Don't get me wrong – there's a lot of truth to the criticism that law firms aren't good at differentiating themselves. In a fragmented industry, many large firms blur into each other – either because the business has grown in a haphazard fashion or the firm can't stomach the internal politics of selling some parts of the business over others.

That said, you still have to wonder if the benefits of a law firm being highly differentiated – even having a unique selling point – are oversold. Fifteen years of covering business makes me suspect so. The world is teeming with famous brands that ran with ideas others came up with, only did it better – Apple is probably the most celebrated current example.

And what evidence is there that law firms benefit hugely from being first-movers or unique? A very select handful of legal institutions can be said to have attained that status, and very good for business it is, too. But what can the wider legal market extrapolate from the genesis of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz? Not much.

I suspect that law firms are lectured to a lot about the values of standing out because that is the direction the consulting industry and business schools have gone over the last 25 years. But then the people working in those fields have a strong incentive to sell flashy ideas over getting the grind right. This approach tends to emphasise the glory of innovation and the power of star individuals.

And despite their structural conservatism, law firms have had a certain weakness for star cultures over the slog of building a strong brand. What I'd argue is lacking is sufficient focus on operational polish: having a great partnership, being adept at developing and retaining good staff, having a strong business development function, fostering a great client service ethos. None of these things brings a jot of differentiation you could plonk in a press release – none of them will give you the right 'model' – yet they are the backbone of a successful law firm.

While on the topic, one strange related factor is that four years of tough commercial markets hasn't led to much improvement among law firms' business development operations. Sure, firms scrap around more for business when times are hard – there's more reactive low-balling by partners worried about workflow – but we've barely seen the beginning of law firms getting serious about setting out to strategically take their rivals' breakfast, lunch and dinner.

An obvious means of achieving that is in vastly improving business development functions. Instead, the primary focus has been cost-cutting in these areas. Sensible cost-saving is all well and good in the current climate – but in this game, the ability to win work is much more important. Law firms should be less intent on transferring back-office functions out of the City and more focused on what's so wrong with their staff that it doesn't make financial sense to have them in the head office.