Lawyers cannot hide on Twitter
Recent headlines in the The Mail Online and The Telegraph suggested that a (now ex) Barrister (who tweets as @Geeklawyer) had been struck off for inappropriate tweeting.
The Time Blawg – One Year On
One year ago yesterday, on 1 January 2011, The Time Blawg materialised.
Dr Who Christmas Special: Jottings for the Time Travelling Lawyer
A brief, but handy, guide to aspects of the Law of the Time Lords and other cosmic civilizations
…
How would I cope without my Sonic Screwdriver?
In my last post I announced that I planned a new series: Travels through the Blawgosphere. Well here it begins with Episode #1. The theme of this first Episode is Innovation in legal practice.
Where better to start on Innovation and the law than with a blog post by Stephen Allen aka LexFuturus. Stephen only started blogging at LexFuturus on 23 March 2012 but he has already blogged 30 posts and has fast become one of my favourite blawgers. He warns that his blog may contain satire. It does and is all the better for it.
What a Neep!
For the purposes of this journey into the Blawgosphere the post we are going to look at is ‘Too much turnip can be a turn-off!‘ Stephen takes Tolstoy’s story of an enormous turnip (or “da muckle neep” as I would call it) being pulled from the earth showing that anything can be achieved through teamwork but says that his own view on it was that the farmer, having had his fill of neeps, decided to grow carrots the following year. Stephen compares innovation in law to innovation in farming – “it requires forward planning, lateral thinking and a certain amount of courage”. Stephen goes on to tell us:-
It also requires delivery. Innovation unimplemented is merely an idea and ideas will not make you more attractive to your customers. Those wanting carrots won’t buy turnip on the basis you thought about growing carrots.
The key is to understand what the market needs to assess the options for delivering it and to select the right seeds of innovation to plant well – don’t be afraid to reject the weak or unsuitable. Once planted then tend to them, support them, nuture them and, eventually, harvest them.
One last thing, size isn’t everything – as our turnip farmer found out. Customers don’t care about your economies of scale, getting bigger is neither innovative nor a substitute for innovation. What customers really want is choice, those that innovate to deliver genuine choice will not just survive but will prosper.
Stephen’s post, as he tells us, was inspired by a Twitter debate between him, myself, Jon Harman, LawSync and Mark Smith. That started with the question: “What should drive innovation? Customer need? Opportunity provided by IT?” Discussion ensued around Steve Jobs and Henry Ford and then we had this video via Jon Harman:-
That was the spark that resulted in Stephen blogging about neeps. Twitter does this. Several of my blog posts have been inspired by Twitter exchanges.
Then, in turn, Stephen’s blog post got Jon Busby blogging (not that Jon needs much encouragement) at Legal 2.0. Jon’s add:-
There is a forgotten part of innovation that I don’t think sits well with the current lawyer culture. I think it partly explains why lawyers aren’t that innovative.
Innovation is not a turn key, a mouse click, a download or push button.
Innovation is many, many things but for me, (and after all this is my site), it is vision.
Jon goes on to point out:-
I said partly responsibility for lack of innovation.
What people forget when talking about change and innovation is that to change you have to see a clear value for doing it.
I don’t think lawyers have seen that value yet.
That does not mean that they never will.
Jon is right. On the whole lawyers don’t have vision (or if they do they don’t see the vision through) and don’t see the value in innovating (or if they do, again, they don’t see the potential vision through to create the value). That brings us back to Stephen Allen and his comments on unimplemented innovation. One of the problems I see with lawyers innovating is the partnership model. Whilst firm’s could delegate innovation to a ‘Director of Innovation’ (Stephen Allen is one, perhaps the only one, of those) they invariably stifle innovation by giving all partners a say. Thus you have ‘innovation’ by committee resulting in the likes of ‘camel’ computing as highlighted in my post on Lex2012.
Right, back in the police box, and a trip across the pond to see what they are up to in the USA. Hat tip to Nicole Black who tweeted a link to this post: ‘Tim Hwang Isn’t A Lawyer, But He Plays One Online‘. Tim Hwang founded faux-law firm Robot Robot & Hwang in 2010 as “a legal startup” having a single human partner. While the site is a joke, Hwang’s declared mission – opening new opportunities for experimentation in the practice of law – is sincere. Tim explains:-
One thing that got me intrigued about law was that industry-wide it has the same kind of structure as older industries that have been disrupted by technology: a small class of people that’s based on control of information, protected by regulations. Law hasn’t had its Napster moment yet, though everyone recognizes it’s an incredibly inefficient structure now and the legal profession is in incredible disarray. Part of it is because the industry hasn’t been innovative – not just in training lawyers but in practice. Lawyers tend to be sort of tech-adverse – I hear lots of stories like this one about the partner at a firm who gets his emails printed, writes responses in longhand, and has his secretary type the replies.
It will be interesting to keep an eye on Robot Robot & Hwang and see what innovations emerge. I reckon there is a good chance as Tim clearly has the vision and sees the value. Furthermore he is unlikely to be deterred by his two partners, Robot & Robot!
Have you seen Hwang, R2D2?
Back in the UK, another Tim with his eye on innovation is Tim Bratton aka Legal Brat. Tim’s post on ‘See Saw Commercial Law‘ looks at the increase in in-house lawyers and the corresponding decrease in instructions to out-house lawyers. Tim comments:-
Firms who are serious about the long-term future of their commercial practices need to incentivise portions of their partnership to think innovatively in these changing times. Because if the entire partnership remains incentivised to keep on billing for this year’s targets, then we have a turkeys’ voting for Christmas scenario for any partner who goes out on a limb in the way I’m suggesting. Point is, law firms incentivise their staff for the here and now. Not for the there and future.
Due to the growth in numbers and excellence in the in-house side of the profession, without a sea change in product offerings the seesaw will continue to tip and commercial teams in law firms will continue to become the ever poorer cousins of the corporate powerhouse departments. They will be stuck at the top of the seesaw, unable to get off without jumping. The landing may not be soft if their corporate law colleagues do not feel like catching them.
Another area to watch. Will those firms heed Tim’s advice or will they continue to concentrate on the here and now rather than the there and future?
I will finish up this set of travels through the blawgosphere with a visit back to the USA and to the Philly Law Blog run by Fishtown lawyers Jordan Rushie and Leo Mulvihill. In a recent post ‘How to Build the Practice of Your Dreams – Listen to George Harrison, Not Rachel Rodgers‘ Jordan Rushie reckons building a law firm is more about hard graft and money than technology and being ‘virtual’. Jordan admits getting some ideas from Rachel Rodgers to implement in his “own physical, as in, not virtual, practice”. But Jordan gives us some home truths:-
Starting a law practice is much more difficult than firing up your laptop, moving to an exotic location, throwing up a cool website, and letting the dollars roll in because you’ve got “Esq.” next to your name. When your name is on the door, you’re responsible for everything that happens. Even if it’s inconvenient, not fun, and will totally ruin your weekend. (which would be like, such a bummer). You don’t just wake up a good lawyer, either – it takes years of dedication to the practice and personal sacrifice.
I agree with Jordan. Technology does not make a lawyer but a lawyer and their clients might well benefit from a bit of technology. This the Fishtown lawyers realise with Leo having succumbed to the lure of an iPad. Not even I have done that yet! I am waiting patiently for my Windows 8 tablet and, in the meantime, am quite happy with my Windows 7 netbook and my Windows phone 
Posted in Travels through the Blawgosphere by .
…
Next stop the Blawgosphere!
There have been some interesting blog posts in the blawgosphere over the past week about the practice of law. I have tweeted links to some of these. But I thought it might be nice to do an occasional review of such posts at The Time Blawg which is, after all, here to look at the past, present and future practice of law.
It will not be of the extensive nature that a Blawg Review or UK Blawg Roundup is. I have done one of those before (UK Blawg Roundup #6: The Time Travel Edition) and know how exhausting it can be. Good to see Blawg Review up and running again in recent weeks after a bit of a break (the latest edition #319 is an excellent one from Antonin Pribetic at The Trial Warrior Blog) and I am very much looking forward to the next UK Blawg Roundup #10 that Charon QC is currently working on.
The travels in my police box through the Blawgosphere will be a brief look at a few recent blog posts I have personally come across and liked. In keeping with the theme of this blawg they are likely to be ones with an emphasis on the practice of law rather than the law itself. However, I might throw in any blog post that particularly takes my fancy.
I currently have about 5 blog posts in mind, that I have read over the past week, for Episode #1 and I will try and publish that over the forthcoming weekend.
How regular the series becomes remains to be seen. I am not going to promise anything. It will very much depend on what other blawgers produce and I find from time to time. Let’s give it a whirl and see where it takes us.
Posted in Travels through the Blawgosphere by .
…
Innovation and Technology
The annual Lex Conference (now in its 10th year) from the Ark Group is “dedicated to driving law firm efficiency through innovation and technology”.
Last year I was a speaker at Lex2011. This year I attended Lex2012 as a delegate. This video, from last year (in which I make an appearance or two) gives you a flavour of the event:-
Lex2012 kicked off with delegates being told to switch off their smart phones as they interfered with the AV system. Hardly a social media friendly technology conference! How were lawyers outside of the Conference venue going to be able to follow proceedings via Twitter and the hashtag #Lex2012? “The irony” as Jon Harman tweeted. Jon also pointed out in a tweet that this was an issue that was easy to avoid if you knew a thing or two about mics and wireless systems. Hopefully, the Ark Group will take a look at this in order to make their Conferences (and they organise many) in the future social media friendly ones.
Being rebellious I kept my smart phone on and Tweeted regardless. There was an occasional crackling via the speaker system – whether I was to blame or not will probably remain a mystery. The only other delegate tweeting from the Conference (Damien Behan) was, like me, from a Scottish law firm. I wondered whether the English were behind the curve or perhaps just more obedient and had switched their smart phones off!
Tweeting from Conferences I find to be a good way of taking notes and capturing the salient points. It also can create interesting comments and debate from outwith the four walls of the Conference venue. In fact those are sometimes more interesting and enlightening as the Conference talks themselves.
IT’s future: Keeping up with rampant consumerism and delivering tech savvy solutions
My future is in space not the law
Charles Christian was the first speaker up with a look at ‘IT’s future: Keeping up with rampant consumerism and delivering tech savvy solutions’. The first slide was of Charles as a young boy in a space suit. Charles pointed out that the future was not always as we expected it to be. It was 40 years ago that man last set foot on the moon. Back then we might have expected great advancements by now in moon exploration (this brought the TV series ‘Space 1999’ to my mind) but nothing further had happened. There have been changing fortunes in the IT industry e.g. ZX Spectrum and, more recently, Blackberry. Innovation is not always what the consumer wants e.g. the Sinclair C5. Although Jason Plant pointed out in a tweet that Sir Clive knew what the customer wanted with the C5 (clean, cheap transport). His solution to the problem though was a mile off! Jon Harman pointed out in a tweet that Innovation has to fail sometimes, that’s the point. It’s how you manage minimising those risks. Stephen Allen commented in a tweet that in fact, properly mitigated, failed innovation will normally be the “mother” of successful innovation. Jon Harman pointed out in a tweet that this is why kids are so good at innovation, not afraid of failure, fail often, learn and improve. Jon went on to point out that a key ingredient is “sense making” in your environment – this mitigates your risk.
Back to Charles Christian. He said that many law firms (present company excepted – although I have my doubts on that after hearing some of the talks later in the day) think IT is something you do every 5 years. Technology is moving too quickly and you really need to be adapting and changing things on a more regular basis than that.
Charles thought we were perhaps moving into a third age of Legal IT. He saw the three ages as:-
1.0 Keep the background infrastructure running.
2.0 Practice support, becoming more core to legal work.
3.0 Help firms deliver services AND support and drive
Charles said that in the future people will do stuff differently and they won’t respect your work ethic and values – you just have to get over it.
He quoted the CIO of an American Tech Company who said:-
“We’re constantly connected at the office, at home, getting coffee and at the Airport. And we’re constantly working. That’s how we live.”
Charles wondered why lawyers were hung up about the cloud. He didn’t think it was any different from electricity and I would tend to agree. However, the afternoon talks (which I will come onto later) showed the hang ups that clearly exist even with firms who have implemented a cloud solution of sorts. Charles reckoned that the main issue with the cloud was not the infrastructure but the contractual arrangements.
Not being an iPad user (I am typing this blog post on a netbook with a proper keyboard as I travel back to Glasgow by train from London) I smirked when Charles told us that the easiest way to get a print from an iPad is to photocopy the screen! Someone tweeted “Genius!” I now have this mental image of iPad users up and down the country photocopying their iPads!
The new iPrinter!
Will we see client facing interfaces by law firms that are Facebook in style? These would perhaps be more recognisable and user friendly as a result. Charles told us that this was already happening in the US.
Charles finished by telling us that his graphics from the Conference could be found on Pinterest (which he knew that at least one other person in the room used – that will be me as Charles has reported on Inksters’ use of Pinterest). I don’t think any other law firms in attendance at Lex2012 are pinning yet. Given their Microsoft migration rates (that we will come to later) it may be some time before any pick up their first pins. However, whether or not you pin you can still see those graphics at http://pinterest.com/legaltechnology
Aligning IT in the business: From reactive to proactive project management
Next up was Stephen Brown from Higgs & Sons on ‘aligning IT in the business: From reactive to proactive project management’. Stephen told us that Innovation was to introduce something new; make changes in anything established. With regard to a Trusted Adviser, building trust can only be done by demonstrating and proving trustworthiness over time. The Holy Grail in Legal IT was to become that Innovative Driver and Trusted Adviser. I will look at the Holy Grail in relation to Legal Technology Conferences later in this post.
There was some discussion in questions and answers with Stephen about issues arising, from a project management point of view, from the roll out of a new version of Microsoft Office in a law firm. No mention was made of Office 365 in the cloud which should create no issues at all – for those law firms wise enough to make the move.
Rising to the challenge and delivering desktop virtualisation
Janet Day then told us about ‘rising to the challenge and delivering desktop virtualisation’ at Berwin Leighton Paisner. They are replacing all PCs with Wyse Z50s Linux based (thin client) terminals. They analysed the usage of their 700+ notebooks and found that 2 out of 3 had never left the office and 6% only were used offline. Those that really need a notebook will now have instead a Wyse X90m7 Windows Embedded based Portable Terminal (that is a lightweight laptop for internet connection with no local software on board). It occurs to me as odd that law firms do not analyse the need for notebooks (which are more expensive than PCs) before (rather than after) deploying them. If staff are deskbound most of the time there should be no need for them to have a dedicated notebook. Some law firms at the height of iPad mania dished out iPads to staff. I am sure this was often a gimmick rather than looking at the needs/benefits involved on a lawyer to lawyer basis. Quite sure many of these iPads will be being used mainly for personal purposes rather than true business ones.
It was interesting that at Lex2011 Janet had spoken about the future being one where law firms would not provide devices at all to their lawyers but provide them with an allowance to buy their own (Bring Your Own Device). One year later and Berwin Leighton Paisner are not doing that but providing thin client devices to all staff. Staff can, however, still bring their own devices as well and these (e.g. iPads) can work with the firm’s systems.
Can you do this with your PC?
I had the opportunity to see a Wyse Terminal as Wyse Technology were one of the solution providers at Lex2012. The terminal is tiny compared to a PC (about the size of a standard Router). It can plug into an existing monitor and I assume keyboard (although Berwin Leighton Paisner have introduced Wyse keyboards as part of their project). It is cheaper than a PC and something for any law firm moving to the cloud to consider as an alternative to a PC. If we add users to our existing cloud system at Inksters I will certainly be looking at the question of thin client terminals then. I understand that another provider of these devices is HP.
Moving to the cloud: The risks, opportunities and limitations
The afternoon at Lex2012 saw two case studies on moving to the cloud. The first one saw Maurice Tunney of Field Fisher Waterhouse tell us about ‘the risks, opportunities and limitations’. Maurice told us that the hardest part of any journey is taking the first step. As part of their move to the cloud an analysis was carried out that interestingly showed that the highest peak usage time on their servers was 11pm and 1am when backups were running. What surprised me most was that Field Fisher Waterhouse had virtualised onto their suppliers kit but kept it on their own site. The kit was owned by the supplier, leased by Field Fisher Waterhouse but still housed in Field Fisher Waterhouse’s offices! This is surely not cloud computing as we know it but a hybrid designed by a committee of lawyers. Camel computing perhaps!
I'm not too keen on this camel computing
This ‘solution’ defeats the benefits of full outsourcing. Surely the overall costs are going to be higher and the benefits lower. Indeed Maurice revealed that an unexpected extra cost was the need to beef up the line to connect to the system. Hmm… not surprising and not an issue if housed in a dedicated data centre rather than creating your own mini version. Security was cited as a reason for the ‘camel’ computing route. Again lawyers need to get over this myth. I am sure most data centres will be far more secure than Field Fisher Waterhouse’s in-house effort. See my post on a visit to my law firm’s cloud. I trust delegates will not be leaving Lex2012 wanting to emulate Field Fisher Waterhouse.
Moving to the cloud: Every cloud has a silver lining
Next cloud case study was ‘Every cloud has a silver lining’ given to us by David Bennett of Thomson Snell & Passmore. This was yet another big law firm that has just made the move from Microsoft Office 2003 and Exchange 2003 to the 2010 versions (what did Charles say earlier about 5 year plans!). A couple of snippets from David’s talk:-
- Closing down an infrastructure is as challenging as building a new one.
- Moving to the cloud is like moving house. The old furniture will fit, but do you want it to?
All the speakers had mentioned at some point printing issues arising from moving to the cloud. I will visit that topic myself in detail in a future blog post. However, I found David’s comment that Lawyers don’t trust double sided print an amusing one. His reasoning seemed to revolve around Court documents but I didn’t really follow it. Double sided print should, of course, be used in any business (law firm or otherwise) to reduce paper costs and be more environmentally friendly.
Information and Data Security for law firms: Are you sufficiently protected?
The next slot was on ‘Information and Data Security for law firms: Are you sufficiently protected?’ by Jon Segger and Mariette Kruger of Linklaters. This was where IT lawyers worry other lawyers about the risks of cloud computing resulting in the ‘camel’ computing I mentioned earlier. Lawyers do of course require to ensure they are sufficiently protected but any data centre and legal software supplier worth their salt will have that sorted. It is really for lawyers to satisfy themselves of this when entering into agreements with those parties.
The key principles mentioned by Linklaters were:-
- Security awareness
- Protect the infrastructure
- Protect the data
- Auditing and accountability
- Balanced approach
- Audit third parties
They did point out that information security was not all about saying no but about recognising risks and putting safeguards in place.
IT as a driver to improve cost efficiencies and streamline business processes
The final slot of the day was a panel discussion on IT as a driver to improve cost efficiencies and streamline business processes. By this stage in the day the panel almost outnumbered the audience and I could, unfortunately, not stay for the duration as I had to cross the road to get ready for the Lex2012 Tweetup (more on that later). One snippet I took away from the panel discussion before I left was that there has been limited success in using case management systems. I do wonder whether this is more down to the lawyers involved rather than the technology that exists.
The Holy Grail of legal technology conferences and the Camel
I promised earlier to cover the question of the Holy Grail of legal technology conferences. I first raised this in my blog post on last month’s LawTech Futures 2012 Conference. At that conference Charles Christian had said that the Holy Grail of such conferences was getting law firm partners to attend. So I got my Holy Grail monitor out and analysed the delegate list for Lex2012 and can reveal that only 5% of attendees were law firm partners. Instead of attending these conferences they are perhaps having long meetings in their boardrooms designing ‘camel’ computing which their IT directors then report back on to the legal technology conferences. As Charles said at the outset the future does not necessarily bring you what you expected it to!
Lex2012 Tweetup
Linda Cheung and I returned to host the Lex2012 Tweetup following on from the success of last year’s Lex2011 Tweetup and subsequent Legal Tweetups hosted by Shireen Smith, Jon Harman and Jonathan Lea. The Tweetup was held in the Melton Mowbray just opposite the Lex2012 Conference venue. 50 or so Twegals (Legals who Tweet) turned up to celebrate the anniversary tweetup. These events are always well attended and enjoyed by all. It is a great way to meet fellow Twegals in real life and strengthen existing social media contacts. By now there are always old faces to see again and new ones to meet.
Lex2012 Tweetup RSVPs
The next Twegals Tweetup or Tweeting Legals is likely to be held in June and hosted by Jon Harman and The College of Law. Details will be published by Jon in due course.
Posted in Future Law IT by .
…
Now, Craig Holt (Impecunious) and Craig Holt (Equitus) one of you will be fired!
