I don't pay much attention to pronouncements made by general counsel about cost and value. It's a maxim that has generally stood me in good stead at Legal Week. If you did take those public statements at face value, you would have concluded a lot of things: rates are coming down; clients are instructing mid-tiers for much of their work; sophisticated clients are now experts in managing costs and measuring value. The awkward point is that these trends are either not happening in the field or, at least, their prominence is greatly exaggerated.

So the most accurate indicator of clients' priorities – the one that never steers me wrong – is the same as it was years ago: our annual table of financial results of the largest UK law firms. This measures the outcomes of thousands of buying decisions made by clients every year. If demand is flat-lining, it's there. If clients are getting tough on rates in certain areas, that is where you will see the result.

Because the simple point is that for years there has been a huge gulf between what clients publicly say they want – much of it entirely justified – and what they do when it comes to the crunch. Law firms are many things, but dumb they are not. They are masters of playing along with vaguely-worded wish lists that they sense are not going to be enforced but also very quick to start hopping when they see the client is asking for something that they fully intend to get.

A recent report from Nabarro nicely illustrates the nature of this dialogue between client and external adviser – a peculiar form of communication infused with hidden meaning and ambiguity. The report – 'General counsel: vague about value?'– focuses largely on the struggle of in-house legal teams to implement their ambitions of demonstrating value, winning internal respect and improving efficiency.

We reported the findings last week, but the gist is simple: many clients haven't created basic tools to measure efficiency, value or performance, either in their own teams or outside advisers. Other research backs up that point, with this year's Client Satisfaction Report from our independent research arm finding that cost and billing practices are once again the area in which clients are the least happy.

The Nabarro report also underlines one of the reasons why I remain cynical about most of the grander claims made for market-disrupting shifts in the legal industry. Clients so far lack the will or resources to stomach the short-term upheaval required to move away from the traditional hourly-rate model.

It's become a common complaint among managing partners that they invest time and effort creating alternative billing options only to find that clients revert to the comfort of the status quo. I guess it's easier to talk revolution on the conference circuit than it is to implement on a Monday morning. Clients can get what they want, but they have to want it enough.