The end of the 14th largest law firm in Scotland
A talk on 'Lawyers and Social Media' emphasising the importance of personal branding for young lawyers which can and should start whilst still law students.
Lender Exchange is a secure portal for lenders to manage their conveyancing panels. It is operated by Decision First, a joint venture between title insurance company First Title and Decision Insight. Law firms must pay a fee (ranging from £285 to £995 per annum depending on the size of the practice) to use the portal. Lender Exchange was imposed on the legal profession when it launched in the UK on 4 August 2014. The first lenders making it mandatory to use Lender Exchange to be on their conveyancing panels are Lloyds Banking Group (which includes retail mortgages for Bank of Scotland, Birmingham Midshires, Halifax, Lloyds Bank and Scottish Widows Bank) and Santander.
Law firms must input and keep up to date on Lender Exchange a plethora of information such as each solicitors previous employment history covering at least a period of 10 years. Practicing certificates and Professional Indemnity Insurance certificates must be uploaded to the system annually. Much of the information that each law firm must spend time and effort inputting into the system is readily available from the Law Society of England & Wales, the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Law Society of Scotland. These Law Societies repeatedly offered to provide the data free to lenders but their offer was refused without any explanation. Des Hudson, when he was Chief Executive of the Law Society of England & Wales, said that the result was:-
A single commercial provider has been given a powerful position and the potential to control the dynamics of the conveyancing market and introduce needless cost to the detriment of consumers.
Lender Exchange state on their website:-
We’ve been working hard with banks and building societies to deliver a service which makes the lives of conveyancers across the UK easier when dealing with lenders on panel related issues… we aim to make the process of applying for panel membership and updating lenders on changes in your businesses easier, quicker and more cost effective (for law firms and lenders alike).
Well that was certainly not my experience of Lender Exchange yesterday.
I received an e-mail from Lender Exchange that read:-
Further to our previous emails regarding outstanding information and/or documents, our records indicate that the requested action has still not been taken.
As 28 days have elapsed since our initial request and despite several reminders, you have failed to supply your firm’s PII or a reason for this continued delay, your firm has now been suspended from the following panel(s):
Lloyds Banking Group
Your access to Lender Exchange remains active at this time, however you will need to contact the appropriate lender(s) directly to discuss your panel status with them.
I couldn’t understand this as I knew that I had updated all the information requested on the secure portal in advance of the deadline date previously given to me by Lender Exchange.
I assumed they had an administrative glitch in their systems.
I phoned them up.
I told my story to the lady who answered the phone. Having done so she advised me that she had nothing to do with Lender Exchange. She was in another department of Decision First and if the Lender Exchange phone lines were busy they overflowed to them. I was to phone back in a few minutes when hopefully someone at Lender Exchange would answer the phone before it went through to the overflow again!
I waited a few minutes and phoned back. To my relief it did not overflow this time but was answered by a lady actually employed by Lender Exchange. I told her my story. Yes she could see that I had uploaded all the information that I had to onto the system but I had not pressed the “Submit Firm Details” button. This was on a different page from the one I had updated the information onto and after updating the information I was supposed to know to go to that page (no alert supplied to do so) and press the correct button. There are actually two buttons next to one another on the relevant page: “Update Firm Details” and “Submit Firm Details”. Although I was actually in my mind updating firm details and had previously submitted firm details I was not to use the Update button but only the Submit one. So having been talked through this confusing system I pressed the submit button.
Having now resolved the administrative/technical issues caused by the Lender Exchange system I assumed my law firm was no longer suspended from the two lenders’ panels. No I was told. My law firm remained suspended and I had to take it up direct with the lenders in question to see if they were willing to reinstate. I asked to speak to her manager.
The manager showed me no sympathy. The Lender Exchange secure portal was proven to work and I should have used the 64 page user guide available online if I was unsure how to operate it! A very quick glance at the user manual suggests it is aimed at the first registration process and not the actual updating of information once registered. However, the manager reiterated that my inability to use the Lender Exchange systems properly meant my law firm was suspended from the two panels in question and there was nothing more she could do about it. If I wanted reinstated I had to contact the administrators of the panels in question direct.