QualitySolicitors recently launched their new ‘John Lewis style’ TV advert during the ‘Dancing on Ice’ final. This is part of a £15 million advertising campaign following Palamon Capital Partners investing a ‘significant’ sum of private equity in QualitySolicitors that saw it gain a majority shareholding in the company. There has been a fair bit of debate in legal circles about this latest advert but not much, if any, mention about how it compares to their original ‘Lloyds TSB style’ TV advert which was launched during ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’ way back in 2010. Indeed many commentators appear to have forgotten that such an advert ever existed with this latest advert being made out to be a ‘first’.
The creation of TV adverts for a new brand always makes me think of ‘The Apprentice’. Usually in each series there is an episode where Lord Sugar gets each team to create a new brand and make a TV advert to launch it. Here is a condensed example of such an episode from series 6:-
So let’s look at QualitySolicitors two TV adverts Apprentice style.
We have two teams: Impecunious (representing the QualitySolicitors brand before it obtained that Private Equity investment) and Equitus (representing the QualitySolicitors brand after it obtained that Private Equity investment).
Team Impecunious produced this TV advert, ‘chosen by you’:-
Now it still would have cost a fair bit to produce that advert and a slot during ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’ would not have come cheaply. But with a good bit more capital behind them and the assistance of Saatchi & Saatchi we have Team Equitus who produced this TV advert, ‘for whatever life brings’:-
In the Boardroom we have Lord Sugar viewing both adverts and listening to his trusted advisers.
Chosen by you
Some views Lord Sugar may hear on the effort by Team Impecunious:-
There’s something rather Orwellian about their TV advert. A sinister Pixar styled minx travels around what looks like northern England in a balloon coercing small law firms into becoming part of the franchise.
A chilling vision of the future….
A TV advert that, quite frankly, scares me
James Hayden:-
I disagree with Mark. Whilst the TV ad is not to my personal taste, I can actually see it being quite successful in attracting a public who are generally apprehensive about lawyers. It is a nice difference to the usual aggressive PI ad.
I have to say I was impressed… what I really liked was the message that firms only become (and presumably stay) QS members if they get the thumbs-up from their clients – ‘Chosen by you’ is the tagline…
I suspect that I am getting a bit overexcited by the advert simply because it is streets ahead of anything I can think of that came before from any other law firm or claims company. But then, given that to date advertising of legal services has generally been utterly woeful, this is to damn with faint praise.
Duncan Finlayson:-
I really do feel that QS are to be congratulated on an advert which manages to avoid all of the usual legal symbols and stereotypes whilst still putting across a message which is comfortingly traditional. Its slight similarity to the Lloyds TSB adverts adds familiarity without in any way detracting from what is, for lawyers, a unique event.
David Gilroy:-
The ad’s good. Amanda Holden was just about recognisable but without “seeing” her I wonder if she added much “value” to the advert in terms of brand association compared to a (I assume) cheaper “voiceover artist”.
Mike Massen:-
Seems that the current vogue for cgi large headed people in advertising continues apace… Not sure of the overall message given; there seems to be minimal information as to services available and seems more of a puff piece for the firms involved.
For whatever life brings
Turning now to the latest QualitySolicitors advert by Team Equitus what might Lord Sugar hear about that?:-
A TV advert for legal services the like of which I certainly haven’t seen before, a world away from the “Had an accident in the last three years?” genre…
It was a bit corny but I liked it. The shared moment between the mourning woman and the expectant mother is particularly well played.
Richard Pettet:-
I’m not a QS knocker but the advert was not great. Maybe it was a teaser with more to come but I don’t feel that the brand is given enough exposure.
Ray McLennan:-
I like what QS are doing to shake up the legal services market and I like this advert. It may take a while for them to take a firm grip of the market, but this advert certainly makes a firm statement and goes some way towards achieving that.
I do agree that as a standalone advert it runs the risk of being “good viewing” and the name of the advertiser could be lost, but all advertising scores in the timing. But the advert is probably aimed at the QS members and potential members as well as the great buying public and in that result it absolutely works.
Rory MccGwire:-
I think the ad is right on the money. It’s a classy, interesting, subtle set of visuals that leaves the viewer to work out what is going on. Does it lead to people remembering and trusting this radically new brand that reveals itself at the end? Yes it absolutely does, especially as this is just the opener and there is much more to come.
Martin Coyne:-
On a first viewing I believed the ad was directed at recruiting solicitors, not the public. The problem QS has is that they have no yardstick to show the public why they provide quality, and how that quality is maintained. I felt the placing of the ad was a huge waste of investors money, and it did not transmit to the public a clear message.
Graham Laing:-
Advert reminded me of a sanitary towel advert. From a marketing & advertising perspective prime time TV advertising has always been about reinforcing ‘well known’ brands (ie Cadburys/Coronation Street) and not introducing the new. Its the time when people make tea and as such no calls to action are usually advised. Seems strange to have pitched it at this time.
Natasha Young:-
I thought it was a truly superb advert – for the very reasons a couple of the people above thought otherwise. Thoughtful, subtle – it was a breath of fresh air in legal marketing. I watched it with my teenage children and husband and everyone felt moved by it and no-one failed to remember who or what it was for.
The new advert is a breath of fresh air and inclusive: hitherto members of the great British public may be forgiven for feelings of ostracism for not numbering amongst those who have suffered an accident at work or been sold a duff policy within the last three years.
QS ad seems like good promotion for the profession, but no real message as to what is meant to differentiate QS firms?
Almost like something the Law Society could / should have put out?
On the whole I don’t get emotional about adverts, unless they are for John Lewis, which, I believe, are designed to induce sobs from even the hardest of hearts.
So it’s quite an achievement for Quality Solicitors to leave me all misty eyed after viewing their latest offering. The new 90-second advert manages to transform the usual law firm image of middle-aged men speaking in a language the rest of us don’t understand and charging us a lot of money for something we’ve been told we need into a compassionate companion for life.
The commercial is designed to be a moving, evocative and memorable viewing experience, something that touches you and stays with you. Watch it and tell me if you found it effective. Then tell me how many times it mentioned or suggested expertise, experience or excellence…
With few exceptions, lawyer-formulated or lawyer-approved marketing campaigns focus on lawyers’ qualifications and accomplishments. That would make sense if we were selling our services to each other, but we’re not. The QS ad succeeds precisely because it appeals to what consumers will respond to, not lawyers. You’d think that would be elementary, but for the legal profession, this kind of insight seems almost revelatory.
Fired or Hired?
"You're Fired!"
Lord Sugar likes it to be clear what adverts are about and would not want to overspend on them even although he has said:-
I’ve written books on advertising. You might not find them for sale on the Internet, cos they’re cheque books – big fat cheque books!
Lord Sugar has also said about advertising for Amstrad:-
Our advertising style reflects my own style: it tends to be straightforward and ‘in your face’.
So I reckon Lord Sugar would, on balance, fire Team Equitus and hire Team Impecunious.
