When a single bank announces that it is setting aside more money to cover litigation costs than several countries' GDP, it is unlikely be alone in facing soaring legal spend. 

At $23bn (£13.7bn), the value of JPMorgan Chase's litigation provision is the highest announced by any financial institution so far but, across the board, legal spend has risen steeply in response to wave after wave of financial scandals ranging from payment protection insurance to Libor. 

A not-so-quick glance through several banks' annual reports for 2013 shows litigation provisions more than doubled between January and December at Barclays and Credit Suisse, while Lloyds Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland set aside overall provisions of more than £3bn. 

Meanwhile, the growing number of banks publicly disclosing the impact legal costs have had on their financial performance means such expenditure has been moved firmly out of the appendices into the limelight.

All of which should be extremely good news for law firms, which, alongside customers being compensated for banks' past foibles, should be among the biggest beneficiaries of this phenomenon. But, as we reveal in this week's lead feature, the benefit is not always as clear cut as you might expect. Because although the overall figure spent on legal fees has grown, the heightened attention the issue is receiving and the increasing volume of work means banks are being tougher than ever on costs. Complaints from banks' non-core advisers that panel places are not always worth it because of how much fees are squeezed are nothing new, but even those winning the biggest mandates can now find themselves under pressure. 

Quite simply, as investigations and penalties mount up so does the need to keep costs down – or at the very least justify the expense. And this means banks are increasingly willing to look beyond the most recognised law firm names to save money. Others are calling on the junior Bar rather than law firms to lead reviews, while some are investigating the possibility of appointing just one firm to take on all of their investigations work globally. 

All of which are examples of the changing dynamic between bank and legal adviser at a time when the need for quality advice has never been greater. The trick, as ever, is making sure the relationship remains profitable for both sides – a challenge that will clearly require both parties to be as open-minded and innovative as possible.