In his book, Tomorrow’s Lawyers, attorney and advisor Richard Susskind asks, “Are you comforted by other firms’ lack of progress?”
“…most law firms, even the finest, tend to be driven more by a fear of lagging behind their competition than by a hunger for forging ahead of their rivals. Law firms, in other words, are motivated more by the need to avoid competitive disadvantage rather than a thirst for the attainment of competitive advantage.”
This could hardly be more opposite most other industries and with the current state of Big Law, I might take this further and suggest that it is now beyond a “thirst for attainment of competitive advantage.” Technology is in everything we do, and as clients become increasingly discerning, seeking technology that “makes a difference” should be part of every firm’s survival reflex.
In a summary of the state of BigLaw, Thomson Reuters recently wrote, “Now is a time of cautious optimism for the legal marketplace compared to early recession years. However, a return to “business as usual” is an ill-advised strategy for firms amidst this resurgence of growth.”
As growth is revived, we need to continue to scrutinize how we operate and examine new ways to improve, both with respect to our business model and our supportive – and yes, technology can be leading – technology model. The IT methods of a decade ago are not what we need to survive and thrive in our new competitive environment. We need to simplify where we can and focus on gaining greater value from our IT investment, while effectively protecting ourselves in an increasingly regulated data environment, and using technology to help define and deliver future-state innovative legal services.
As we delve into these topics in future articles and columns on Adam Smith, Esq. please share with us your thoughts, areas of concern, and technology related topics of interest. Please join our conversation via the comments box or directly to me: doug@adamsmithesq.com
In the very near future, we’ll be publishing a short online survey to help gather additional input and thoughts from you.
– Doug Caddell, Senior Advisor, Adam Smith Esq.
Dear Doug,
Probably the most important bit of reading I did in grad school was finding a book Empirical Model Building by JR Thompson (Wiley, 1989). The book is directed at developing “quants,” a term not then invented. The central insight of Thompson’s approach is that in the real world, we are faced with problems in search of a solution, and that is not at all the same thing as methodologies in search of an application. What this implies is that if Big Law wants to make successful and efficient use of technology, it needs to invest not in software, but in people. Nate Silver is not successful because of the software he uses on “big data” (in fact the software he uses most often is remarkably straightforward), but because he excels at defining problems in ways that lead to elegant and efficient solutions. The central problem for adding quantitative power to Law will be establishing the human interface between the attorneys and the Quants, so that the tools to be used will be appropriate to the specific problems that need to be solved.
For successful, exceptional Law in the 21st Century, the process will be something like producing a great building: a cooperative process between a master architect, the engineers who take the design from concepts to something that can be built, and the craftsmen who do the actual construction. The architect leaves the choice of specific tools to those who actually know how and when to use them. But it is very much a team undertaking to solve the problem.
Mark,
Thanks for joining the conversation. My university program and background has been getting people and technology to work together. People are listed first for a reason that needs no further explanation. As you reference Thompson, “We are faced with problems in search of a solution, and that is not at all the same thing as methodologies (and technologies) in search of an application.”
A dramatic BigLaw example is the building and false-start of “KM” tools in the first decade of this century. It was clearly a case of fitting technologies to solve the management and reuse of knowledge before KM had been defined – or lawyers had any interest, or input, but for a few. This “build it and they will come” philosophy has worked in Hollywood movies, but generally fails in the real world.
As you say, Big Law needs to invest in people and not software if it wants to make good use of technology. But in order to be successful a change is needed and management and lawyers need to recognize the future of how technology can help improve efficiencies and the future of Big Law – and not just hit the proverbial ball over the net to let others define a future based upon technologies in search of a problem. A lot of firms are starting to get this right, but just as many are not making the effort to define the problems they face, including the underlying business problems that technology might help to solve.
Too often “tech” has been seen as the fix, when the involvement of people is the key component. An example I wrote of is cyber security where for years the “solution” was technical firewalls – which is important – but, the real solution involves people. Technology is not about “toys for techies,” and “techies” include gadget lawyers (who for many years firm leaders delegated technology vision). Thank God that we are past that point, but we are at a critical juncture in light of the our changing business environment, where we need to carefully define what we want to our individual firms to accomplish – defining the “problem,” before building the solution. This is especially true when it comes to the rush to quantitative analysis, and the interface between the Quants and attorneys, so that we don’t end up reliving the early days of KM where tools outnumbered results.
Doug