Sometimes law firms make it hard for themselves. Take Ashurst, which has been looking well off its game for over a year now without an obvious cause for its malaise. The firm argues that there is nothing wrong with its strategy or performance relative to its peer group –and it is largely right.

Likewise, its belief that it belongs in a club of premium, internationally-credible firms alongside Herbert Smith and a dozen or so US practices – and that this will be a good place to be as the market evolves – is broadly correct, even if Ashurst will have hustle over the coming years to remain in that select company.

It is also true that the firm's transactional performance has been more than respectable over the last 18 months. At the same time, corporate – the practice that some argue has failed to sufficiently develop in recent years – has been a solid performer under the leadership of well-regarded co-heads Stephen Lloyd and Simon Beddow. The firm must also be pleased to see revenues up 2% at the half-year point, given its practice mix.

And yet… well, even disregarding the trash talk that always pervades City law, it is clear that Ashurst is not comfortable in its skin. That was apparent in the angst regarding the departure earlier this year of two young corporate partners to Kirkland & Ellis and the widely-circulated (though strenuously denied) claims that the departure of Erica Handling for BarCap was related to the divisive acquisition of a US team from McKee Nelson in 2009. And claims of poor morale came back with a vengeance last week when Clifford Chance recruited much-liked corporate partner Steven Fox.

Ashurst's management argues that it is merely going through what most firms are experiencing in a challenging commercial market, and that the quality of its practice makes the firm a key target for predatory US firms looking to talk down its business and pick up senior talent.

It's true, up to a point. As was seen in the last downturn, Ashurst is in that awkward position of having top-notch partners without having the protection of scale and profitability of the magic circle or Herbert Smith.

Yet that realisation is a reminder of Ashurst's need to maintain a cohesive partnership –- not all firms need that kind of self-reinforcing culture but Ashurst does because it will always be top of the headhunter's list when the market dips.

The worry for the firm should not be that the mood among partners suffered in the wake of its restructuring last year – that was inevitable – it is that the firm has yet to draw a line under that process. In this regard it risks losing ground to City rivals that have already regrouped after difficult restructurings.

What's the solution? Management and the partnership need to step back and take stock of the situation, including gaining a sense of perspective on its considerable achievements over the last decade. The firm will be well-placed if, as many expect, a round of consolidation hits the upper reaches of the global market several years down the line.

The firm will also have to clarify exactly what kind of partnership it wants to have – this two-parts Linklaters/one-part Travers Smith thing isn't working. And if the firm can't reach that accommodation with itself reasonably soon, then it may really start experiencing the problems that City gossips are touting.

For more, see: