Like butterflies in the Amazon, virtual and crowd-based professional services firms ('NewLaw') are starting to disrupt
A brief, but handy, guide to aspects of the Law of the Time Lords and other cosmic civilizations
Guest Post by Ben Wightwick
Firstly, thank you to Brian for inviting me to write a guest post as part of the Legal IT curve series. I was asked to contribute to provide the perspective of a legal IT vendor. Before I start, I must clarify that I am blending my vendor hat with one that has just under 10 years experience in an IT department at a “big law” firm in London. HighQ, the company I now work for, has been selling “cloud” and progressive enterprise cloud collaboration tools and solutions to law firms for the last decade.
First of all I’d like to say that I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t matter what type of law firm you work for or how you classify it. It’s bigger than that. I think all firms, businesses and organisations inside and outside of the legal vertical face very similar challenges. On the flip side of that same coin, all organisations have the same opportunities. These challenges and opportunities come at a time when technology is changing and influencing our personal lives while leaving a bitter taste within the enterprise. Not 10 years ago it was only within the enterprise that we had access the latest software and devices. It was the enterprise where we saw the most innovation. This has changed forever – you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. I now have access to more innovation in my pocket via my smartphone than most enterprise software applications. Enterprise software has become stale, and this is not unique to legal.
According to Ray Wang of Constellation Research, “in the shift toward dominating digital disruption, CIOs can only move as fast as their organization’s DNA will allow while driving transformation.” When we review that statement and apply it to a law firm dynamic we come up against the single most important factor in the law firm technology debate: law firms are and always will be risk averse. As Ray puts it, it’s in their DNA. Just look at the technology adoption lifecycle which quotes five phases of adopters:
Innovators – - Early Adopters – - Early Majority – - Late Majority – - Laggards
In almost all instances, law firms will be in the Late Majority or Laggard phases of technology adoption. This is because many or most are resistant to change as written by Larry Bridgesmith. There are of course, people, teams and entire firms outside of these two categories but by and large it’s an accurate assessment. A risk averse stance will, in my mind, delay law firms (large and small) from progressing and moving forward. It could mean they miss opportunities and expose themselves to greater long term risks associated with survival.
Law firms need to be more agile. Whilst some manage this, the majority have focused on infrastructure and keeping the lights on while doing little to influence or transform the business. There have obviously been reasons for this. Many CIOs’ budgets have been cut in the last five years, even in “big law”. Arguably this has prevented innovation or an attempt at early mainstream adoption of technologies, ultimately firms have had to make do. There has been a wide spread consolidation of the market in the form of mergers and experiments with outsourcing. This all contributes to a lack of tangible forward motion in technological advancement.
Of course there are great examples of law firms using technology to drive efficiency and productivity. Those firms who are looking at technology as an enabler are making the charge forward. Those who are driving forward look at their assets and assess each based on what they can do today and on their potential to deliver in the future. This is all common sense, but many either don’t have the time to focus on it or focus on other more “important” things. Law firms of any size need technology to be simple and scalable. When you talk about adoption you should be aiming for limited IT involvement or training. This, I feel, is the primary role of the future CIO.
Currently there are, broadly speaking, four types of CIOs: Chief Integration Officer; Chief Innovation Officer; Chief Infrastructure Officer and Chief Intelligence Officer. All CIOs will fall into one of these main camps. Many will be more than competent in the rest, but they each have a natural alignment. Many in legal are not able to focus on innovation for reasons given above, but the future needs of the workforce will ultimately become a priority. Gartner talks about the transition from CIO to Chief Digital Officer (CDO) and predicts that 25% of organisations will create such a role. I can see this being a long way off within legal but very valid, the merging of roles and perception of the traditional functions in a law firm. The current CIO role will primarily be keeping the lights on and the CDO will be more strategic, aligned with revenue and client success and retention.
In my opinion it doesn’t depend on your business model or your size. Of course it might be easier to be more agile in a smaller more nimble firm but it also depends on whether your management team see technology as an enabler not a cost centre. It also depends on whether they can see beyond legal technology, and whether they value the human network of the organisation and want to allow it to thrive.