Now I would class myself as very computer literate and technologically savy. If I couldn’t follow how to use the Lender Exchange online portal correctly how were the many solicitors who are less computer literate fairing?
Anyway, the prospect of achieving the work on my desk I planned to deal with on Friday afternoon was fading fast. I now had the prospect of phoning two lenders before me.
Both panel administrators were very pleasant indeed and a nice change from my encounter with Lender Exchange.
I learned from both that they had no forewarning or any knowledge that Lender Exchange were issuing such e-mails! Thus Lender Exchange had intimated suspension to law firms on behalf of but without the authority or consent of the lenders!
Apparently 50 such e-mail were issued to law firms by Lender Exchange yesterday and 250 are scheduled to be issued during the forthcoming week.
I was reassured by both panel administrators that my law firm had certainly not been suspended from their panels and I was to simply ignore such communications from Lender Exchange. This was comforting indeed but should Lender Exchange not have ascertained this before being so adamant with me that suspension had taken place? The Lender Exchange portal still shows my firm’s panel status as suspended today. No doubt I will have to spend a good part of the forthcoming week getting them to amend that status to reflect the actual fact that suspension never took place at all.
No, Lender Exchange certainly does not make the lives of conveyancers across the UK easier when dealing with lenders on panel related issues and it does not make updating lenders on changes in your businesses easier, quicker and more cost effective (for law firms and lenders alike). It is a complete and utter fiasco and the lenders need to sort this mess out. I trust the Law Societies will be lobbying them to do so and hopefully, this time, the lenders will sit up and take notice.
Now I have got that out of my system I will be spending the remainder of today, Saturday, doing the work that Lender Exchange prevented me from doing yesterday afternoon.
What do you think of Lender Exchange?
Picture Credit: The image used is © BBC from the television series Little Britain
On 9 October 2014 I was in London for Law Smash. Nine people associated with the law in one way or another took to the stage at the basement bar in the Star of Kings to do stand-up comedy for the first time.
The comedians for the night (pictured above from left to right and in order of appearance) were: Jeremy Hopkins, Simon Harper, Tim Bratton, John Miller, Rachel Agnew, Sean Jones QC, Daphne Romney QC, Myles Jackman and Laurie Anstis.
Law Smash was organised and compered by Steve Cross and was a spin off from LawFest.
The comedy we heard at the Star of Kings included tales of social media, bed & breakfasts, death, lying like politicians, star trek toilets on trains, life as a QC, Pulp Fiction analogies, the path in life we may have taken and bestiality. So a good mixture of topics and not a huge amount directly to do with the law, which was probably a good thing. The routines and delivery were top class across the board. They created a lot of laughter from the audience.
I am no stranger to comedy performances with my own show at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 2013. But there I was surrounded by professional comedians with me being the butt of their jokes. I did have to think up, hopefully, funny retorts on the hop. But it was nothing to what being on stage on your own must be like. Terrifying I expect. All nine acts at Law Smash pulled it off remarkably well and appeared like polished professionals. Well done to them all and I am looking forward to Law Smash 2015 already. Steve Cross asked me at the end of the night whether I would be up for performing at Law Smash next year. I will sleep on it for now!
The night ended with a turn by professional comedian Tiernan Douieb. There was then a chance to catch up with some friends old and new over drinks.
All in all an excellent night out. I would give it 5 stars.
Law Smash was a fundraiser for the National Youth Arts Trust, who work to make the arts accessible to kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. All the profit made went to them.
