Bar Council chair Michael Todd QC reports on his experience speaking at this year's annual American Bar Association conference

The land of opportunity; a nation built on social advancement through merit rather than on patronage and social class.

Well, that's what we hear. So why is it that, despite our many historical ties with the US, business opportunities have at times been difficult to cultivate?

The obvious reason is that the US is a land of opportunity for US citizens. What is it that gives us the right, or indeed any expectation, that we should be afforded those opportunities that do exist?

For many years, the pinnacle of achievement for so many businesses has been to break into the US market. Even Marks & Spencer tried it in the late 1980s, first with its disastrous purchase of Brooks Brothers, then with its purchase of Kings Super Markets, a US food chain, which was sold off in 2006. Shirts and food; if M&S can't get it right, what hope is there for us?

And in some ways, it is no different for lawyers. With varying degrees of success, UK law firms have expanded into New York and beyond, in their attempts at global expansion, with varying degrees of success.

Some have tried the 'green card method', getting into bed with, or forming allegiances with, US law firms. Some have taken the more direct approach of acquisition, or of new starts, opening their own new branch office.

So why has it been so difficult? After all, the US professes to be an open global market. And what opportunities are there for the Bar of England and Wales in the US market?

I have spoken and written a great deal this year about the Bar needing to invest in its future, and about the importance of communicating better our messages, of our values, of our relevance, of what we do and how we practise.

The annual meeting of the American Bar Association (ABA) – which I recently attended in Chicago, following on from the Bar Council's attendance at the ABA's Section of International Law Spring Meeting in New York in April – provided an excellent opportunity to take stock of where we are and how our messages are being received – if indeed they are getting through at all.

The ABA annual meeting attracts more than 6,000 lawyers not just from the US, but from all over the world. Certainly, the meeting in Chicago, said to be 'the home' of the ABA, was a good place to start.

We had a seminar session with the Chicago Bar Association, discussing the level of hopeful new entrants to the profession from the law schools; problems associated with access to the profession; issues relating to equality and diversity (in their terms, diversity and inclusion) within the profession; the cost of litigation and the problems that poses to access to justice; regulation of the profession; and, inevitably, alternative business structures.

The concept of outside involvement, particularly of a financial nature, in the provision of legal services remains anathema at best, and positively dangerous at worst, to many American lawyers.

While it is clear that we face many of the same challenges, and we are all operating in difficult economic environments, it is equally clear that we share the same values.

And on this, as on many other occasions when I have visited different jurisdictions, it is evident that we have a distinct advantage. Even in the US, we are seen by many lawyers as leading the common law world, in terms of our jurisprudence, our adherence to the rule of law, the integrity of our justice system, and our promotion of access to justice.

While we have similar values, our pursuit of them is different. We have different points of emphasis; for example on access to the profession. At the seminar on diversity and inclusion within the profession, addressed by North American in-house counsel, you may have been forgiven for thinking that gender and ethnicity were the only issues with which we had to contend – the words 'social mobility' and 'disability' seemed strangely absent.

Meetings with the New York State Bar Association, the New York City Bar Association and officers of the ABA's Section of International Law, following up on our meetings with them earlier in the year, enabled us to build upon relationships already made and to reinforce the constructive dialogue as to how we may work together more productively in the future.

Investing in the future is all about making the investment in terms of both time and effort, spotting opportunities, forging and developing relationships, communicating our messages, and instilling confidence in what we have on offer.

There is no prospect of the Bar being able to compete with either US law firms, on their home territory, or with those UK law firms that have managed to break into the US market. Nor do we wish to provide all the services required of a law firm.

But what we can, and do, provide is quick and cost-effective specialist advice, to those law firms that may not possess a particular expertise, backed by our wealth of experience as advocates. We do not compete with law firms for client relationships, but act as consultants; contractors who can be brought in as appropriate.

Those are the opportunities available for the Bar in both the US market and internationally, and that is a message that I detect has been well received.