Are law firms right to focus so much of their effort on relationships with general counsel? The question seems semi-heretical to me. For 10 years in-house lawyers were the main audience I wrote for, and I feel as though I have watched the sector grow in influence and respect, shaping the legal services market for the better.

I generally think that to succeed in the future, commercial law firms will have to get better at aping many qualities that are commonly found in-house – better commercial sense, a firm grasp of risk management issues, and an understanding of clients’ products, priorities and finances. And of course the ability to deploy the empathy and communication skills needed to work in a team with non-lawyers.

My view is challenged in a joint piece of research conducted by the Managing Partners Forum and the FT, Lessons for law firm management. The report found: ‘CEOs and chairs are far more influential in selecting legal advisers than most firms appreciate. 75% of this audience describe themselves as primarily responsible for selecting a law firm, compared with just 11% choosing a general counsel.’

More than half the survey base was businesses with a turnover of under $10m, so I don’t feel my views, based predominantly on FTSE 250 companies, are proved totally wrong by this sample.

But it is worth reflecting what a general counsel’s authority and influence is based on.

Every GC I know, whether they are the company’s first in-house lawyer, or if they lead a large long-established team, says that on taking the post they needed to define and assert the nature of their relationship with the rest of the business.

They need to establish their commercial credentials, overcome the perception that they are a ‘policeman’, and instill in colleagues the desire to involve the legal team at an early enough stage in all the right matters. They also need to find ways of pushing away decisions that non-lawyers should be making.

Unsurprisingly, many say that is a major event or a project that catalyses this process.

But some of the episodes and projects that can establish that authority are changing. One is the sourcing of external legal advice, and here the MPF report may be on to something.

In a recent discussion, one GC told me that whereas the creation of a panel of advisers was once big news, breaking newish territory, it is now almost possible to describe the process as ‘commoditised’.

And he has a point. Whereas the creation of Barclays’ first panel had the feel of an event that ‘set the market’ and won awards, an equivalent event would not stand out in 2011 in the same way.

The GCs who I suspect are set retain and increase their influence, and therefore freedom to choose advisers, will surely be focused on re-engineering what is often, at base, quite a binary relationship between clients and external legal advisers.

They will need to have controls that reassure the board that the company has adequate legal coverage for its real risks, from budgets that have barely increased.

To do that, many will need to find ways to empower non-lawyer colleagues to manage more risks. They will need to be able to disassemble the advice they need to allow different elements to go to differently-priced advisers, and demand those advisers become very good at collaborating with one another.

They will have to work hard to make sure that their department’s objectives are aligned with corporate objectives – not just a set of process-focused objectives set because they are both traditional and measurable.

And what about the law firms, who fear they have been taking the wrong executives to lunch? Well, whether it is GCs or CEOs making choices on instructions, commercial law firms will surely need to become better aligned with clients’ corporate strategy and commercial ethos to thrive in what is still a hard market.