So what is the current state of play in legal IT in “big law”? Investment in technology within law firms up to around 2008/9 was largely internally focused. Focused on the business. There are rafts of legal specific applications from practice management systems to document management platforms and search tools. Almost all the Top 200 law firms have something or other in the majority of the categories (as seen in the LegalIT Insider Top 200 UK charts). But what this chart doesn’t tell us is how well are these products adopted? How well are they aligned to business processes? Has benefits realisation been a core part of project delivery? Are lawyers using them or are they bypassing them? Has business services requirements been included? How much shadow IT is being used? These are all questions to which many will have similar answers, I bet.
Taking risks is an important part of running a business. You will always fail. It’s amazing how quickly you can recover and learn from those failures and jump back on the horse if you are prepared to fail. I was at a legal marketing conference last week where the keynote speaker was Kat Cole and she talked about failure, taking risks, making hard decisions for the survival and ultimate success of her business Cinnabon.
Law firms are going to have to take some risks, this is inevitable. Many are under pressure from the wider market, changes in business structures, and client demands. Not exploring other ways of doing things because “we’ve always done it like this and look where it’s got us” is almost negligent. It doesn’t matter whether you categorise these factors affecting your business as challenges or opportunities or both. People, teams and firms need to realise they aren’t just delivering “tech”, they are potentially delivering a change enabler. It’s important to understand and focus on the impact of technology on the business and its employees (not just lawyers) and provide just as much emphasis on the people using the technology. The day this happens, we’ll be moving in the right direction.
Technology with a focus on the human network is the key, which allow greater innovation and enable wide change. A digitally proficient workforce (not millenials), the right culture and open approach to risk and innovation will drive the new ways of working.
Law firms like many other organisations are risk averse and are resistant to change, this resistance to change is ultimately a risk in itself to which some may not survive. Each firm has to focus on it’s people and is in control of it’s own ability to change and adapt. It’s up to them.
Ben is client focused and enjoys working closely with clients and colleagues to ensure the successful delivery of technology solutions which help clients derive the most value from their investment in HighQ software.
Ben has many different roles and is involved in many areas of the business including; writing, speaking, consulting, marketing, social media presence, defining strategy and other areas of general business improvement.
Ben’s primary role however is “Product director” of HighQ Publisher. This includes managing all aspects of the product from; managing new and existing clients, designing new functionality, project implementations and innovation for the future of the platform.
Main Picture Credit: Iain Mackay
NB: This post is part of a series of blog posts on the Legal IT curve. See also:-
Yesterday was LawTech Futures 2014 – The Future of Legal Technology (Europe’s largest legal technology event). The last two years I was invited to attend, went and wrote reviews: LawTech Futures 2012 Reviewed: The Search for the Holy Grail of Legal Technology Conferences has Begun! and LawTech Futures 2013 Reviewed: The one with the neocortex. This year I must have fallen off the invite list. So no review I am afraid but just a few comments generated via Twitter from this side of Hadrian’s Wall.
Legal Conferences (especially Futuristic / Technology ones) are usually well covered these days on Twitter. Indeed sometimes you can glean as much about the Conference from Twitter as actually being there e.g. LawTech Camp London 2012: In Tweets.
That was, unfortunately, not to be the case yesterday. There were quite a few tweets from vendors telling you to come to their stalls for free giveaways. Riverview Law, Jeremy Hopkin’s daughter and I have a particular penchant for flashing green bouncy balls (sorry… an in-joke from last year). But there were very few tweets about the actual content of the Conference. Indeed the official Conference Twitter account could only muster four and those were just about the venue filling up. I was left not knowing what the future of legal technology holds. It was the keynote by Sir Tim Berners Lee that got most tweet coverage. We found out in particular that:-
But then that had already been predicted by Jon Busby on Twitter last week:-
@ChristianUncut i think i know the answer…he’s remove ‘//‘
— Jon Busby (@jonb1966) March 19, 2014
So Twitter at least told us what was going to happen at the Conference before it did. Maybe just as well I hadn’t made the trip to London this year to find that out. Although Jon Busby tells me that Sir Tim’s http regret was widely publicised elsewhere and he picked it up in Wired last month. Other startling insights on the world wide web included:-
— Charles Christian (@ChristianUncut) March 25, 2014
Why so little LawTech Futures Conference Tweets this year? I tweeted with Jason Plant about that:-
@planty was there perhaps less to tweet about? Sir Tim seemed to be the main topic of tweets – but not much there I could see for legal?