Craig Holt, however, no longer thinks that the Team Impecunious approach is the right one. As Craig has said:-
Successful adverts should be subtle and intriguing not stamping phone numbers and logos all over them – it is for exactly the same reason the recent John Lewis advert was so successful. It didn’t shout at people, it told a story that people emotionally connected with and took on a life of its own as a result.
Craig Holt may well be right. But is this perhaps more likely to be true in respect of an established brand rather than a new one? The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. With 8,000 advertising slots apparently booked for May alone the new advert is likely to be seen more than once by a large proportion of the English & Welsh population (assuming it will not be aired in Scotland where there are currently no QualitySolicitor member firms). Perhaps, however, the first advert should have received greater exposure before QualitySolicitors moved onto a second one. I am not sure how many slots that advert had, if indeed it was more than one. In any event the QualitySolicitor member firms will be banking on it not being a case of “whatever life brings” but a case of the new advert actually delivering real results for them.
What do you think?
Would you fire Team Impecunious or Team Equitus?
Note: My law firm, Inksters, became, in May 2009, the founding Scottish Member firm of QualitySolicitors. This was before QualitySolicitors became the branded organisation that it is today. We decided not to rebrand as QualitySolicitors Inksters but instead left QualitySolicitors and are building our own unique brand Inksters. I believe that QualitySolicitors could be a good fit for certain high street law firms but was no longer the correct direction for Inksters to pursue. My comments on this blog are not related in any way to Inksters one time membership of QualitySolicitors and if considered in any way to be critical should be taken in the constructive sense.
Posted in Marketing by .
Apr 12
7
100,000 Legal Tweets
This past week @CharonQC achieved a major Twegal (or Tweeting Legal for those that prefer) milestone (although he joked with Antonin Pribetic that it was perhaps a millstone) when he tweeted his 100,000th tweet. I thought this event should not go undocumented. Here it is:-
Those that know Charon QC will know that it is not just law he tweets about. His 100,000th tweet mentioned a duck. Charon QC often tells us about the ducks on the Thames outside his State Rooms in Battersea. Yesterday he combined law and ducks in this tweet:-
Perhaps @ThamesSwimmer should have texted or tweeted Charon QC before today! As a side note Charon QC’s comment on the Boat Race can be seen on his Blawg: Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race: That farkin swimmer was an amateur…
I digress. Back to the 100,000th milestone. I have not researched this but I would be very surprised if any other legal tweeter in the UK (probably the world) has anywhere near as many tweets to their credit as Charon QC. If The Lawyer were to publish an accurate objective list of top 10 Tweeters based on the quantity of their tweets (as opposed to the number of followers) then Charon QC would surely top it by a mile. Lawyers who delete their tweets would, unfortunately, not feature in that list
So congratulations Charon QC! Keep up the tweeting. Twitter is all the better for it. I look forward to reporting your one millionth tweet on The Time Blawg!
In other round number news: Charon QC is the 10th host of UK Blawg Roundup with the Easter edition about to be published on Charon’s Blawg in the next day or two. It is sure to be a cracking read. Do keep your eyes peeled for it.
Posted in Twitter by .
…
Time for a birthday Twegals Tweetup! #Lex2012Tweetup
In 4 weeks time (Tuesday 24 April 2012) Linda Cheung and I will reunite to co-host the Lex 2012 Tweetup. Large London #TwegalTweetups or #TweetingLegals as they have become known (I think for those who are adverse to the term Twegals – bring it back I say!) started life over a year ago when Linda and I co-hosted the Lex 2011 Tweetup. Since then regular Tweetups have been held in London, mostly hosted by Shireen Smith but also with guest spots from Jon Harman (The College of Law) and most recently (in March) Jonathan Lea.
In March the Tweetup was held in the Melton Mowbray, 18 Holborn, London, EC1N 2LE. It just so happens that this is an ideal venue for the Lex 2012 Tweetup as it is directly opposite the Lex 2012 Conference venue at De Vere Holborn Bars. Lex 2012 is a one-day learning and networking event dedicated to driving law firm efficiency through innovation and technology. Lex 2012 Tweetup is for all Twegals (Legals who tweet): i.e. Anyone who is interested in or associated with the law and who tweets. You don’t have to be attending Lex 2012 to attend the Tweetup.
The Lex 2012 Tweetup will take place in the private basement function room of the Melton Mowbray which has its own entrance to the right as you face the pub from outside.
The Tweetup will start at 6pm but will go on to closing time. So turn up when suits you best. The now established format is to buy your own drinks and contribute £5 at the door towards food: A buffet will be served at approx 7.45pm/8.00pm.
As this is the Birthday Tweetup Linda and I hope to welcome as many Twegals or Tweeting Legals as possible to this event. We look forward to seeing you there. Do please RSVP:-
Posted in Twitter by .
…
Was it the same people, speaking about the same things as they did last year?
I wasn’t going to attend LawTech Futures this past week as I was to be speaking at the ‘Law and Technology Forum – Re-thinking legal services in a competitive marketplace’ this coming week. Two trips to London in very quick succession for legal technology events would have been difficult to justify. However, when The Law Society (England & Wales) cancelled the latter event due to low sign up numbers I decided to take in the former event.
Unlike the Law Society’s proposed conference, LawTech Futures was sold out with 530 delegates attending the one day event in London which saw 2 leading keynote speakers, 6 chairpersons and 45 experts presenting over 3 stages. The success of the event was no doubt down to the excellent marketing/organisational skills of Netlaw Media and Charles Christian combined with their connections in the legal technology world which brought in 40 sponsors.
Such was the demand to attend LawTech Futures that security involved showing your invite and a passport to gain access and prevent gatecrashers!
Charles Christian
Charles Christian kicked the event off with a ‘Welcome to a Brave New Technology Future’. Charles pointed out that what we think might happen in legal technology might not happen. Is the game over for traditional law firms he asked? We need to look at different ways of doing things. If you were building a law firm from scratch you wouldn’t do it the way it has been done in the past. This became a recurring theme throughout the conference no doubt leaving partners of established law firms (the few that were there – more on that later) wondering what they could do with the millstone around their necks.
Charles Christian pointed out that lots of things were happening in the legal technology world but a lot of things would take us by surprise. Some bullet points from Charles (as noted by me at the time in Tweets) included:-
- Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) will become more popular. Law Firms rather than supplying devices to their lawyers will expect them to supply their own (some lawyers may prefer this anyway).
- Working on the move and at home will see the death of the office. The 2012 Olympics in London will accelerate this.
- Service delivery rather than service cost may become more important.
- No one size fits all approach is required. Different clients have different needs e.g. some may prefer post over e-mail. More understanding will be required of what your clients really want.
- Law firms traditionally invest on inward (law firm) facing technologies rather than outward (client) facing technologies. This needs to change.
The first LawTech Futures keynote of the day came from Dr. Patrick Dixon who has been ranked as one of the 20 most influential business thinkers alive today and is often described in the media as Europe’s leading futurist. An impressive visual presentation (certainly not the normal PowerPoint) accompanied Patrick”s enthusiastic and compelling talk. Again, the recurring theme of the conference, Patrick asked: what would you put on a blank sheet of paper if creating a new law firm today?
