There are things you can tell from a numerical grade, but there's a limit. But if it's numbers you want, the 2010 Client Satisfaction Report from our independent research arm Legal Week Intelligence (LWI) certainly delivers.

This year 1,265 senior clients at major companies participated in the report, the largest ever, including 71% of the FTSE 100. There are rankings for 71 major law firms.

Individual scores for law firms on the seven criteria in the research paint a clear picture. But that image remains one-dimensional until you add in comments from individual clients.

That's why LWI has this year increased the amount of qualitative information – meaning client comments – in the 150-page report. From the client comments you can gain a sense of how differently clients feel about individual law firms and how widely varying their expectations are for different kinds of law firms.

Some firms – even those that get pretty good grades from clients – are in the 'good value/moderate expectations' camp. Typical client comments when asked what impressed about this breed of firms are things like:

• "Nothing in particular… they have a job to do and we need a job done, that's all"
• "Nothing much. They are OK and do well for our needs"
• "Better than the other firm we use"
• "Cost"
• "They are cheaper"

Those maxing out in the quality end of the spectrum get comments like:

• "Partner involvement. Strength in depth, deep industry knowledge. Commercially savvy"
• "Sheer professionalism and knowledge"
• "Individual tailored advice"

The pattern of comments at the opposing ends of the spectrum does bear some relationship with the tiers of law firms and industry status that private practice obsess about, though less so than many managing partners would like to believe.

The report also harvested comments from clients as to the reasons advisers have been kicked off panels. Some examples include:

• "They provided a quote and then charged triple for it"
• "Billing more than they should – meticulously billing phone calls following up legal advice"
• "Quality of advice decreased while fees when up as much as 33% for some lawyers"
• Overpriced"
• "Mediocrity"
• "Poor advice, poor service, expensive"

Perhaps such comments explain why, though clients remain generally impressed with the quality of legal advice and service they get that, that general satisfaction has declined across the board against 2009, and particularly on cost issues.

This lack of satisfaction also comes during a period when the report suggests that clients are becoming more demanding. In 2009, clients on average rated the importance of 'quality of legal advice' as 9 out of 10, a figure that rises to 9.4 this year even as average satisfaction rating has fallen.

There's a similar pattern for other criteria with 'cost/billing practice' and 'service delivery/responsiveness' being rated as more important than in 2009 while satisfaction levels have again dipped.

A totally unscientific hunch based on these findings is that choppy market conditions are making clients understandably expect more of their advisers. And advisers are either struggling – or unwilling – to keep up.

For more, see Slaughters, Simmons and Bird & Bird top-rated by clients in new research.