— The Time Blawg (@TheTimeBlawg) March 25, 2014
@TheTimeBlawg you could be right. There was less on the main stage this year and the lounge stage smaller bit busier
— Jason Plant (@planty) March 25, 2014
@planty … of course my absence this year would have reduced the tweet count dramatically
— The Time Blawg (@TheTimeBlawg) March 25, 2014
So very little in the way of tablets, smart phones and tweets at a legal technology conference. I can only deduce that the audience was therefore dominated by Big Law (and if Eversheds attended they left their iPads at home). Big Law does, of course, need to attend these conferences because Big Law is so behind the Legal IT curve
On the Legal IT curve debate see also:-
Photo Credit: Yasmin Andrews
I attended the annual Law Society of Scotland Dinner at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh last night. Law Society President, Bruce Beveridge, joked of lawyers gathering amongst dinosaurs, fossils and sharks. It was a magnificent setting for what was a thoroughly enjoyable evening. The dinner was excellent as was the after dinner talk by Hamish Taylor. A talk that encouraged law firms to steal. Not from their clients I hasten to add. But to steal ideas from businesses outwith the legal sector.
Hamish Taylor has a winning record of driving innovation and change at companies such as Proctor & Gamble, British Airways, Eurostar and Sainsbury’s Bank. Hamish has been dubbed the “master thief” by the Inspired Leaders Network for his track record of stealing ideas from one environment to use in another. He gave examples of going to a luxury yacht manufacturer to design the flat beds in First Class at British Airways and asking Disney to sort out the queueing system at Heathrow Airport.
The message was to look outside the legal sector and see what ideas you can steal from other businesses to use within your own law firm. Sage advice. When I set up a visiting base in Shetland for solicitors from my own law firm, Inksters, to work out of, I stole from the serviced apartment industry (e.g. Fraser Suites) and the serviced office industry (e.g. Regus) combined the two and created OfficeLodge. We won an Innovation award for it in 2007.
I wonder if there are many examples in actual practice of law firms stealing ideas from other sectors?
Picture Credit and link: Venue Hire at The National Museum of Scotland
Nicole Black has referenced my post on Big Law is so behind the legal IT curve in her post for Legal IT Professionals on Why large law firms face extinction by irrelevancy. Nicole states:-
For some time now, I have encouraged law firms to embrace change or pay the price of irrelevancy. It’s been my contention that because of the wide scale proliferation of mobile and cloud computing, 21st century legal consumers expect more from their legal counsel than ever before. They are used to instantaneous access to information and are more discriminating and demanding. They seek affordable, convenient, 24/7 access to legal representation using the latest technologies.
Nicole is of the view that law firms need to pivot with the changing times to succeed:-
When it comes to pivoting, large law firms seem destined to fail since, by their very nature, they are: 1) large, 2) precedent-based, and 3) run by lawyers. As a result, large firms are slow to change and cling to doing things the way they have always been done. I base this conclusion on 2 things: conversations with IT representatives from large firms and survey results regarding large law firms’ use of emerging technologies such as cloud and mobile computing.
Nicole makes reference to me stating that Big Law has invested heavily in non-cloud based technology and needs to “sweat their expensive IT investments” before they can justify a move to the cloud:-
And therein lies the problem – large law firms are too invested in legacy systems of the past and are thus too big and clunky to pivot. Not to mention the fact that their in-house IT staff have no incentive to encourage change. To do so would mean the loss of many of their current job functions.
So for now, the game plan for large firms seems to be to stick to the status quo. Let’s just hope their decision to change at a snail’s pace doesn’t lead them down the same path as the dinosaurs. Because when it comes right down to it, pivoting, while sometimes a painful process, is far better than extinction by irrelevancy.
Nicole’s post has caused quite a reaction as can be seen from the stream of comments generated. Big Law I reckon don’t like being compared to the dinosaurs. I would like to take a look at some of those comments.
Rob W (the first one) – there are two in the debate – states:-
Any law firm, or other serious business concern for that matter, that uses public cloud is foolish. There is too much threat to the security of confidential data from the NSA, USA PATRIOT Act, British Intelligence, etc.
