subjects with business ideas that merited attention. The likes of McKinsey & Company and Boston Consulting Group (BCG) took the concept to the next level during the 1990s by actively harnessing the ideas and analysis of their bright up-and-comers to establish in-house research units, or think tanks.

The papers they produce – a mixture of long reports based on large-scale research projects and shorter opinion pieces – are generally well regarded, particularly in the case of McKinsey, which is viewed as having turned the use of research as a brand-builder into an art form. Such writing conveys a message to potential clients about the producing firm's position at the cutting-edge while also assisting them in appealing to potential junior recruits, who are often seduced by the allure of places like McKinsey's economics research arm, The McKinsey Global Institute (MGI).

Law firms, as usual, have arrived late to the party, despite substantially stepping up the amount of client-briefing material on points of law that they produce for free in the last few years.

Where law firms have only recently begun to tread is in the creation of writing that is either more opinionated than a strict legal interpretation – the commentary side of the equation – or moving into fully-fledged research projects as engaged with business life or the practice of law.

michaelsmythOf course, there have been exceptions to this rule. Clifford Chance (CC), for example, launched a public policy unit in 1992, bringing in Richard Thomas (who went on to become the UK Information Commissioner) from the Office of Fair Trading to head it up. The firm's current head of public policy, high-profile partner Michael Smyth (pictured), who has led the unit since 2003 (and will step down at the end of this month), says its aim is to give the law firm a voice in setting the agenda on legislation.

To date it has, among other things, helped persuade ministers to make amendments to the Financial Services Act so that it takes into account the Human Rights Act and conducted advocacy work on the European Services Directive and the new immigrations caps. And as Smyth admits, by associating itself with these weighty issues, "CC certainly doesn't do its brand any harm".

Another frontrunner is Pinsent Masons, its legacy firm Masons having launched its own blog, OUT-LAW, in 2000, producing a mixture of news on technology-related legal issues and more in-depth analysis of developments in the law in this area. One general counsel describes it as "so good that one wonders if they lose clients by giving it away for free".

OUT-LAW is regarded by many observers of the digital legal scene as head and shoulders above most comparable efforts by law firms, partly because of the resources put into it, but also because it eschews the fence-sitting of many rivals to take a definite line on the topics it covers.

Like Wood, Struan Robertson, the lawyer who edits OUT-LAW full-time, cringes at the mention of the term thought leadership. "It is greatly overused," he argues, "and in many cases what's going on would be better described as 'thought regurgitation'. The really important thing, whether it involves original thought or not, is demonstrating to clients a capacity to add value."

Yet Pinsents looks set to face more competition in its efforts to set the agenda. Most recently, Nabarro has ventured into this area by seeking to create ambitious research projects. Notably, last year the firm carried out research on the role of general counsel, which resulted in a well-regarded report published this June, entitled From In-House Lawyer to Business Counsel. Jonathan Warne, the partner in charge of the project – which the firm refers to as 'ideas sharing' rather than 'thought leadership' – says it has "contributed to the debate in the GC community", while in the process "raising our profile within our marketplace". He adds that an Asian offshoot to the survey is in the pipeline, with such projects "a more valuable use of our resources than producing brochures or other sales material." Similar recent ventures include a report from Eversheds on the changing role of general counsel, which received considerable publicity when it was reported earlier this year.

However, it wasn't until A&O launched its Global Intelligence Unit in February this year that a UK law firm went as far as creating what could be called a fully-fledged think tank or research arm. The unit, which is led by Wood with full-time support from associate Camille Astier, draws on the knowledge of the firm's 2,500 lawyers plus the expertise of around 300 independent law firms with which it has links. Its key aim, according to Wood, is "to provide straightforward, comprehensive information about the key legal issues for our clients in jurisdictions around the world – both where we have a presence ourselves or where we work with a local law firm."

Last month the unit published its first formal report – a 200-page report on the global leveraged finance market that colour-codes countries based on how problematic it may be to do deals under their legislation. On the back of this, A&O is organising various events, including a panel discussion on doing business in emerging markets, with guests including Lord Mandelson and Sean Hagan, the general counsel of the International Monetary Fund. "We're trying to put people together to encourage dialogue, share know-how and understand each other better," says Astier.

Leadership from elsewhere in the profession

Critics of this approach will, however, argue that while thought leadership delivered by professional services firms may often yield notable results, it will never be independent. Commenting on A&O's recent venture, one partner at a rival firm says: "A&O likes to set the agenda – fine. But I wouldn't take it too seriously, because it's obviously their agenda."

But legal consultants like Jomati, Hedley Consulting, Motive Legal and, in the US, the online publication Adam Smith, Esq., don't suffer from this lack of impartiality. Jomati, for example, not only offers paid-for strategy advice to law firms, barristers' chambers and in-house legal departments, but this year has published three reports – on globalisation, client relationships and, last month, the future of the Bar – which it has sent out free of charge to clients and other contacts.

"The idea is to challenge existing norms of thinking on a matter and spark debate," says Jomati founder and principal Tony Williams, who is also a member of the recently-formed Halsbury's Law Exchange, a legal think tank put together by LexisNexis.

Alongside Williams, the group, which will be chaired by the journalist Joshua Rozenberg, includes figures such as Slaughter and May corporate partner Nigel Boardman, Serle Court commercial silk Khawar Qureshi QC, Edwin Coe head of litigation David Greene and NJK strategic consultant Nick Jarrett Kerr, who also leads the strategy module on Nottingham Law School's MBA Programme.

Rozenberg describes the Exchange, which will hold its first full meeting later this year, as "a blank canvas". He continues: "The idea is for it to be open-ended and flexible in a way that allows any project that merits examination to be considered."

But not everyone is impressed. "You're telling me Boardman is going to tip Slaughters' latest M&A briefing into the pot?" asks one senior lawyer, adding: "It's nice for individual profile-raising, but I don't see much of worth coming out of it."

A further challenge for the venture will be to fulfil its mission statement of encouraging substantive legal policy debate that can bridge the divide between technical legal pieces and the wider concerns of politicians and the public.

Another legal thought leadership venture not tied to a specific law firm is the College of Law's Legal Services Institute (LSI). Set up in 2007, the LSI is run by Professor Stephen Mayson, a former Clifford Turner (now Clifford Chance) tax lawyer who also works as a strategy consultant to law firms. He is supported by senior research fellow John Randall, senior policy adviser Stella Dunn and policy assistant Olivia Marley.

The College describes the LSI as an "independent policy think tank", with its stated purpose "to help guide and inform policy-making in the legal services sector". But while its research on topics outside the College's areas of interest, like civil legal aid and alternative business structures, may benefit from impartiality, it is hard to see the papers it has published on legal education issues as truly independent. Indeed, many view the body as explicitly a creature of the College. Still, Mayson insists that the driving force behind his work is "what's in the public interest", adding that the institute avoids direct involvement in the College's education activities.

What's certain is that as the College continues its long-running battle to corner the legal education market, the LSI provides it with a valuable extra dimension that rivals like BPP Law School do not possess – perhaps explaining the additional funding put into it over the last few months.

Getting buy in

Having your own think tank – or some other kind of thought leadership venture – sounds great. But to do it properly requires support from the top. It is no coincidence that the projects that have thrived have all benefited from strong backing. The MGI, for example, is conducted by a group of full-time senior fellows based in Beijing, Brussels, Delhi, London, San Francisco and Washington DC, and aided not only by McKinsey's consultants – who do 6-12 month stints at the institute – but leading economists, including Nobel laureates and policy experts.

In the case of McKinsey, working for the research unit is seen as an invaluable way for ambitious professionals to both make their personal mark and move up in the ranks.

This principle also applies to the legal sphere. Robertson says the outcome of Pinsents' OUT-LAW project would have been very different without the support it received from senior management at the firm. This allowed it to employ him and former journalist Matthew Magee to work full-time on it – a factor crucial to OUT-LAW's success. He explains: "To produce quality, regularly-updated work takes time – something which lawyers don't tend to have. It's not realistic to expect fee earners to meet their billing targets and publish in volume."

The problem is that persuading law firm chiefs of the value of thought leadership isn't always straightforward. Lawyers say many are reluctant to accept that the rewards may take a while to yield, and even then will probably be hard to put a figure on.

Perhaps the most compelling reason for the legal profession to intellectually invest in such ventures is the opportunity it gives lawyers to demonstrate their intellect and judgement. This will arguably become increasingly important if law firms are to resist merely being dragged into process-driven commoditised tasks.

"The revenue uptake from this kind of thing can be considerable," says CC's Smyth, "but it's not as readily measurable as other forms of activity and indeed may take a good while to bear fruit." But looking ahead, the signs are positive. "Ultimately, thought leadership is driven by an obvious commercial concern to add value and resist the commoditisation of legal work," continues Smyth. "And the smart people in the profession are increasingly recognising its importance."

Just don't call it thought leadership.