A multinational client asks two panel firms to open an office in a far-flung jurisdiction where the company has substantial operations. One firm sets about establishing the office, the other – an exponent of the need to have consistently high-quality advice across its entire network – politely declines and instead refers the client to a trusted local firm. Which approach will the client find most attractive?

In the current business climate, if a company slips up in one distant jurisdiction, it risks having the US, the UK and countless other regulators breathing down its neck. It would therefore not be surprising if our hypothetical client found favour with the firm that stuck its neck out and committed to setting up in that jurisdiction, even if the quality of service were not precisely the same as in London or New York.

Ten years ago, nobody could have anticipated the collapse of an investment bank the size of Lehman Brothers and the global regulatory backlash that inevitably followed. When DLA and Piper Rudnick merged to form DLA Piper in 2005, eyebrows were collectively raised over the fact that the two parties had not merged their legacy partnerships. The consensus was that in the pursuit of international reach these firms had made an unacceptable compromise on quality. Fast forward to 2015 and, in the wake of the Swiss verein mergers that created fellow global giants like Norton Rose Fulbright and Dentons, the consensus over the desirability of full financial integration has broken down.

This leaves the four international UK magic circle firms on the horns of a dilemma. To what extent should they compromise on quality to satisfy their clients' needs for legal advisers with large geographical footprints? A consensus is yet to be reached among this quartet on how to service their clients in less profitable jurisdictions. In South Africa Linklaters has formed an exclusive alliance, Allen & Overy has opened a small office while Clifford Chance and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer continue to rely on referrals. All of these approaches enable these firms to avoid diluting their profits. They also make them a lot smaller than those firms built on Swiss vereins.

It seems like a sensible strategy, with the obvious proviso that their clients need to go along with this more cautious approach to international expansion. And one only needs to look at Latham & Watkins' record performance this year for a tangible example of how single partnership firms continue to outpace vereins at the top end of the market.