Dr. Patrick Dixon
Some bullet points from Patrick (as noted by me at the time in Tweets) included:-
- Velocity is underlying change. Law firms are moving slower than their clients. Speed will matter even more in the future.
- The future of law will be driven by emotion.
- People want 24 hour access.
- Reorganisation about how you think about service is required.
- 75% of law firms in the UK are in early merger discussions.
- Virtual law firms result in smaller offices. There is no need to meet in a lawyer’s HQ.
- There is nothing new about the cloud. Only thing new is that lawyers are speaking about it.
- Lawyers will soon all have their own star rating and law firms will have a cumulative star rating based on their lawyers’ stars.
- Google is fighting back against spam by asking us to tell them what is not spam. Social media facilitates this. This validates you in search results.
Patrick’s talk was on the ten key trends which will impact the future of law firms and corporate legal teams. According to Patrick these are:-
- Deregulation
- Outsourcing
- Globalisation
- Virtual Law Firms
- Legal Search Engines and Other Web-Based Legal Services
- Commoditisation
- Multichannel Communications
- The Growing Number of Lawsuits in Every Nation
- Reduced State Funding for those on Low Incomes in Court Cases
- Rapid Growth in Complexity of Legislation and Regulation
Following Dr. Patrick Dixon’s keynote we had P. S. Ranganathan, Global Head of Legal Services at Tata Consultancy Services, in conversation with Charles Christian. Unfortunately, this came across more like an advert break for Tata. It was like a television chat show where the guest is really only there to plug their latest book. However, I was left feeling that I didn’t really know what that book was about. A major law firm is using Tata’s services (whatever that might involve) and they have launched a ‘mobile legal office’ that is apparently innovative. My own law firm’s legal IT provider has a mobile legal office solution and I was unsure how Tata’s one was special in comparison. I picked up literature from Tata’s display stand and having read that in the comfort of my own home I still cannot see anything unique about their offering. Perhaps I need to see a demonstration.
Following the advert break a LawTech Futures panel discussion (Kevin Green of IBM UK Ltd, Nils Briendstein of Invensys, John Young of Hogan Lovells, Abby Ewen of Simmons & Simmons and Peter Owen of Lights-On Consulting Ltd) took place on whether Corporate Clients are getting the services they need from Law Firms. The main point that seemed to come across from this discussion was that Lawyers don’t ask the right questions about IT. An awareness of what is available is not there. It was thought that IT staff rather than lawyers should be allowed to speak to clients when discussing legal IT. Will that message get through to law firm partners though given that not many were in attendance (more on that later)? Another point made by a client on the panel was that they are not seeing good (perhaps if any) innovation in law firms.
Lunch Time with the Lounge Stage in background
During the lunch break I took in some talks on the other stages. ‘Earning Fees Whilst You Sleep’ with Helena Hallgarn of Swedish firm Virtual Intelligence VQ caught my eye. I assumed it would be popular with other delegates. However, most appeared concerned with tucking into their lunch as a priority. The Lounge Stage did allow you to eat lunch at tables in front of the stage but I got the impression that many of the delegates were sitting there for a break: to eat and chat rather than take in more seminars. As the Lounge Stage was at the end of a long open plan area there was also a lot of background noise making it difficult to hear the speakers and impossible for any Q&A sessions to take place. A suggestion to the organisers for LawTech Futures 2013 would be to have this second stage in an enclosed area for those that really want to hear the content on offer.
One slide of Helena’s that made me tweet its content was:-
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future – John F. Kennedy
Very apt for lawyers and the delegates who were ignoring Helena’s presentation.
The audience around the Demonstration Stage was not huge either but with no tables to eat lunch from at least it was an attentive and quiet one. By this point most delegates were probably tucking into their dessert! In case you think I skipped lunch I did in fact fit it in during the second sitting and between the talks I was interested in hearing – and excellent it was too.
Jason Plant
I was at the Demonstration Stage to hear Jason Plant’s ‘Inspect-a-Gadget (Mobile Device Comparison) ‘. I have followed Jason for some time on Twitter and regularly read his blog: No Option for Law Firm!
Jason gave us a good run down of technology trends in law firms from past to present and a round up of the devices that law firms should be considering today and why. It was good to hear him speak about Windows 8 (often ignored by legal technologists in favour of the latest shiny gadget from Apple or Google) as I believe that this will be an important development for lawyers who predominantly use Microsoft products. There could have been some more of this type of talk at LawTech Futures – from presenters who are using and experiencing technology and not just selling it.
Next up on the Demonstration Stage was Charles Drayson of HotDocs on ‘Document Generation Software in the Practice of Law’. He covered some of the same ground that Helena Hallgarn had on the Lounge Stage earlier but at least could be easily heard . Anyone who hears talks on document generation software should come away knowing that it is the way for law firms to go.
The Lunch break was over and it was back into the Main Hall for the second keynote of the day at LawTech Futures: ‘The Future of Law, Technology and Business in a Digital World’. This was delivered by Gerd Leonhard who the Wall Street Journal have called ‘one of the leading Media Futurists in the World’.
Gerd Leonhard
Again I will give you my bullet points of Gerd’s talk, as captured by me at the time via Tweets:-
- We now have the AO Generation – Always on.
- We have moved from Empires to Networks.
- We are moving from broadcasters to the age of the global village.
- If lawyers are going to be there in the future they need to be part of the networked society.
- You need to become a networked law firm because we have a networked society.
- We are moving from hyper-competition to hyper-collaboration.
- We shouldn’t be selling only legal services but everything around it.
- Sharing is the new owning.
- Curation becomes important to make sense of this river of information.
- Lawyers should look at the Freemium model. Free gets you into a large audience. [NB Jon Busby cautioned in a tweet "or bankrupts you if you don't know what you are doing"]
- Virtual services provide a huge opportunity for legal services. E.g. Google hangouts.
- Either disrupt something or you are disrupted.
- Lawyers will get paid by virtual currencies in the future e.g. Facebook credits.
- Future for law firms will be added value.
- Trust is the new currency.
- People of the screen… do they still need us?
- Does your CEO have a blog? Does your team make YouTube videos?
- Soon we will have the law cloud. Legal information freely available online. What will law firms then sell and how?
- Data is the new oil.
- Data curation needs experts.
- The future: ‘Inter-connected Business Models’.
- Moving from value chains to value circles.
- The future: Interaction before Transaction.
- ROI: Return on Involvement.
- It’s about being a human brand.
- Do people LIKE their law firm?
Much to ponder over there. But what are law firms doing about it or what should they be doing about it on a practical level? More on that later.
We then had an explanation of the issues and opportunities raised during the keynote presentations with Gerd Leonhard, Dr. Patrick Dixon and Charles Christian all on stage. Again my twitter bullet points:-
- Local reputation and Google places can be powerful for small law firms. It won’t necessarily be the bigger law firms that come out on top in the future.
- Speed and scale is a magic formula.
- There is the opportunity for partnerships on a different type of level – networks. Law firms know about partnerships (internal) and could create them (external).
