Pet hate. Open the website of almost any Top 50 UK law firm and you’ll see them lined up proudly. Values dressed as clichés standing like trophies. Or perhaps more accurately, like compliance checklists! And here’s the thing. The most common issue with values? They actually don’t speak to me. Not because they’re wrong. Because they’re obvious and lack authenticity.

Integrity springs to mind. Who doesn’t think they have integrity?

In our analysis of the Top 50 UK law firms, here are the most commonly shared values across firms:

Top 50 UK Law Firms

Key findings (how many firms claim the same value)

Here are the most commonly shared values across firms:

(sourced Feb’26)

Seven collaborative firms. Five full of integrity. Four bold.

No client ever shortlisted a firm because it had integrity written on its homepage. No graduate ever rejected a firm because it forgot to mention teamwork.

Yet firms persist. And also persist without context. Failing to frame how values underpin higher goals surrounding vision and purpose – ‘helping our clients, our people, our communities to thrive’ for example.

But why do firms revert to generic values?

Because values feel important. Because marketers feel the need to include them on websites but often fail to dig-deep, act creatively to communicate them more persuasively. Ticking boxes, not tacking differentiation.

If we’re being honest, many value statements are written the same way firms draft their partnership agreements: cautiously. Collectively. And with something for everyone.

The result? Perfectly reasonable. Entirely forgettable. Why not use a different tone?

Rather than Teamwork, how about ‘Muck in Together’?

‘Do things a Little Different’ – more approachable than Innovation? Certainly more memorable.

But law firms are cautious, often sticking to the homogeneous cookie cutter approach.

When values don’t say anything

The problem isn’t that these words are wrong. It’s that they’re unearned. If seven firms all claim collaboration, the word stops differentiating. It becomes background noise. White space.

And when there’s no evidence attached? It starts to feel like corporate wallpaper.

Clients are sophisticated. They assume competence. They assume professionalism. They assume integrity. So what are values really doing?

Often, not much.

But something interesting is happening

Not all firms are playing the adjective game. Across the Top 50, we found more narrative statements than single-word values. More sentences. More behaviours. More “this is how we work”.

Firms like Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Freshfields, Slaughter and May, CMS, Osborne Clarke — they don’t just say “excellence.” They describe what that looks like.

• “We help you see further, faster.”
• “Independence of thought.”
• “Creating lasting impact.”
• “Collective endeavour.”

They create meaning. Because behaviours can be shown. Adjectives just sit there.

Show me. Don’t tell me.

Here’s where it gets interesting.

When we overlaid value style with evidence strength — case studies, testimonials, visible proof — a pattern emerged. Firms that rely heavily on adjectives often struggle to demonstrate them.

Where is “bold” in action?

Where is “respect” in a transaction?

Where is “quality” beyond the assumption that no one deliberately sells poor advice?

Building internal meaning through learning & development, training, posters in kitchens does little for new clients and talent. By contrast, narrative-led firms have something to point to.

Clifford Chance talks about cutting through complexity. And then shows multi-jurisdictional matters where that happened. Linklaters positions around innovation. And then publishes detailed deal stories that show teams doing exactly that.

The story and the proof align. The value becomes visible. It encourages engagement. That’s powerful.

Three types of firms (which one are you?)

Guess which group is easiest to differentiate?

Why this matters more than ever

Clients aren’t choosing firms based on a list of virtues. They’re choosing:

• How teams think.
• How they collaborate across borders.
• How they respond under pressure.
• Whether they challenge or simply comply.

Talent isn’t scanning for integrity. They’re asking:

• Do partners back associates?
• Is innovation encouraged?
• Does independence of thought actually exist?
• What behaviours are rewarded?

Adjectives don’t answer that. Stories do. Proof does. Both showcase authenticity.

The slightly uncomfortable truth

When an organisation says “values”, what it often means is “behaviours”. And behaviours are harder. They require evidence. They require consistency. They require the courage to leave some words out.

Values, when abstract, feel imposed. Behaviours feel observable. And observable beats aspirational every time. New clients and talent want insights into a firm’s personality every-time.

So what should firms do?

Not scrap integrity. Not pretend collaboration doesn’t matter. But translate.

If you claim collaboration, show cross-office mandates. If you claim boldness, show the strategic call you made that wasn’t obvious. If you claim quality, demonstrate the outcomes — not the adjective.

Better still? Stop hiding behind single words. Say what you actually do.

How you work. What you prioritise. Where you draw the line.

Because in a market where seven firms claim collaboration and five claim integrity, the winning move isn’t always better vocabulary. It’s better evidence.

Less wallpaper. More substance.

Fewer adjectives. More stories.

That’s what speaks. And that’s what sticks.

Done well, moves the dial from cliché to distinction. And that’s what leaders want.