Rob W (a different one) – there are as I said two in the debate - states:-
I don’t think anyone would argue that Cloud is compelling as a next-generation platform, but most of it is in no way ready for the complexities of today’s law firm when a needs assessment is properly completed.
So there are security issues, law firms are complex and the cloud is not ready yet for those complexities. I am unsure what those complexities are. Rob W (a different one) does not elaborate. I accept that services such as Dropbox and public cloud offerings from Google, Amazon or the like are not suitable for law firm usage. Indeed law firms in the UK cannot by law use such services as the cloud servers involved are not necessarily located in the European Union. But that is not what Nicole or I are talking about. We both know that there are specialist service providers out there with tailored cloud solutions for law firms that meet stringent legal and security requirements. If law firms talk to the right people they can have a cloud solution now that ticks all the boxes in any needs assessment. And those right people are certainly not the ‘snake-oil salesmen’ that David Edwards makes reference to. Law firms implementing such a cloud solution are likely to find their data is more secure than it would be if held within their own office walls.
Doug Carner states:-
Cloud computing is a tool, not a destination. Before embracing any technology, one must evaluate the costs and benefits, and not just with regards to money and information security. While good, the article did not adequately detail how the cloud would provide better service to the client and/or greater efficiency for the firm, versus their current use of a VPN and centralized file servers.
Disseminating such information was not the purpose of Nicole’s article. Such information can easily be found elsewhere and was probably taken by Nicole as already read. I covered many of these issues in 2011 in Law Firm in the Cloud.
Roy Allen/Lawgistics should perhaps also read my blog post from 2011. If he does it might not be as simple to him as:-
This magical “cloud” that makes all things better does not exist. All the cloud does is move the servers somewhere else.
how attorneys would, for example, perform document reviews which are done using very specific types of applications in the cloud, review transcriptions, enter time, etc.???
The answer is simple. These tasks can all be done in the cloud. I do them. If you can do it on a server in your office you can do it in the cloud. If your legal software provider can’t move you into the cloud it is time to consider an alternative provider as your IT people may just be cavemen (to maintain Nicole’s dinosaur analogy!).
LC also thinks that the cloud can’t work globally where you have law firm’s operating in different jurisdictions with different levels of security requirements e.g. the EU is higher in its requirements than the USA. This is something I have not had to give much thought to as my law firm, Inksters, is based within Scotland and subject only to the regulations of the Law Society of Scotland. Our cloud solution is based within the UK and complies with EU regulations. I would have assumed, although I may well be wrong and I have not researched this point, that if you were a global law firm you could house your cloud servers in the jurisdiction with the highest security requirements and that would satisfy those with the lower ones. I stand to be corrected on this if my view is too simplistic.
The bottom line from Nuno Brito Lopes is:-
Do not let evolution make you lose sight of the defining features of being a Lawyer.
Being a Lawyer and using technology to fulfil that function in better and more efficient ways are two different things. I fully agree that technology will not necessarily make you a better lawyer but you may well serve your clients better by embracing it. You may also evolve yourself and not face extinction.
John Mancini thinks that:-
Most successful big firms, and there are a lot of them, are successful because of their deep bench of talent. Good lawyering trumps cloud architecture any day of the week.
Small Law firms, Boutique Law Firms and NewLaw firms do not lack legal talent. This is one thing they share with Big Law firms, a fact brought out by George Beaton in NewLaw New Rules. Good lawyering coupled with state of the art agile legal IT will trump good lawyering coupled with prehistoric (keeping up Nicole’s dinosaur analogy!) legal IT any day of the week.
The thing that strikes me most when reading through the negative comments that Nicole received is that Richard Susskind was right. Many lawyers (and Richard has commented that this is a trait particularly common in large law firms) are irrational rejectionists. They reject ideas before giving them a chance. They possibly, for that reason, do indeed face the fate of the dinosaurs.
NB: This post is part of a series of blog posts on the Legal IT curve. See also:-
I will take exception to one of the things [Brian Inkster] said, “There is an acknowledgement that the cloud makes NewLaw ‘as agile, if not more agile, than Big Law’. I think much more agile.” It does not. Agility has little to do with the platform, and much to do with how you use it. There are agile firms who use premise equipment. There are awkward/sluggish/lethargic/stiff/clumsy firms using the cloud. People, process, work flows – these are where your agility is created. Choosing only the technology will fail every time.