- We have to start living in the same reality as our clients.
- In every company it should be part of your job to innovate.
- Some law firms are rabbits sitting in the headlights.
- Ask clients what we can do for them and strategically implement it.
Then the final session of the LawTech Futures day: A panel session on Future Proofing a Law Firm’s Technology with Neil Renfrew of Thomas Eggar, Eric Hunter of Bradford & Barthel, Arlene Adams of Peppermint Technology and Chris Bull of Edge International. My bullet points on this one (as usual captured as tweets at the time):-
- Future of law firms that will be successful are those that become data companies.
- IT and the business should be so close together as to be indistinguishable.
- Clients will decide and drive change.
One thing that surprised me in this last session was delegate doubts over cloud computing and the inability of the panel to counter these, in fact they seemed to be supporting them. One delegate made the observation that a definition of ‘cloud’ was ‘to obscure’. Another delegate advised that their law firm had looked at cloud computing but could not fully implement it at the moment because the Edinburgh to Glasgow train did not have WiFi and their solicitors spent a lot of time commuting between the two! The best response that one of the Scottish panelists could come up with was that perhaps Scot Rail hadn’t fitted WiFi for fear of it being nicked when the train reached Glasgow.
This is a train not a plane so how do you expect to reach the cloud?
The reality is that the train journey between Edinburgh and Glasgow takes 45 minutes with good 3G coverage for most of the way – ample for the needs of cloud connectivity. Furthermore what detailed work is a solicitor doing in a short 45 minute train journey that would need full office connectivity anyway? Mobile connectivity to e-mails by 3G over a phone is probably more than sufficient. Law Firms should also be wary of staff working on confidential information on lap tops on busy trains in any event. See: Tom Kilroy’s blog post ‘It’s criminal on the 07:43 from Woking‘ and Legal Bizzle’s follow up: ‘The pigeon has landed: introducing the Kilroy Scale‘.
I often travel on much longer train journeys (e.g. Glasgow to Inverness or Glasgow to London) where if there is WiFi (none at all on the Glasgow to Inverness line) it is poor at the best of times. Cloud computing gives you connectivity to your law firm’s data in a way that you simply do not have at the moment without it. To denounce it because on occasion you will not be able to access it (when you would not have been able to do so in any event) is ludicrous.
LawTech Futures should be smashing the myths surrounding such matters as cloud computing and not encouraging them. Indeed I was flabbergasted to hear that Pepermint Technology were spending £2 million creating a data centre just for lawyers because this would be more secure than a data centre shared with non-lawyers. What nonsense but presumably it helps sell Pepermint’s product to lawyers who know no better and are scared of moving to the cloud.
Jon Harman tweeted to me during the Conference that the following video is how he sees everybody getting on board with the cloud 
Thus LawTech Futures 2012 came to an end with a promise of a bigger and better event in March 2013 and another linked but different event on 23 October 2012.
Jon Busby, a sceptic who was not in attendance, tweeted “this is same people saying same thing as last year and year before that, nothing new which says it all really.” I would tend to disagree. There were things I had heard before and read about given my interest in this particular area. But there were also points that made me think, especially from Dr. Patrick Dixon and Gerd Leonhard neither of whom I had ever heard speak before. For many, however, that are less immersed in it than me they may have seen themselves as the rabbits caught in the headlights that Charles Christian spoke about. Conferences like this give law firms the opportunity to take stock of their own businesses and look at the things they should perhaps be doing to compete in the new legal landscape that we are entering with the advent of Alternative Business Structures.
There is also the fact that technology is a very fast moving area. There are always going to be new developments year on year that mean we cannot be speaking just about what we were speaking about last year.
One pertinent point raised by a delegate was that the organisers should be doing more to get Law Firm Partners to attend. Charles Christian responded that this was the holy grail of legal technology conferences. If law firms just send their IT people to these conferences will they really be getting the messages that the conferences convey. Will they be able to change if they don’t know what they need to change. It came across in the conference that lawyers don’t let their IT people speak to their clients. Will lawyers know that this should change if they don’t attend conferences to hear this but instead simply send their IT people to them? How Netlaw Media can lead Law Firm Partners to LawTech Futures 2013 is another matter. I am afraid I don’t have the answer to that one. Perhaps via their Partners Club there is a way?
Can you spot the law firm partner at LawTech Futures?
LawTech Futures 2012 was very much about ideas but not a lot about practical experiences. It would be nice to see at LawTech Futures 2013 break out sessions (perhaps in small workshop style sessions like Netlaw Media did at their Key Strategies for Law Firms Conference in 2011) on different areas that law firms might want to focus on with practitioners (as well as rather than just vendors) speaking about the pros and cons involved. This could include many of the topics touched upon at LawTech Futures 2012: Outsourcing, Virtual Law Firms, Document Management, Mobile Applications, Cloud Computing, Client Satisfaction, Social Media, Website/Blog Content, Fixed Pricing, etc.
My constructive criticisms are minor compared with what can only be described as a very impressive event. The Law Society of Scotland used to organise ‘Nothing But the Net’ Conferences that were, at the time, well attended. In recent years their ‘The Law is IT’ Conferences have been cancelled due to low sign ups. The Law Society of England and Wales had the same fate with their ‘Law and Technology Forum’ as I mentioned at the start of this post. Lawyers do not, on the whole, take a great interest in legal technology. Netlaw Media and Charles Christian must be doing something right to achieve what the two UK Law Societies have failed to do. Their next task is to get the decision makers within law firms to attend LawTech Futures 2013 so that change can be really driven. Can Netlaw Media and Charles Christian achieve this ‘Holy Grail’? The Time Blawg will be watching with interest.
Posted in Future Law by .
…
Blogging is elementary my dear Holmes
In my first post of the year I made reference to blogging by Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson as depicted on the BBC Television series.
For ease of reference I will repeat what I blogged in that post:-
“… on Sherlock – A Scandal in Belgravia (BBC One) it was revealed that Sherlock Holmes gets most of his clients from Dr. Watson’s blog.
Sherlock Holmes:
Do people actually read your blog?
Dr. Watson:
Where do you think our clients come from?
Sherlock Holmes:
I have a website.
Dr. Watson:
In which you enumerate 240 different types of tobacco… no one is reading your website.
I looked at the question of Do Clients search [online] for a Lawyer? in May. I maintain, from experience, that they do. Others disagree. Sherlock Holmes did not disagree with Dr. Watson on this one, other than to point out the exact number of different types of tobacco enumerated on his website (243 not 240)! Indeed Sherlock has now deleted his post on Analysis of Tobacco Ash. Whilst Dr. Watson’s blog goes from strength to strength …”
Paul Hajek also considered this in Sherlock Holmes and The Pressing Case for Blogging: Elementary. Paul says:-
Don’t be boring: if you produce turgid and bombastic blogs you are unlikely to engage your potential market.
I would agree with Paul but I have also been thinking about other lessons for lawyers who blog that can be taken from Holmes and Watson.