Update: Jeremy Hopkins has published audio of his routine. Enjoy:-
Update 2: Audio of John Miller’s routine now also available. More to enjoy:-
It was very sad to hear of the demise yesterday of another well known Scottish law firm. Tods Murray was formed in 1856 and by 2014 was ranked the 14th top Scottish law firm by The Lawyer based on turnover of £12.4 million. The Scotsman reported in January 2014 that Tods Murray grew its pre-tax profits to £2.5 million in the year to 31 March 2013 from £2.3m in the previous 12 months. But apparently such turnover and profit was not sufficient to keep the wolves from the door. It should be born in mind that, as reported in The Scotsman in November 2011, financial returns at Tods Murray had fallen from a high in 2007 when turnover hit £22.5m and gave the firm a net profit of £8.6m. Tods Murray went into Administration yesterday and was immediately acquired by Shepherd & Wedderburn. Whilst the 160 or so Tods Murray staff are transferring immediately to Shepherd & Wedderburn reports suggest that an initial 50 redundancies are likely.
Tom MacLennan and Iain Fraser, partners with FRP Advisory, were appointed as joint administrators to Tods Murray. As reported in The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland, Mr MacLennan said:
Tods Murray had exhausted every option to turn the business around, and was faced with an unsustainable gap between high fixed costs and income. Administration was the only alternative for the firm, but we are delighted that Shepherd & Wedderburn has acquired the Tods Murray business, and will provide the partners and staff with a stronger platform from which to service their clients.
The demise of Tods Murray was in stark contrast to the news announced just over a week ago when Caroline Shand joined the firm as partner from global law firm Nabarro. The Daily Record quoted Tods Murray, executive partner David Dunsire, saying:
It is a very exciting time just now.
Confidence has been regained in the economy and clients are looking for opportunities.
We are delighted to welcome Caroline to bolster our top level service and legal guidance to the real estate finance market.
We have an unparalleled team and we are very much looking forward to the future.
David Dunsire was apparently unaware that Tods Murray would no longer exist just over one week later.
Rumours of a possible administration at Tods Murray circulated back in 2009 with David Dunsire having to write an open letter to the Scotland on Sunday in March of that year:
We have heard that we are on our bank’s ‘at risk’ register, that partners have refused to inject more cash into the firm and that we are, indeed, about to go into administration. All of this is totally untrue. The firm is financially stable.
In January 2013 Tods Murray were apparently bouncing back with David Dunsire telling The Scotsman:
We have taken steps over several years to restructure and build a lean and effective practice which leaves us well placed, I believe, to emerge from this recession stronger and fitter as we have done with others during our 150 year history.
In an article published in 2009, entitled ‘Lawyers ponder the future as knife is wielded‘, Ian Fraser wrote:
One source said that Scotland’s law firms are currently in “no man’s land”. While dealmaking and all the other boom-time activities dried up long ago, they are still awaiting the “tipping point” — when a spate of corporate restructuring and widespread insolvencies starts to fill the void. For some of the over-stretched firms, the wait might just prove too long.
It clearly did for Tods Murray.
Tods Murray joins other high profile law firm casualties in Scotland in recent times such as Ross Harper and Semple Fraser. Other Scottish law firm names that have vanished through merger with larger English firms include Biggart Baillie, McGrigor Donald (latterly known as McGrigors) and Dundas & Wilson.
I don’t imagine for one minute that this is the last we have seen of such casualties. Why though are these problems besetting large long established law firms? I may consider that in more detail in a future blog post. In the meantime your views are welcome.
— Jerry Angrave (@Empathyce) July 18, 2014
I go to a fair few legal conferences every year and often report about them on here. When I saw early tweets about LawFest it was clear that something very different, from the legal conference as we know it, was forming. I had to go to Cheltenham and experience it. So non ‘legal’ did it look that I persuaded my wife (who is an architect and not a lawyer) to join me.
On arrival at The Parabola Arts Centre in Cheltenham on Friday evening we were given wristbands not name badges. We were welcomed with drinks. There were familiar faces to catch up with and new ones to get to know (including my first face to face encounter with a cigar smoking bear).
— The Time Blawg (@TheTimeBlawg) July 18, 2014
Then through to the theatre for an introduction from Paul Gilbert.