I agree. However, the point being made originally in Briefing Magazine’s Legal Technology in 2014 (which I quoted only part of) was really emphasising the fact that, via the Cloud, NewLaw now has access to enterprise level technology that once was the preserve of BigLaw. This gives them, perhaps more correctly, the ability to be agile using such technology in a way that was not previously available to them. the same is true of Small Law of course. It also gives them the many advantages (often ones of agility) over office based Legal IT that I outlined when my own law firm, Inksters, moved into the Cloud. Some of these do come with simply being in the Cloud. But yes… agility will be increased substantially with how you then use your cloud platform. I rather think that NewLaw is tuned into this fact and may well be more agile in implementing that use than Big Law ;-) There will, however, no doubt be “awkward/sluggish/lethargic/stiff/clumsy firms” using the cloud just as there are and will continue to be “awkward/sluggish/lethargic/stiff/clumsy firms” using systems located within their own offices.
Paul Caris, CIO of Eversheds, said in the Briefing Interview that I was quoting from:-
The management and managers of law firms need to look at how they are going to compete when the technical competitive edge is gone, and when all [legal businesses, new and old,] are on a level playing field.
In my opinion it may not be a level playing field that the future holds but one where proactive cloud adoption and agile use thereof by NewLaw has left Big Law well behind the Legal IT curve and less able to compete with them.
NB: This post is part of a series of blog posts on the Legal IT curve. See also:-
Guest Post by Mark Gould in reply to Brian Inkster’s latest blog post on The Time Blawg
I am generally nervous about technology evangelism because evangelists tend to assume that their preference should be the same for all, without considering that different people have different needs and perspectives. The sterile debate between Mac fans and Microsoft users has mutated into an equally pointless dialogue of the deaf between iOS devotees and the Android camp. I prefer to see this proliferation of powerful operating systems, apps and hardware as a fantastic opportunity for people to choose exactly the right combination to match their needs.
I had a similar reaction to the recent blog post asserting the laggardliness of Big Law, by comparison with smaller firms.
It is true that larger firms have taken time to wake up to the opportunities of newer technology. But the same is true of many large organisations. Yes, larger law firms are moving slowly from Windows XP to Windows 7 (not even Windows 8). This migration mirrors that of their large clients in financial services and other sectors. There are good reasons for this dilatoriness. Consider the following, for example.
As firms become more complex — both in terms of work done and sheer numbers of employees and business units — the interaction of systems, databases, software and hardware becomes increasingly difficult to disentangle. Systems adopted over many years can seriously reduce the ability to make choices that are straightforward for smaller businesses or for individuals. Moving to Windows 7 is not a simple question of getting Dell to deliver new PCs. It is a major project with significant dependencies — any one of which could directly affect client service. It is no wonder that IT departments tread very cautiously in this respect.
Caution is also a watchword when considering moving to the cloud. The vagueness of the term ‘the cloud’ in this context is less than helpful, but I assume it encompasses the storage of data on servers that are not directly controlled by the firm. That proposition is a risky one for firms that have to worry about abiding by regulatory burdens over and above those imposed by their own regulator (the SRA or Law Society of Scotland, for example). Clients in regulated businesses (such as financial institutions) will often demand that their advisers work to the same standards as they are bound to by their regulator. More generally, concerns about market abuse and disclosure mean that firms operating at this level can only make decisions to work in a different way (even when new technology is not involved) after serious consideration. Information security and regulatory compliance are increasingly serious concerns.
Even if there were no technological or regulatory hurdles to overcome, should larger firms be adopting new tools as soon as they are available? Possibly, but only if they serve a valid business purpose. There are always lots of shiny opportunities that could be followed up, but most firms will not have unlimited resources to explore all of these. It takes time to work out which will bring the biggest benefit; that is where larger firms will appear to fall behind their smaller counterparts. Inksters can move more quickly because it is essentially more agile, and because instinctive decisions can be tested much more easily.