The main point on blogging from ‘A Scandal in Belgravia’ was that it was Dr Watson’s Blog and not Sherlock Holmes’ Blog that brought in the clients. They were not interested in 243 different types of tobacco but were interested in how Sherlock Holmes solved cases as described in language they could understand by Dr Watson.
Sherlock Holmes’ blog is perhaps of the boring, turgid and bombastic type highlighted by Paul Hajek, whereas Dr Watson’s blog contains great content which is of interest to potential clients.
Some law blogs are definitely written by lawyers for lawyers. Indeed this blog is. That is intentional on my part given the subject matter of this blog. Other law blogs on specific areas of the law may like to gain a readership from potential clients but find their readership to be on the whole other lawyers. This will probably be due to the technical way in which the posts are written. They are like Sherlock’s tobacco blog which is only really of interest to other tobacco aficionados.
Do lawyers who want to attract clients to their blogs need to think more like Dr Watson and less like Sherlock Holmes? Do they need a Dr Watson to assist them? I am certainly not suggesting they hire a ghost writer, but perhaps there is someone within their law firm who can write for a client audience better than they can. What do you think?
I have been invited to do a couple of talks about my experiences at my law firm, Inksters, in using cloud computing.
First up in Glasgow, on 29 February 2012, is the Denovo Business Intelligence Scottish Legal Conference: Maximise Fee Income using Intelligent Cloud Computing. I will be presenting my practical experience of implementing Denovo’s ‘Intelligent Cloud Computing’ and the positive impact this has had for Inksters. The conference also includes a Practical Guide to Improved Cashflow and Profitablity by Graeme Bryson from William Duncan & Co, a Guide to Cloud Computing by James Henigan from RISE and an Introduction to Denovo Intelligent Cloud by Margaret Buchanan of Denovo Business Intelligence. The conference is taking place at the CCA: Centre for Contemporary Arts which just happens to be a building my wife was partly responsible for as an Architect at Page/Park.
Next up in London is the Law and Technology Forum – Re-thinking legal services in a competitive marketplace, organised by the Law Society of England & Wales, which takes place over two days: 20-21 March 2012. I will be speaking in the afternoon of the second day (21 March 2012) in a section entitled “Unchartered Waters of E-Lawyering: Practicing on the Cloud” which is chaired by Jeff Wright of Morgan Cole and includes sessions from Jonathan Lea of Bargate Murray on Practising as a virtual lawyer and Mark O’Conor of DLA Piper UK on Choosing and vetting cloud computing providers: due diligence checklist. This two day conference at the Law Society’s HQ in Chancery Lane (which my wife did not play any part in designing) also includes a wealth of legal technology sessions from many well known speakers.
So if you are interested in cloud computing for law firms and want to hear what I have to say on this topic then do book to come along to the CCA in Glasgow on 29 February 2012 or 113 Chancery Lane in London on 21 March 2012.
Posted in The Cloud by .
Jan 12
29
Lawyers cannot hide on Twitter
…
We know who you are!
Recent headlines in the The Mail Online and The Telegraph suggested that a (now ex) Barrister (who tweets as @Geeklawyer) had been struck off for inappropriate tweeting. Delve a little deeper and he was in fact fined £2,500 by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for his tweeting and, put simply, disbarred for his conduct in a case where he represented in court a company that he had a personal interest in without disclosing that interest. For a detailed account of all 6 charges involved see the BSB’s Disciplinary Finding Details.
What struck me is that I have never associated @Geeklawyer with a real life Barrister. I have followed him on Twitter for the best part of three years and always considered him a parody of a Barrister: Perhaps a much more extreme UK version of the US Attorney @rprickman. I assumed @Geeklawyer was a fictional character in the mind of whoever tweeted his tweets even if they perhaps did practice at the Bar as a day job. His tweets are not, at times, to everyone’s liking. Scott Greenfield once described him as the Lenny Bruce of the Blawgosphere. However, if you tweet with him he is nothing but polite and congenial. I do not tweet with @Geeklawyer often but on the occasions that I do it is always a pleasant experience. I recall tweets with @Geeklawyer and @infobunny (remember her?) about different types of Gin – I introduced them to Blackwoods. Yesterday, I tweeted with @Geeklawyer about his predicament and we ended up tweeting about Time Machines, the Law of the Time Lords and how this blog was rendering at his end (apparently light blue font on a blue background rather than black on white – I was assured this was his problem not mine). All very pleasant. For an entertaining @CharonQC podcast from the past do listen to ‘Christmas podcast…. with Geeklawyer…and other nonsense…’
Charon QC provides his views on the @Geeklawyer twitter episode at ‘Rive Gauche: A Command Performance from a Barrister now disbarred for unprofessional behaviour on twitter’. This was published before the decision of the BSB was formally issued but do read the comments section of the post which brings matters up to date.
Charon QC ponders “how can one disbar or fine a ‘fictional barrister’ for tweeting… or blogging”.
It appears perhaps that some of the tweets by @Geeklawyer referenced a case that the non fictional Barrister who tweeted as @Geeklawyer was actually involved in. As D_T_T commented on Charon QC’s post:-
There is no separate identity for the BSB’s purposes. Assuming a tweet is not generated by a spambot, it is written by a real person. If that real person is a barrister then that’s within the BSB’s remit. Otherwise any lawyer could get away with misconduct via an online persona they controlled. If a barrister restricted their persona to posts about imaginary cases they might get away with it. If they write about real ones that they are involved with then they will probably attract attention and it in a way negates the separate identity point; obviously the identity is not that separate if the lawyer’s real-life work is the subject of the persona’s tweets.
The Bar Council had their eye on @Geeklawyer and his blogging way back in 2007 when he promised to toe the line. So they clearly knew very early on his pseudonym.
So lawyers beware. Anonymous tweeting may still land you in trouble with your regulatory/disciplinary bodies depending upon what you decide to tweet about.
I wondered what the position would be if you protected your tweets (so that only those you allow to follow you can actually see them). I noticed that @Geeklawyer’s tweets are protected and wondered if this had always been the case. I asked him yesterday and he advised me that no, they were public at the time of the trial. I suppose as long as one person following you could be offended by a tweet that “was likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute” then that would possibly still be sufficient. But it may mitigate any penalty imposed i.e. the fact that the general public at large could not see the offending material.
What if you delete your tweets? No lawyers, you cannot escape that easily. As Legal Cheek recently reported it is likely that those you may have upset will have saved your tweets – it is very easy to simply take a screen grab of them.
So it looks like lawyers cannot hide on Twitter. I hope though that this does not deter them from tweeting. Just think before you tweet. Back in April 2009 I made that same point when commenting for The Firm Online on the Telford Magistrates ‘Twitter’ case. Lawyers have a code of conduct to follow and if they do follow it they should not go far wrong on Twitter. That should not preclude a bit of fun now and again and Twitter can be fun.
Scott Greenfield mourns the passing of Geeklawyer. I reckon that we have not seen the last of him and that his tweets may now be less restrained than they were in the past, if that is possible!
Posted in Twitter by .