He told us that LawFest did not carry CPD points:-
Collecting CPD is not personal development, is not learning, is not anything except a small tick in a largely irrelevant box.
Paul set out his vision of LawFest: a place to be involved, to think, talk and connect.
Then Fiona Laird asked us all to write a four line poem entitled ‘Forgotten’. She gathered them in. She congratulated us on our creativity. She then ripped the poems up and put them in a bin. This she said alleviated our fears that she might read them out. Not sure if it prepared us fully for the fact that the following day we would be creating stuff and reading it out!
I wrote a poem, It was destroyed, but I have not forgotten it #LawFest
— The Time Blawg (@TheTimeBlawg) July 18, 2014
My poem, for what it is worth, is:-
I have forgotten
how to write a poem
Shall I be forgiven?
Can I write another?
Pissing down in Cheltenham. #LawFest getting more like Glastonbury by the minute.
— Legal Bizzle (@LegalBizzle) July 19, 2014
Saturday morning started with some live jazz with JCJazz to get us in the swing. We were welcomed by Paul who then began a conversation with Tracy Edwards MBE, sailor, entrepreneur and leader.
Tracy insisted that there was nothing special about her. Sailing around the world arose from a drunken evening in a pub. She did, however, reveal that when she sets herself a goal the thought of failure drives her to succeed.
Hilary Gallo, Steve Chapman and Kay Scorah provided an interactive session to introduce themselves and their fringe sessions. This included a Chinese whispers type session on stage involving actions rather than words with the end result being a very lost message:-
We discovered that we see things differently through one eye than through the other. We were made aware of how we put our underpants on and how we might do so differently the next morning.
In small groups we created stories one word at a time. This was certainly not a ‘normal’ legal conference and it set the tone for the fringe sessions throughout the day. There were three different streams of activity to pick and choose from. You could dip in or dip out as you pleased. It was impossible to take in everything that was going on but I will give you a flavour of what I experienced.
Theatre director, Fiona Laird, made us find our voice. Through breathing and sound exercises we all sounded much better an hour and a half later than we did at the outset.
Steve Chapman unleashed the genius within us with a personal creative workout. His six mantras were:-
We each had to create an innovation from two randomly selected words written by others on post it notes.
I got ‘pig’ + ‘park’ so created a pig theme park with inter alia roller coasting pigs, pig dodgems, mud baths and stalls selling bacon butties.
Unfortunately I missed Steve Cross on stage (above) on embracing humour in our lives. But I did go to his workshop on turning off your internal editor, how to make a pattern then break it for laughs, body language and using stand-up to build confidence. There was some very funny moments created by the attendees. It reminded me of my trial at the Edinburgh Fringe and how law and comedy can indeed mix. Steve plans to put on a standup show in London featuring lawyers:-
I have agreed to run a standup gig featuring an all-lawyer lineup. Anyone know a good free venue Chancery Lane-ish? We’ll fill it. — Steve Cross (@steve_x) July 21, 2014
A break from interactive sessions allowed me to take in a poem from Richard Moorhead’s ‘The Word Museum‘ read by an actor and directed by Fiona Laird. This made up for missing the earlier session that day with Richard on the evolution of ethics and on Leveson (again informed by actors). I couldn’t express the poetry session any better than Paul Gilbert did in his personal reflection on LawFest:-
My personal reflection is this – When a professor shares a poem he has written that touches his heart, that is then picked up and carried by actors, gently placed before a hushed audience for their quiet contemplation, and it then touches their hearts; in that moment we learn about the power of words, of sharing, of loving, of speaking and of listening …then that is truly a moment to cherish.
Next it was back to an interactive session with Hilary Gallo: Changing chairs to have better conversations. In one to one sessions with other attendees we explored blocking conversations and also encouraging them. We also experienced how you can get someone to move with you without words.
Then a cup of tea was called for in advance of the pre concert drinks.