The legal market (in England & Wales, at least) is becoming increasingly diverse. There are firms owned by a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. There are firms using a business model akin to barristers’ chambers. There are firms using Alternative Business Structures to bring non-lawyers into partnership. There are high-performing boutique firms. And there remain some firms that will continue much as they have for decades. All of these will be more or less successful. There will also be some that fail — but I think it is unlikely that the proximate cause of many of those failures will be an excess of caution about new technology.
The diversity of legal structures and market choices will push different firms to choose different models for their technology platform, to ensure that they are best place to serve their clients well. The outcome of those choices cannot be critiqued by a simple adoption curve for one technology. A more appropriate critique needs to take account of how well client demands are being met. It is almost impossible to do that looking from the outside.
About the Guest Blogger: Mark Gould is Head of Knowledge Management at Addleshaw Goddard. This blog post reflects Mark’s personal views and not necessarily those of his firm. As Head of Knowledge Management Mark is responsible for finding, developing and promoting ways in which people in the firm can make the most of their own and other people’s knowledge. In addition to managing knowledge activities for the firm, in June 2011 Mark took on responsibility for leading the firm’s 20 Professional Support Lawyers (PSLs) as a team, focusing them on delivering improved profitability for the firm and their practice groups. Before moving into the central KM role in September 2006, Mark was a Professional Support Lawyer in the firm’s Competition, Trade & Regulatory group, looking after the team’s know-how and training needs, and developing client relationships in the through knowledge support. Prior to joining Addleshaw Goddard, Mark was a Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol (1989-2001) and the University of Hull (1988-1989), teaching undergraduate and postgraduate subjects including Public Law, Jurisprudence and EU Law.
NB: Images, captions and credits inserted by The Time Blawg Editor
It is a ‘thread’ book that grew out of a blog post by George on ‘The rise and rise of the NewLaw business model‘. That post sparked a torrent of comments and replies. These form the basis of this crowd sourced e-book supplemented and linked with other posts, tweets and George’s narrative.
George uses the terms ‘BigLaw’ and ‘New Law’ to refer to business models. BigLaw and NewLaw do not refer to the size of the firms or when they were founded. BigLaw and NewLaw are distinct and fundamentally different business models.
BigLaw for George is the business model underpinning the operations of traditional law firms. It applies to law firms of all sizes, except solo and micro firms. Whilst the book does not explore solo and micro firms in any detail I would suggest that many such firms may well have the attributes that George gives to NewLaw.
We are told that the BigLaw business model is built on six elements:-
NewLaw on the other hand shares possibly only one of these characteristics, namely the attraction of top legal talent.
In all other respects the NewLaw business model is different. The investors are seeking returns on capital and are separate from the producing staff, so leverage and the tournament are not present. Certainly some, even many of the staff, have a financial interest in the success of their business, but as an asset, not to maximise equity partners’ profits each year. The balance sheets of NewLaw business models are as important as the income statements.
And – most importantly – fees are fixed in NewLaw. The provider, not the client, absorbs the risks of under-estimation and poor matter management.
The conversation in the book revolves between these two models with thoughts, comments and predictions on both.
We hear of disruption and of changes that are structural not cyclical.
There is a suggestion that firms that are less suited to handling highly complex matters might be more at risk from NewLaw competition. This may be true of what are real high complex matters. However, in my experience, BigLaw often over complicates reasonably straightforward transactions. It puts a team of half a dozen lawyers in three departments onto a ‘commercial’ transaction that any competent conveyancer could carry out on their own. When clients begin to realise that NewLaw can simplify the process rather than mystify it then BigLaw may have more to fear than some of the contributors to NewLaw New Rules suggest.
The advantage NewLaw has over BigLaw in adapting technology is discussed where BigLaw have legacy systems that still have to run their course. I will explore this in some detail with reference to Small Law (which could well equate to NewLaw) in my next blog post.
Steven Tyndall thinks NewLaw will better use technology because:-
BigLaw typically asks ‘How can I use technology to do what I do better?’ Whereas NewLaw simply asks ‘How can it be done better?’. The first question results in sustaining technology. The second question does not just reference technology; it is an intrinsic component.
We are told by Peter Carayiannis that client power is reshaping the BigLaw business model:-
Those firms that recognise adaptation is the key to survival and everything revolves around providing the best value to the client will benefit.
