The winds of change blowing through the legal profession are well represented by the ranking of winning sets, as buyers of their services struggle to control costs while the complexity of litigation grows (click here for rankings). In different ways, all are marked out by a willingness to take proactive steps to respond to these pressures and to consider new business models where necessary.

Perhaps the most dramatic example is Cloth Fair, which scored the highest points for “innovation displayed”. This is a new criminal set, made up of seven highly regarded silks, with particular specialisation in “white collar crime”, complex and organised crime, and regulatory and disciplinary matters. The seven – drawn from a number of broader practices – are now housed in an elegantly refurbished townhouse off London’s Smithfield Market, a few minutes’ walk from the Old Bailey.

But it is the timing of the move that has provoked much of the comment, coming against the background of Lord Carter of Coles’ controversial review of legal aid funding. This proposes fundamental changes to the way in which legal aid services are purchased – including more use of fixed pricing for work, graduations to reflect complexity, and individual contracts for the exceptionally intricate cases.

Cloth Fair’s lawyers have acknowledged that part of their focus will be on high-value defence work, where they have a wealth of experience. But publicly-funded cases are not ruled out. Indeed, late last year, the legal press reported that the new set was talking to public funders, such as the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, about the possibility of payment per case rather than by the hour.

Some rivals have also wondered how Cloth Fair will cope without its own in-house supply of juniors – although the silks themselves have said that they are keen to maintain relationships with the sets they left behind, and that juniors there (as well as in other chambers) are currently working on cases with them.

Nonetheless, few dispute that, while Cloth Fair’s business model will have to withstand the test of time, its launch already represents one of the most interesting “reshapings” to occur within the profession recently.

This, of course, is a path already trodden by Matrix Chambers – which just pipped Cloth Fair to the number two slot. Matrix was formed seven years ago by 23 barristers. They were drawn from a wide range of legal disciplines, but – as one legal publication puts it – “recognised that common principles of constitutional, European, and international law increasingly influenced their areas of expertise”.

The Matrix founders also decided to adopt innovative working practices, aimed at more democratic management and commitment to diversity. Accordingly, the chambers were set up as a limited company in which each barrister member held a share. Management, meanwhile, is conducted by a rotating committee, in which juniors are actively encouraged to play a part.

The public face of the chambers mirrors this ethos: pupils are called trainees, for example, and members are listed in alphabetical order, rather than by seniority. Environmental credentials are also now advertised – even the promotional pens are said to be made from 100 per cent recycled car parts.

Now, with more than 50 full members (including academics), some commentators question whether the human rights thrust has quite lived up to expectations, and whether the excitement which surrounded Matrix’s launch has actually resulted in a practice which, while packed with talented lawyers, is truly exceptional. “Nothing amazing,” is how one survey respondent put it.

Still, even critics find it difficult to deny that the model itself, and many of the working practices adopted at Matrix remain novel – with some of the pro bono work and research facilities getting special mention.

At Blackstone, which topped the table, the changes have arguably been more subtle but no less pervasive. This is a well-established chambers which is described as having undergone a decade-long transformation, built around shrewd marketing, a willingness to meet client requirements, and some excellent advocacy. The range of advice offered is large – from commercial and employment law to public law and human rights – and the depth of chambers is reflected in the quality of its juniors as well as its silks.

However, the reasons given by respondents for nominating Blackstone as “innovative” were universally practical. These ranged from the “particularly transparent billing” to the provision of competitive, daily rates for the youngest barristers and the willingness to take on “roving briefs” (under which barristers are paid a weekly retainer to do work needed as it arises).

The readiness to build direct relations with in-house legal counsels brought praise, as did participation in presentations and training by firms, and co-operation with “beauty parades” when clients were selecting a barrister.

The lack of complacency, meanwhile, was neatly summed up in one comment from a respondent: “They constantly seek feedback on how to improve services.”