Thompson Rivers University
Lawrence Alexander invites partners in the firm to share their insider views on the practice of law by taking this three-minute anonymous survey.
Also, if you feel like sharing the survey with your network of lawyers, law students and law types, it would be much appreciated.
It will all contribute to a better understanding of lawyer-client relationships, improving the practice of law, and (I’m sure) good karma.
According to Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne’s study, The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation (the “Article”), paralegals and legal assistants (collectively, “Professionals”) are likely to be future victims of computerization. Although lawyers were labelled as non-computerizable, I am not personally convinced that the ship has sailed (“Into the Sunset”) for these significant Professionals in the legal field.
The authors of the Article referred to computerization as “job automation by means of computer-controlled equipment.” With legal innovations such as Blue J Legal, ROSS, and Knomos – among others, I cannot deny that these technologies will assist and improve the field – but I do not necessarily agree they will completely replace Professionals through computerization.
Considering the authors’ conclusions that computerization will mainly substitute low-skill and low-wage jobs – and wages and educational attainment exhibit a strong negative relationship with the probability of computerization. This leads me to believe that the authors (through the probability software described in the Article) have assumed that the Professionals are low-skilled, have low-wages and have low levels of educational attainment.
The authors described human biases as a constraint of human operations. They used the example of Israeli judges as being substantially more generous in their rulings following a lunch break. I believe a similar bias contradicts the findings of the Article in relation to the Professionals – specifically, that in determining what is low-skilled and a low level of educational attainment, comes from a biased and prejudiced perspective.
First, to consider the authors’ example of law firms relying on computers that scan thousands of legal documents to assist in research by sorting and presenting results graphically. Although true and without a doubt, innovative – this example fails to recognize who will be putting the documents in the scanner. I understand that this is only one, simplistic example the authors selectively chose to use – however, I highly doubt that the lawyer will be doing the scanning. Although he or she could be scanning, would it not be more valuable for the client to have the lawyer do traditional legal work (e.g., advocating) rather than feeding documents into the scanner?
The argument is that the lawyer doesn’t need to put the documents in the scanner because the ‘computer’ can do it, itself. But what if the papers become jammed – which is more than likely when “thousands of legal briefs and precedents” are being processed through a machine. Is it valuable for the client to displace the Professionals with this technology so that the lawyer must juggle both the legal and ‘low-skill’ task of administration?
The argument then becomes that the lawyer can out-source the scanning. If this is the case, then a similar counter-argument comes into play – that is, that someone needs to do the scanning at a price that is lower than the Professionals doing it themselves. This means that the transport of thousands of documents, the cost of ‘scanning’ employees, the overhead in that company, and the report generated would be more affordable than Professionals doing the same, in-house.
This also means that there are Professional-like employees, doing only one specific job, which requires the lawyer to obtain the documents directly from opposing counsel (because both lawyers no longer have Professional assistance), package them, send them to the company, instruct the scanning company, pay them, and then review the report. This is all assuming that the lawyer who requires the scanning is able to get a hold of opposing counsel, and opposing counsel has the time to collect, package, and send the documents himself or herself. The company would also be required to screen conflicting interests between firms and parties. What would be the outcome if the company accidentally sent the wrong report to opposing counsel? Would professional liability insurance cover the negligence of such actions? Would it not be more efficient for in-house Professionals to do the work themselves? According to the Article – it would not.
This example also fails to consider the reality that Professionals are arguably more capable than the lawyers they work with, at such ‘low-skill’ tasks. Although lawyers are legally qualified to attend court etc., the Professionals are the ones who organize, prepare and support these lawyers in their careers. Yes, computerization can organize and prepare documents, but technology cannot provide the intimate support in the flexible nature that lawyers require – in an environment that is constantly evolving. As stated in the Article, computerized social intelligence will need to be overcome for lawyers to be fully automated. This social intelligence is, in my opinion, a key component in the relationship between lawyers and Professionals. The Professionals personally know the lawyers – who they are, their writing styles, and their preferences in how ‘things get done.’ They develop rapport with the lawyers, become trusted confidants, and allow the lawyers to do the work they are qualified to do by doing the Professional work that can otherwise be done by an arguably low-skilled person with a low-level of educational achievement.