The lawyers of the future will also be reshaping things:-
The bottom line is that Gen Y mocks the billable hour and will not spend a career toiling on a billable hour basis. These young professionals have been told they are knowledge workers and that they can work wherever and whenever and need not be fixed to a single location.
Discussion takes place about the need for lawyers to actually change the way they practice law. As Ron Friedmann referencing Jordan Furlong points out:-
90% of what 90% of law firms do today is the same as it ever was. And that’s generous.
BigLaw is training lawyers for New Law. Will NewLaw ever train their own? Although as Jordan Furlong highlights the training may not be as appropriate as it should be:-
Large law firms are facing a near-complete transformation of their business models and are mostly ill-equipped to see this process through. Large firm associate training is designed to produce law firm employees, not entrepreneurial lawyers of the future.
Richard Susskind warns:-
If one leading law firm breaks rank and delivers world-class service at significantly lower cost, using alternative methods of sourcing, then the market will change irreversibly.
It is suggested by George Beaton that for BigLaw firms based on business as usual, profit-per-partner will halve within ten years. From anecdotes I have heard concerning BigLaw (at least in the UK or certainly in Scotland) I though that had already happened to many during the recent recession. A further halving in the next 10 years could therefore to many be a quartering from where levels once stood.
Discussion takes place that specialist boutiques ranging in size from a handful of partners to maybe 20 or 30 will form de novo or by breaking away from large firms. I have referred to this a number of times in the past on this blog with reference to the post by John Flood on ‘The Rise of the Boutiques?‘. This may well result in more and not less law firms as some predict the future of law holds. As John Flood also blogged ‘Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom‘.
Karl Chapman won’t be investing anytime soon in a traditional law firm:-
But, taking a ten-year view I wouldn’t invest in a traditional law firm; the competition (which is well capitalised and run like businesses) has only just started to flex its muscles. As Reagan said ‘you ain’t seen nothing yet’.
Ken Grady thinks that:-
Strong, smart, nimble players will survive; slow, inward-focused and tradition-bound players will struggle and disappear
Peter Kalis from within BigLaw thinks that some (not all) the contributors to New LawNew Rules are “glitterati among the membership of ABLAC”. Apparently ABLAC is the acronym for Attack Big Law at Any Cost. Peter makes it clear that he is in the business of serving clients not selling books and he provides a robust defence of the BigLaw business model and its survival. It is likely that with him at the helm his firm has a good chance of survival. However, many other BigLaw firms may not be so fortunate to have a Chairman who actually considers the threats that NewLaw pose. Indeed potential ignorance on that front amongst BigLaw partners is something that comes out in the book.
Richard Susskind in his forward to NewLaw New Rules states:-
This is mandatory reading for anyone who is interested in legal businesses of the future.
I would second that.
George Beaton must be congratulated for putting NewLaw New Rules together. It is the start of a conversation/debate that I am sure is set to continue as NewLaw firms come and go (not all will survive) and BigLaw firms adapt, change, do nothing, vanish or survive.
I have highlighted excerpts from NewLaw New Rules that particularly caught my personal attention. There are many more contributors to the book, in addition to those specifically mentioned by me, with plenty to say on the topic. There is detailed analysis contained in the book that will appeal to a broad range of people involved in the legal industry from TinyLaw to BigLaw and to those already part of or contemplating NewLaw.
To receive your complimentary copy of NewLaw New Rules:-
> Go to Smashwords by clicking on that link
> Register with your name and email address
> Search for NewLaw New Rules
> Click on the title
> Enter this coupon number AN37P
> Your free copy will download
Note: This free copy must be downloaded by 15 March 2014 – the offer expires after this date. If you miss the free offer you can, of course, still purchase NewLaw New Rules via Smashwords or Amazon UK or Amazon USA and no doubt also at Amazon’s other international sites.
Note about the author: George Beaton is a Legal services industry specialist, Business adviser to law firms, Leader of strategy and research consultancies serving professional services firms, Author, Commentator and Keynote speaker. George is a Partner in Beaton Capital and an associate professor at the University of Melbourne.
I was in Glasgow, Scotland yesterday and not New York City, USA. I would have been in the latter attending the Reinvent Law Conference had the organisers invited Scott Greenfield to talk. I gave that promise following Reinvent Law London in 2013. It was not to be despite my proding. So instead I followed the hashtag on Twitter. Not the same as being in the room but it gives you a flavour.