I have already mentioned some of the sessions I didn’t manage to take in. Although I saw Tracy Edwards in conversation with Paul Gilbert I missed a session where you could meet, chat and explore making a difference, change, leadership. I also missed Tracy together with Craig Hunter (ParalympicsGB 2012 Chef de Mission) for reflections on realising potential. There was a conversation with Craig earlier in the day on leadership and team building. Charles Grimes (development expert and musician) had a session giving lessons on leadership in music. Kay Scorah had a workshop on beyond words: Co-creation and co-operation. I also missed the conversation with Stephen Jackson (music director) on how choirs work, the music and the role of the music director. There was a lot going on but as I said earlier impossible to take it all in, even with a Tardis
After drinks it was time for the Cheltenham Bach Choir. One of the foremost choral societies in the South West of England having performed at the BBC Proms and at the Symphony Hall, Birmingham. A lovely way to finish the day.
Although the day was not quite over. There were more drinks to be had. More connections to be made.
— Brian Inkster (@BrianInkster) July 19, 2014
We were the last men standing. But we carried on well into darkness. Eating, drinking, thinking, talking and connecting.
After LawFest and not particularly linked to it I saw this tweet from Julian Summerhayes quoting Seth Godin:-
“People do not buy goods and services. They buy relations, stories and magic.” – Seth Godin — Julian Summerhayes (@Ju_Summerhayes) July 21, 2014
This made me reflect that we perhaps learned a fair bit about relations, stories and magic at LawFest. Will that magic continue in 2015? Paul Gilbert in his personal reflection on LawFest says:-
Will there be a #LawFest 2015? May be, but not definitely. There was #LawFest 2014 not because it was tweeted, planned, talked about or made, but because you came. From just one tweet a few months before to the thing it became, it only happened because you came. There will only be #LawFest 2015 if you come again.
It is clear from the tweets in response to this blog post that Paul need not worry. We will definitely come again and more will undoubtedly join us. Paul has created something rather special in LawFest.
Paul said there would be no feedback forms at LawFest and if we tweeted anything bad about it he would block us
I will give my own feedback with suggestions for LawFest 2015 (and risk being blocked by Paul). For a first time event LawFest was remarkably well organised. My comments should be seen as little tweaks to improve very slightly on an incredible start.
Very minor niggles for something that was rather special. See you at LawFest 2015
I usually write a review of Reinvent Law London: having done so for the first such event, when it was called LawTech Camp London 2012, and the second, Reinvent Law London 2013. This year I was speaking at Reinvent Law London 2014. I have already posted on here my talk on ‘Improving‘ and the Tweets relative to that talk. I am not going to do a full review of the event this year. Many others have already done a very good job of that. I will list the reviews and other related blog posts that I have picked up on at the end of this post. If I have missed any out let me know add I will add them in.
What I am going to do is simply add some reflections on this year’s event. I thought it was the best one yet. Not because I was speaking at it but because I met and chatted with many more delegates than at the previous ones. Maybe that was because I was a speaker and more people approached me at break out sessions than might otherwise have been the case. There was the hard core of regular London Twegals with whom it is always nice to catch up with. But there was a very large number of new connections made and interesting ideas exchanged. This went on well into the evening with a group of us, from several different countries, retiring to a bar for food and more drinks following the LexisNexis official drinks reception.
Reinvent Law has its critics, including at times myself. Whatever one might say about the content (generally thought provoking if often lacking in breadth and balance) it does pull in an interesting global audience that it is a pleasure to be part of. It’s all about the people and I will be back next year for that reason alone.