This brings me to my second critique – that Professionals have low levels of educational attainment. In the formal sense, this is true. Legal assistant and paralegal programs are commonly two-year diploma programs from accredited institutions. Although this is a ‘lower-level’ of educational attainment than a four-year undergraduate degree and three-year law degree, this fails to consider previous educational attainment and professional experiences. Taking the perspective of the authors, Professionals with twenty years of experience in the legal field would be replaced by computerization over lawyers who have recently been admitted to their respective bars. This would mean that those lawyers have been trained in ‘low-skilled,’ administrative tasks and that they are more capable and efficient at completing the same.
Although I do not disagree that lawyers should be able to understand how to complete such tasks on their own, I do not believe that this means Professionals will be replaced by computerization. These Professionals are professionally trained and educated to contribute to the final product for clients. This product requires, in addition to administrative tasks, the use of specialized technology (that I do not disagree should be used) for specific tasks, that assist lawyers in providing advice and legal services. These Professionals conduct their specialized services in order for lawyers to execute their own specialized services, that the Professionals cannot necessarily do.
For example, Professionals require specialized training in corporate governance in order to maintain the registration of corporations, incorporate companies and ensure the corporations are complying with provincial, national and in some cases, international standards. Although lawyers should have an understanding of such legal services, should the lawyer be independently responsible for these tasks? Maybe. What about when there are hundreds of clients, who have multiple corporations, who require incorporation of more, that all require annual filings and compliance? What if these corporations are involved in litigation, negotiations or are in the process of becoming bankrupt? Where should the lawyers focus their efforts? According to the authors – on the tasks that are arguably computerizable.
The argument again becomes out-sourcing of, using this example, registry services. This means the responsible lawyer, who is trusted in maintaining the corporations, must personally organize and schedule the required filings and ensure the corporate minute books are up-to-date. Although corporations can do this themselves – that is maintain their own registration, which many do – not all clients want to or have the ability or time to do so. That is why they hire lawyers, who utilize the entrusted Professionals, to contribute to satisfying the needs of clients.
Although these are a few of many examples of the tasks that Professionals undertake in the legal field, and both paralegals and legal assistants have different responsibilities and obligations (and should maybe not be categorized as Professionals under the same category), I believe that this further complicates the simplistic conclusion that these professions are computerizable. I agree with the authors that new technologies must be adopted, and that resistance to do so is dangerous with an evolving society. In addition, I agree that Professionals should (and will) adapt to these changes. I just find it very difficult to comprehend that these roles in the field are in essence – obsolete. Instead, paralegals and legal assistants will utilize and embrace technological advancements to further the interests of clients, in the administration of legal services.
This is just my critical analysis of specific conclusions in the Article. Maybe this is the exact bias the authors discussed – in my understanding and the value I see in paralegals and legal assistants. If this is the case, according to the authors, I might be the exception to lawyers being non-computerizable, and as John Lanchester put it in The Robots are Coming, “going, going, and about to be gone.” #L21C
Today’s Globe and Mail has a piece on why law and accounting firms struggle to innovate. In a nutshell the reasons are: 1. Billable hours. If someone is investing time and effort in innovation they’re not billing, and that’s seen as not valuable. 2. Too much focus on today rather than tomorrow. 3. Smugness. They’re doing well now, so why change?
See more, and the author’s ideas about how professional service firms that want to innovate and grow can do so, here.
Last Wednesday, I embarked on the long and winding road back to law school. Literally. Leaving Vancouver in the early hours of the morning, I hopped on the highway and took the scenic drive through the mountains heading northeast to Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC.
A couple of months prior, I’d been invited by Katie Sykes to speak to her new class “Lawyering in the 21st Century” (L21C). This is not your typical “black letter law” class. Instead, students sign up as partners in a fictional law firm, L21C, work in teams to develop new ideas and practice models, and then defend their business pitches to a legal “Dragons’ Den” panel. As Katie explains, “The ultimate goal of the course is to equip them with some tools and spark them to think about some ideas that will enable them to adapt. I can’t tell them how to do it; I don’t know it myself.”