— Who Trended it ? (@WhoTrendedIT) February 7, 2014
I particularly liked the sketchnotes of the Conference from Margaret Hagan.
I am very much a supporter of the ethos behind Reinvent Law. I enjoyed attending LawTech Camp London 2012 and Reinvent Law London 2013. It is good to see boundaries being stretched and ideas about the future of law formed. Perhaps it gives us hope. I am sure that I will continue going to such events in the future. It is usually a good social event too. I would have met many Twegals (legals who tweet) in New York City. Scott Greenfield still went along for the ride despite the speaking snub.
It would have been nice to have said hello to Scott and to others in person.
Whilst perhaps not as extreme in my views, or ways of expressing them, as Scott Greenfield (‘a survivor’s tale‘) I do agree with him that balance is required and is often lacking at these legal tech / futurist conferences.
This is also true of the LawTech Futures Conferences held annually in London since 2012.
Gizmos doth not a lawyer make. It can be a tad worrying to see the image portrayed to young lawyers being one that involves only technology as the future of law with little or no regard to the art of advocacy or indeed any other skills that a lawyer traditionally is should be equipped with.
Those skills take years of practice and honing. We may yet reach a stage where a computer takes over – but we are a little bit away from that yet.
Donning Google Glass will not make you the next Petrocelli. This fact is often ignored. Largely I believe because those preaching don’t have those skills (they may well have Google Glasses). They are non-practicing ‘lawyers’.
To invite up on the stage some actual practicing lawyers would give balance and a dose of reality. Not a bad thing for the young lawyers of today.
And don’t think some practicing lawyers (even Scott Greenfield) don’t get IT. Scott is a blogger that leaves most all lawyers in the shade. He is a blawgoneer. There is much for the aspiring lawyer to learn from Scott. I am not so sure about the AOL desktop though!
Many sole practitioners (solos as I think they call them in the States) are way ahead of Big Law when it comes to IT (a theme that I intend to continue in future blog posts). Those attending Reinvent Law conferences could learn a thing or two from what is actually happening to improve efficiencies and client experiences within ‘Small Law’.
There was also apparently a dearth of women contributing to Reinvent Law NYC.
I am sure if the organisers had asked Nicole Black, Betsy Munnell, Stephanie Kimbro and Carolyn Elefant (to name but four) to speak they would have been happy to oblige. Next year perhaps?
One of the better Futurist conferences I have attended in recent times (‘Evolution or Extinction’) was actually held in Scotland and what made it so was the number of coalface practitioners telling us how they had advanced or were advancing their real life businesses. Traditional law firms can adapt and thrive. There is a lot for law firm partners and new start-ups to learn from such experiences. If they attend or tune in to hear that is!
Reinvent Law may need to consider adapting itself. There are things you will not currently hear at Reinvent Law. There are things that perhaps you should be hearing. A balanced view will give Tomorrow’s Lawyers a better start in legal life and a much healthier future than a one sided view will.
I have been accused of “mixing good old traditional values with an innovative approach to delivering legal services”. You can mix the two. You should mix the two. That is what I call Forward Thinking Law.
Reinvent Law is a fairly new kid on the block. I am not knocking it. I think it has something to offer. But the organisers should perhaps pay attention to the crowd and let it develop. Originally the talks were crowd sourced. That did not happen in New York City. Perhaps a retrograde move? Perhaps one designed to keep some speakers out? But even when crowd sourced many potential good talks were excluded as those who did most canvasing usually got in. Perhaps a first come first up approach – open up the invites and list the talks as they are entered on the web? Have some invited speakers too (and please do invite Scott Greenfield this time and a few other practitioners from the coalface, especially solos/small law). Perhaps a quota for women to address the gender imbalance? Expand the focus. Oh… and don’t forget the coffee and WiFi.
#ReinventLaw no WiFi, no coffee. Shoot me now.
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) February 7, 2014
I might call along Reinvent Law London 2014 to see if Reinvent Law reinvents itself. Or…
What could you be creating if you weren’t sitting in this room being told how to innovate? #reinventlaw
— Mark W. Bennett (@MarkWBennett) February 7, 2014