I will also make the same promise I did last year and fly across the pond to attend the next Reinvent Law NYC if the organisers bite the bullet and invite Scott Greenfield to speak at that event. As I heard at an inbound marketing conference earlier this week:-
Listen, engage, influence in that order – don’t ignore your detractors. #inbounduk14
— Brian Inkster (@BrianInkster) July 8, 2014
Now for those reviews / blog posts on Reinvent Law London 2014:-
ReInvent Law London 2014: Storify, tweets, and resources (by Robert Richards)
ReInvent Law London 2014: Tweets visualised on TagsExplorer (by Jon Harman)
ReInvent Law in pictures (by Sarah Plaka)
10 things you might have missed at #ReInventLaw (by Sarah Plaka)
ReinventLaw London 2014 – a reflection (by David Gilroy)
The future of law tops the agenda (by Shannon Sweeney)
ReinventLaw London: One does not simply start a new law (by Joanna Goodman)
Improve or ReinventLaw: the question is now (by Ivan Rasic)
ReInventLaw London Event Report (by Alex Hobbs)
Law Firm Leadership + ReInvent Law London 2014 (by Lloyd Pearson)
ReInvent London 2014 (by William Barns Graham)
Lawyers, roles and identity (by Mark Gould)
Not innovating? (by Jon Busby)
Reinvent Law London 2014 (by Exigent Group Ltd)
ReInvent Law Londen: Law + tech + design + delivery (by Christ’l Dullaert)
40 Speakers-A Reinvent Law Day (by Kenneth Grady)
Photo credit: LexisNexis
My last post was on what I said about improving a law firm at Reinvent Law London 2014. This post is on what others said on Twitter about my talk. Interest seemed to be piqued most on pop-up law and having fun. Two of the more novel concepts for lawyers perhaps!
— David Gilroy (@conscioussol) June 20, 2014
— LexisNexis UK (@LexisNexisUK) June 20, 2014
— Tim Bratton (@legalbrat) June 20, 2014
— LexisNexis UK (@LexisNexisUK) June 20, 2014
— Brian Inkster (@BrianInkster) June 20, 2014
Tweeting is not for the faint hearted!! #reinventlaw
— Tegan (@teganfallows) June 20, 2014
Important thing about small interventions is that nothing significant is lost if they don’t work out. #reinventlaw
— Mark Gould (@markgould13) June 20, 2014
Improve your marketing! Be promoters of law. #ReInventLaw
— Garrett Busch (@BuschGarrett) June 20, 2014
— Joanna Goodman (@JoannaMG22) June 20, 2014
— Joshua Lenon (@JoshuaLenon) June 20, 2014
— Jeremy Hopkins (@Jezhop) June 20, 2014
— Tim Bratton (@legalbrat) June 20, 2014
— Matthew Whalley (@mattwha) June 20, 2014
@legalbrat always the bridesmaid
— Matthew Whalley (@mattwha) June 20, 2014
— Kanyinsola Olufon (@kolufon) June 20, 2014
— Sarah Carlyle (@SarahCarlyle) June 20, 2014
— Markus J Becker (@mj_becker) June 20, 2014
— Charlotte Meindersma (@CharlottesLaw) June 20, 2014
— Matthew Whalley (@mattwha) June 20, 2014
— James Peters (@legaljeeves) June 20, 2014
— Ajeet Minhas (@AjeetMinhasGTB) June 20, 2014
— Christ’l Dullaert (@LeTableau) June 20, 2014
— Amit Sharma (@Sharma_Co) June 20, 2014
— Joanna Goodman (@JoannaMG22) July 4, 2014
— Joanna Goodman (@JoannaMG22) July 4, 2014
— Elizatech (@FreelanceLawIE) July 5, 2014
— Jim Henderson (@JimatShirlaws) July 5, 2014
— Eva Bruch (@evabruch) July 8, 2014
Photo credit: LexisNexis
I and others have been writing on this Blog of late about the Legal IT curve. My view was that Big Law is so behind the legal IT curve and this could be detrimental to its future. However, this past week a New Law firm, Clearspire, who, on the face of it, was well ahead on that legal IT curve closed its doors. Why it folded is not clear.
— Patrick Ellis (@pmellis) June 6, 2014
One reason could be its spend on legal IT.
