If year-on-year fee increases and a buoyant M&A market imbued a certain stasis, five years of economic woes have certainly driven change through the conservative legal profession.

The comparative proliferation of global giants of the ilk of Hogan Lovells, Norton Rose Fulbright and, more recently, King & Wood Mallesons SJ Berwin (KWM) serve as fine examples of the diverging market, with an increasingly international client base driving the case for cross-border mergers.

Nor has the downturn put a lid on international expansion through new office openings. Yes, these new footholds may be fewer and further between, and certainly the costs need to be better justified with the wider partnership, but quieter and more competitive markets at home have forced firms to look further afield for work.

As our feature this week looking at US firms' global ambitions discusses, the internationalisation of law firms is nothing new, with elite Wall Street players such as Sullivan & Cromwell first making their mark on the European stage as far back as the 1920s. However, Sullivan, along with the likes of Shearman & Sterling and Latham & Watkins, now forms part of a band of increasingly expansive partnerships that have grown beyond recognition in the last 10 to 15 years. And these firms baulk at being categorised as 'US' or 'UK' firms, preferring the epithet of 'international', 'global' – or, in cases such as Dentons, 'polycentric'.

Without a doubt, omnipresent firms such as DLA Piper and Baker & McKenzie, or those formed as a result of sizable mergers, including KWM and Hogan Lovells, have more of a case than most to argue they have no single headquarters. And many of the largest firms now have more lawyers internationally than in their historic home territory.

But in their battle to push their global product, firms must be wary of becoming amorphous: as they shun their roots they risk shunning their distinctive identity, not least because the bigger a firm becomes, the harder it is to maintain its culture. Successful law firm partnerships are, after all, built on the individual strengths of the partners within them.

And as much as a partnership should be consensual, whatever the size of the firm, there still needs to be a clear structure, with each office reporting into a central point – wherever that may be. 

Let's not forget, when faced with similar propositions on price and presence, work is ultimately won from clients on the back of relationships and personalities. Although firms would like to think otherwise, as a growing number open up shop overseas, 'global' is no longer a unique selling point.