I’d been asked to participate in the class for two reasons: 1) to share my story of building Knomos with the students as an example of a non-traditional legal career path (“Hey, this is possible!”); and 2) at the end of the term, to be one of the “legal dragons” evaluating student pitches & proposals.
Speaking with the class was an awesome experience, albeit a little surreal at times. It’s a honour to be included among guest speakers who are thought leaders and key influencers in the legal industry including Mitch Kowalski, Sarah Sutherland, Hersh Perlis, and Fred Headon to name a few. Being on the “legal dragons” panel later this fall is equally rewarding, as Knomos itself started as a student submission to the McGill Dobson Cup startup competition back in 2014. While I don’t yet consider myself a legal industry expert, given that the more I learn the more I realize I still have a lot to learn, I’m happy to offer students insights & advice based on my experience thus far.
On the platform development front, it was great to give the students a sneak peek at some of the core features we’re implementing right now, and get that direct feedback that lets us know we’re on the right track. In “customer validation” terms, there’s nothing quite like having people come up to you after a demo saying “Can we have it now?” (The answer is not yet, but very soon, so stay tuned!)
The experience was also validating on a personal level. One thing about law school that often goes unmentioned is that it’s not just a education, it’s an indoctrination. Throughout 3-4 years of classes, extracurricular activities, and firm-sponsored events, there’s a subtle but ever-present undercurrent reinforcing a belief that the career path towards becoming a senior partner in a big law firm is the holy grail to which all students should aspire. The flip-side of that mindset is that doing something different is doing something less.
Like millennials in many other professional industries, it’s a narrative I’ve personally struggled with over the past couple of years since leaving school. I transitioned from practising in BigLaw, to being a sole practitioner, and then co-founding a legal tech startup. Much like the drive to Kamloops, my journey has not always been a straightforward one. There have been some unexpected twists and turns, and more than a few bumps along the way. But I am better for it, and that much better prepared for the road that lies ahead. It meant a lot to share my story with the students and I hope it will help some of them too as they prepare for life after law school.
I’m excited to hear the student pitches later this fall and their innovative ideas for improving legal practice. Just as important as the idea, however, is the execution. So my best advice to the students is this: Do things. Tell people. Listen & learn from their feedback. And then keep going.
While the destination may not always be the one you set out for, the journey is worth the while.
– Adam
Co-founder & CEO, Knomos
Follow me on Twitter: @EhLaFrance
It’s true, computers are invading the earth – in fact I no longer use a key to get into my house, and apparently my television is smarter than I am. As mentioned in The Future of Employment, tasks that once required human skill are now being completed by artificial intelligence. Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne point out that not only are hard-skill tasks being taken over by computers, but also soft-skill “non-routine” tasks are being completed by technology. Basically, the ability to write legal opinions or to provide medical diagnoses are no longer restricted to human capability.
Though I should probably be celebrating the fact that our society has come far from the days where the invention of the wheel was a huge technological breakthrough – I still cannot seem to muster up enough enthusiasm to be happy about EVERY computerized invention. In fact, I personally believe that we as a society should tread lightly where technology replaces human skill as a main purpose, rather than a byproduct. Sure, Richard Susskind may say that I am experiencing the first stage of denial (of the three stages outlined in chapter 8 of Tomorrow’s Lawyers). At times, this is true. There are days where my denial is unreasonable and I think, “pish posh Mr. Kowalski, the threat of extinction isn’t even real!” However, the days that I choose to be real with myself and try to prepare for the inevitable changes to come in the legal profession, I realize that my denial actually comes from an underlying fear – the fear that a profession that is so heavily based on relationships will one day become a profession full of drones.
If this fear were to become reality, it would completely shatter the very reason that I chose to become a lawyer. My mother was a social worker, and very early on I came to appreciate the satisfaction in helping others resolve their issues and improve their lives. However the key to my mother’s success was her ability to empathize and to not treat her cases systematically. I was drawn to the legal profession because I knew, and still know, that I can make a difference because I genuinely care. However my passion does not come from a tiny computer embedded in my brain, it comes from within – it’s the human element. It is this very human element that drives many great lawyers to put forward the strongest arguments and to do their best work, and it is this very human element that allows clients to trust lawyers with their issues.
