Every week brings news of another law firm merger, creating another ‘strategic alliance’ between firms that would otherwise be fierce competitors.

This isn’t just about growth for growth’s sake, it’s about survival.

For mid-size firms, economic pressure is making their position increasingly untenable. The math is simple but unforgiving: clients want global capability, cutting-edge technology, and deep specialisation, all delivered at competitive rates. That combination requires scale that these firms simply don’t have.

The investment required to compete has exploded. A credible AI-powered contract review platform? The cost is prohibitive. A genuine cybersecurity practice that can handle cross-border data breaches? You’ll need specialists across multiple jurisdictions. The ability to second teams to clients in three continents simultaneously? Impossible without critical mass.

Meanwhile, the top tier is pulling away. Elite firms are hoovering up the most profitable work and the best talent, leaving mid-market firms in an increasingly precarious position. Merge or get marginalised has become the cold calculus.

I am also observing in-house legal teams changing what they’re buying.  I touch on this in my article ‘The Future of Law Is Collaborative, Are You Ready?’ about how major corporations are building legal departments that rival the capabilities of top-tier law firms, and therefore, their buying needs are morphing.

General Counsel are no longer shopping for lawyers. They’re shopping for solutions to business problems that happen to require legal expertise. They want firms that can handle their regulatory nightmare in Southeast Asia, their employment issues in Europe, and their commercial contracts in North America, ideally with consistent pricing, technology integration, and without the coordination headaches of managing multiple relationships.

The mergers promise a ‘seamless global service’, ‘integrated expertise’ and ‘enhanced capabilities’, but mergers are messy and take time.

Longer term, these consolidations mean there are fewer meaningful choices.  As mid-market firms are swallowed or disappear, the decision will be a binary one, between using a global behemoth or cobbling together boutique specialists and accepting the coordination burden.

This is precisely why we’re seeing in-house teams increasingly turn to Alternative Legal Service Providers or law companies, and this trend will only accelerate.

ALSPs are becoming increasingly attractive for their ability to deliver faster and cheaper services and solutions.  Smart GCs are building hybrid models: top-tier firms for bet-the-company matters, and ALSPs for the rest.

These innovative players have the advantage of remaining agile, offering technology-first solutions, transparent and competitive pricing, and specialists who focus on delivery rather than billable hours.  On top of that, they’re able to react at pace, in lockstep with in-house needs.

The more bloated and bureaucratic merged firms become, the more attractive the ALSP alternative looks for everything that doesn’t require a senior partner’s judgment.

Leading GCs and CLOs recognise that they aren’t passive consumers of Big Law. They’re actively shaping what comes next by demanding different models.

Contact us to join the growing number of senior legal leaders who are future-proofing their position, seeking alternative and competitive models to support their growth and evolution.