It would appear that this spend was $5 million and involved two and a half years of research and development. For a law firm with 25 lawyers that is $200,000 per lawyer spent on IT. The aspirations of Clearspire were much greater than a firm of 25 lawyers. In January 2013 the stated aim was to “expand its nontraditional legal services model across the country with the addition of 50 to 100 former BigLaw lawyers each year for the next five years”. That didn’t happen. If it had then the spend per lawyer on legal IT would have gone down considerably from that $200,000 figure.
However, $5 million seems one heck of a lot of money for any law firm (especially a new start) to be spending on legal IT. What was special about this IT? I have not been able to glean a lot about its USP if it even had one. I found an article that suggested CORAL, the system developed by Clearspire, provided a “highly secure technology platform to collaborate real time with clients and team members, post questions, review briefs, and more”. Perhaps we need to know what the “and more” is as everything else can already be done with off the shelf platforms at a fraction of the cost. As Carolyn Elefant said in a comment to that article:-
What is so revolutionary about Clearspire? I have been implementing flat fees, client plans and online secure portals for at least a decade as have many of my solo and small firm colleagues.
It has been suggested that CORAL did not even assist document management!
@AlexHamiltonRad They had no interest in document assembly, so not sure how “NewLaw” they really were.
— Ken Adams (@KonciseD) June 5, 2014
The Clearspire business model which involved amongst other things “no central physical office, but regional centres and a powerful ‘best-in-class enterprise IT platform'” is one being played out by other NewLaw firms but perhaps with substantially less spend on the IT element. With legal IT providers having invested huge sums in perfecting proven legal IT systems over the years is there really any need for a NewLaw firm to reinvent the wheel?
Such systems (especially the cloud based ones) can now be purchased on an affordable per user basis allowing the IT to grow as the law firm grows rather than the IT having to pay for itself once the law firm reaches a critical mass, which seems to have been the Clearspire model. What law firms need to spend time and money on is making sure these off the shelf systems are working to their full potential within their own four walls (even if that is virtual walls).
So in my view Clearspire may have got it wrong with the huge investment in its own legal IT system. It is not the start of the end of NewLaw but perhaps a lesson for would be NewLaw firms. Law Firms survive on providing legal services to customers (aka clients). Law firms, new or old, need to concentrate on that. Technology is a tool to assist that process. When setting up a law firm I wouldn’t try to create a PC or phone from scratch. Pier Giorgio Perotto and Alexander Graham Bell beat me to it. The same is true of legal IT systems. There are plenty out there that work very well indeed. Usually it is the law firms or individual lawyers within those law firms that are simply not using the systems anywhere near to their full potential.
— Mitch Kowalski (@MEKowalski) June 6, 2014
Arising from the Clearspire ashes appears to be CORAL. The law firm has gone but the legal IT will live on. As Mitchell Kowalski states:-
So, while some will mourn the loss of a New Law trail blazer, the fact that Clearspire will remain as a legal IT company and grow, bodes well for lawyers across the world.
Perhaps. But what is unique about CORAL? If it didn’t sustain the pilot NewLaw firm Clearspire does it really bode well for lawyers across the world? I am told we will will find out at the end of the Summer.
The Clearspire website tells us:-
Our law firm was a laboratory– a proof of concept that demonstrated just how innovative today’s lawyers can be. In the process, we redefined client satisfaction, lawyer efficiency, and pioneered the model for the future of legal services delivery.
Now, the time has come to scale. We’re taking Clearspire to the next level with a mission to empower not a law firm, but all law firms.
We are actively working to ready our class-leading Legal Services Delivery Platform for you! Stay tuned to these pages in the coming weeks and months for updates on our global deployment of The Next Revolution.
If it didn’t empower one law firm how will it empower all law firms? But perhaps ‘The Next Revolution’ will have a price tag less than $200,000 per lawyer
I have made assumptions in this post. I had to as there is no information yet from the horse’s mouth as to why Clearspire folded. I may be wrong. Whether I am or am not do you think law firms should create their own legal IT systems from scratch rather than buy in existing third party ones?
NB: This post is part of a series of blog posts on the Legal IT curve. See also:-