The Financial Times on “Legal Innovators 2006”

The Financial Times has a special
report on "Innovative
Lawyers 2006," which I commend to you essentially in its entirety.  It’s
thoroughly
researched, involving soliciting submissions about "innovation"
from the largest 200 firms in the UK, establishing an expert panel
of judges, and carrying out over 500 interviews between April and
June 2006.  In
the end, over 300 separate submissions were received from 66 law
firms; the FT rounded out the research through canvassing general
counsels at FTSE 250 companies for nominations of private practice
lawyers they thought stood out on the innovation dimension.

Rigor was the order of the day:  For example, nothing submitted
could be more than three years old; the law firm itself, rather than
a client or consultant, had to have come up with the "innovation;"
and merely excellent practices—which weren’t innovative—were
rejected.

The highlight/summary article is here.

The Top
10 (the judges’ choice) ranged widely, but had in common that no
other firm was or had been doing it; that they bent if they did not
break the traditional notion of what "business" a law firm is in (for
example, Allen & Overy won in the "corporate social responsibility"
category for its program of targeted donations to legal aid centers),
and they were often the children of single individuals inspired to
create something new.  As the FT report drily puts it, "law firms
have no tradition of R&D."

Some of the other key insights:

• Since, as noted, many of the innovations were the brain-children
  of individuals ("mavericks," anyone?), they tend to reflect idiosyncratic
  views of what’s important:
  • Brain Capstick, founder of the London-based top-100 (UK)
    firm Capsticks (in 1979), started pursuing medical malpractice
    cases, but in an example of the "poacher becoming the gamewarden,"
    realized he could do better by offering his expertise to help
    doctors and nurses avoid making mistakes in the first place. 
• Derek Southall of Wragge & Co., formerly a corporate finance
  lawyer, now leads the firm’s strategic development team, and came
  up with the notion of offering "free" IT strategy reviews to the
  firm’s clients, incorporating the best learning that has come out
  of the firm’s own intranet and extranets.   The FT realized the primacy of technology in this fashion:

  "Technology
  was the second most subscribed category of innovation. It is
  ideally suited to the primary nature of the industry, which revolves
  around processing information to provide advice and build relationships
  with clients.

  "Submissions were ranked primarily on facilitating client needs. “Rather
  than looking at how they use the technology internally, law firms should
  focus on using it to enhance the client-service experience,” advises Richard
  Susskind, a consultant in legal technology."

• Also at Wragge & Co., in recognition of the fact that the
  employment law market is more cost-sensitive than some other areas
  with “large employers demanding more law per hour
  from their advisers," they have done all they can to commoditize
  case-handling in this area, allowing the use of more
  junior level lawyers.  According to Wragges, "it has increased
  success rates to about 99 per cent, and reduced costs by up to
  half."

Still, for my money, the major "innovations" the FT discusses are
important, ground-breaking, and merit attention.

This cannot be, or cannot remain, the case:

"The head of legal at a FTSE 250 company went silent for
a few minutes when we asked him to mention an innovative lawyer he
had used. Then he said he did not think it was possible for lawyers
to be innovative."

Indeed, Allen & Overy dedicated an entire day at its last partners’
retreat to the issue of in novation, and David Jabbari, their global
head of know-how, says that innovation "is critical because it is the
only tangible way we can demonstrate our thought leadership to clients."

And the focus is on clients, not internal:

"Five out of the nine categories of the report are “client-facing”.
Law firms which merited a “stand-out” ranking for client service,
legal expertise, value for money, billing and IT claim they have
shown that their innovations have had real and lasting impact on
their clients."

For example?  Well, Brian Capstick has changed the way hospitals
attend newborns, lowering birth defects, lowering miscarriages, improving
infant health.

Norton Rose is working on "Takaful" insurance products, which are
Sharia-law compliant and will potentially allow the 20% of the world’s
population which is Muslim to have access to insurance.

Mishcon, a mid-market London-based commercial firm, has pioneered
the "Tulip" service, essentially a program to help
trademark owners fight against counterfeiting; it aims to “turn
losses into profits” by
attempting to calculate the amount of the ill-gotten gains of counterfeiters
so that the brand owners can (a) decide whether the infringement
claim is worth pursuing; and (b) have a colorable basis for damages
from the start.

 Why aren’t more firms being innovative?   The well-known
Richard Susskind, author of The Future of Law, puts it nicely:  “It’s
hard to convince a room of millionaires that their business model
is wrong.  They like the idea of innovation but want
it on a plate.”

Finally, the most fascinating aspect discusses innovations
in management of firms.

This is how the FT (kindly) introduces the topic:

"[L]awyers have never been at the forefront of management
thinking, and that has made this category particularly difficult
for deciding the rankings. Examples of innovative management projects
were relatively thin on the ground, but some did stand out."

The difficulties, familiar all, are:

• The era of the gorilla rainmakers ascending to the helm, while
  rapidly waning, are not yet entirely gone.
• The intrinsic nature of a partnership involves a core component
  of democracy.  If not pure Athenian democracy, then at least
  "consensus" is a core value; but a $500-million or $1,500-million/year
  enterprise simply cannot be run along democratic
  lines.
• For now in the UK, and for the foreseeable future in the US,
  non-lawyers cannot be granted equity in a firm, so retention and
  recruitment of the highest-caliber "C[X]O" people becomes an issue.

The best news of all?  There is a series of firms
that won Innovation Awards.  And, the more attention this gets
in the world writ large, and the more clients attend to it, the more
we’ll be challenged to ask why, just because it was done that way
yesterday, we should do it that way tomorrow.

Who knows?  Imagine the law firm that creates a Director of
R&D.