Having spent close to two decades working closely with law firms across practices and growth stages, certain patterns begin to repeat themselves in ways that are not always visible from the outside.

Strategy, in these settings, is not shaped only by ambition or market opportunity. It is also shaped by how the firm actually functions on the inside.

At the centre of this is a tension most firms live with, but rarely articulate. There is often a gap between what the firm says it wants to become and what its current systems and incentives are designed to support.

You could call this a kind of “hypocrisy." Not in a negative or moral sense, but as a practical reality. Firms often hold two positions at the same time, both valid in their own way.

Once you see this, the whole system becomes easier to understand.

Most firms operate across two parallel identities.

There is the formal, outward-facing identity shaped by strategy documents, client messaging and market positioning. Alongside it exists the internal operating reality, influenced by client relationships, partner roles, legacy structures and informal norms that guide decision-making.

Indian law firms, like many partnership-led organisations, increasingly position themselves as institutional entities. At the same time, they continue to function through relationship-driven systems where trust, continuity and individual contribution remain central.

This creates a subtle but important divergence. Strategy is typically designed for the institutional identity, while execution must work within the relational one. The space between the two is where the real complexity lies.

Firms often articulate clear and forward-looking priorities: integration across practices, collaboration, adoption of technology and investment in talent.

However, many of these initiatives require a reconfiguration of existing incentives. Collaboration may involve sharing origination. Transparency may alter visibility around performance. Efficiency may reshape established workflows.

As a result, firms may simultaneously express a desire for transformation while progressing in a measured and selective manner. This is not a contradiction in the negative sense, but rather a reflection of the need to balance change with stability.

What appears, at first glance, as inconsistency is often a calibrated approach to evolution.

Every firm’s present is shaped by its past, its founding relationships, established practices and long-standing leadership structures.

These elements bring strength and continuity, but they also influence how strategy is interpreted and implemented. Even forward-looking initiatives are often aligned with existing structures to ensure cohesion within the partnership.

In this context, the earlier “hypocrisy” can also be understood as a form of continuity management, where firms signal future direction while remaining anchored in what has historically worked.

Unlike corporate organisations, partnerships operate through a combination of formal structures and personal equities, including client ownership, reputation and team loyalty.

While firms increasingly adopt institutional governance frameworks, decision-making often continues to be shaped by a small group of senior stakeholders. This is less about resistance and more about preserving stability within a system built on individual contribution.

Here again, the tension between institutional aspiration and partnership reality becomes visible.

Strategies tend to face challenges not because they lack vision, but because they are sometimes designed with an assumption of alignment that may not fully exist at the outset.

Execution brings to light differing incentives, priorities and perspectives within the partnership. This is a natural outcome in any collaborative, ownership-driven structure.

The earlier notion of “hypocrisy” becomes relevant here, not as a criticism, but as a recognition that firms often operate across multiple layers of intent and constraint.

The issue is not that firms hold two positions at once. That is expected. Strategy begins to lose traction when the distance between what the firm aspires to be and how it currently operates starts to widen.

At that point, strategy turns performative. It signals direction, but does not translate into behaviour. Collaboration is encouraged, but origination remains protected. Integration is discussed, but execution continues to follow established silos.

Firms that see meaningful progress tend to acknowledge this duality early. They invest time in understanding how decisions are actually made, what drives behaviour and where alignment can realistically be built. Strategy, in such cases, is designed not just around aspiration, but around the firm’s capacity and willingness to evolve.

This often involves gradual alignment of incentives, increased transparency and a steady shift towards institutional processes, without disrupting the cohesion of the partnership.

Once you see it clearly, the idea of “hypocrisy” feels less like criticism and more like context. Law firms are not choosing between being institutional and being relationship-driven. In most cases, they are both at the same time. Strategy doesn’t fail because of this duality. It struggles when that reality is ignored while drafting plans that assume a level of alignment that doesn’t yet exist.

The shift happens when firms stop treating strategy as an expression of intent and start treating it as a reflection of what they are actually prepared to change. That means looking beyond ambition and asking harder, more practical questions around incentives, decision-making and internal trade-offs. Progress, in such cases, may not always be dramatic, but it is far more likely to hold.

In the end, the difference is simple. Some firms design strategy around who they want to be. Others design it around who they are willing to become. The latter may move more deliberately, but they move with alignment and that is what allows strategy to move from paper into practice.

About the authors: Jogesh Sharma is the Founder and Aitijyamoy Mukherjee is the Consultant - Practice Management at Yellow Wire Consulting.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.