John Lanchester puts it best in his article, The Robots Are Coming, where he points out:
“For many years the problem with robots has been that computers are very good at things we find difficult but very bad at things we find easy. They are brilliant at chess but terrible at the cognitive skills we take for granted, one of the most important being something scientists call SLAM, for ‘simultaneous localisation and mapping’: the ability to look at a space and see it and know how to move through it, all simultaneously, and with good recall.”
I believe that “SLAM” is what lawyers do on a daily basis. During my summer articling experience I realized the importance of knowing my audience; understanding the sensitivity that needs to be afforded to clients; and to read social cues of the professionals I worked with in order to do my job well. I definitely do not know the science behind my proposition, but I truly believe that computers are not capable of the above. A computer can be equipped with the best algorithms to exist, but there is nothing like adrenaline and passion when a solicitor closes a tricky transaction or a litigator delivers a difficult argument.
Though I wait with open arms for technology to reduce menial tasks that come with being a lawyer, such as formatting a document or compiling single PDF’s into one file, I am not looking forward to seeing artificial intelligence take over aspects of the legal profession which require passion and drive. We as a society need to be cautious of extinguishing the human element.
The BBC is running a news series called “Intelligent Machines” looking at artificial intelligence and robotics, including such wonders as corporate earnings reports and short news stories written by machines. It reports that, according to Boston Consulting Group, by 2025 up to a quarter of jobs will be replaced by either smart software or robots.
What about us? The BBC also provides a handy little tool for checking if you will be replaced by a robot. Type the name of the job into the box and it will give you a percentage (of likelihood that you will be fired to make way for a robot). Lawyers do quite well in this exercise. You have to search using British terms for legal roles (because it’s the BBC). Solicitors get “it’s quite unlikely (3%).” Barristers and judges (in one category) get the same result, “it’s quite unlikely (3%).” A few other random ones I looked at: dental nurse, “it’s too close to call (60%)”; cook, “it’s fairly likely (73%); architect, “it’s quite unlikely (2%).”
It is sort of fun to play with this. But it poses the question in a very blunt and binary way. I think a more critical question that we all need to ask ourselves is “will a robot take part of my job? Which part?”
Recall that machines are already writing corporate earnings reports. A chunk of work for corporate lawyers is writing securities disclosure for publicly traded companies. We kind of like to think this takes a sophisticated blend of knowing what the regulations require the company to disclose, understanding the client’s business, and being sensitive to shareholder relations concerns. But in all honesty there is a lot about this exercise that is quite mechanical. The objective data – the company’s results – determines within quite narrow parameters what the permissible writing choices are. If a machine can write corporate earnings reports, it can’t be long before they’re writing prospectuses and annual reports. There would probably also be a need for final checking and tweaking by humans. That’s where the deep knowledge of the rules, the company’s business, and the perceptions of shareholders would be all-important. For all I know this is already happening.
So let’s say that this is an example of something that’s now part of the job for some lawyers, and that robots are likely to take most of it. What does it mean for our profession if this kind of work is taken over by the intelligent machines?
Here’s an interesting excerpt from the BBC story:
Narrative Science chief scientist Kristian Hammond has previously said that in 15 years’ time, 90% of news will be written by machines but, he told the BBC, that didn’t mean that 90% of journalist jobs would go. “It means that the journalists can extend their reach. The world of news will expand,” he said. “The journalists will not be generating stories from data. That unambiguous, not-open-to-interpretation stuff will be done by machines.”
I am convinced that this carries over to law. Some percentage, quite possibly an alarmingly large percentage, of what lawyers do now will be done by machines. That doesn’t mean the same percentage of lawyers’ jobs will go. It means the world of law will expand. We won’t be wasting time doing utterly brainless stuff like footnotes, or somewhat brainless stuff like drafting disclosure from scratch. We will be using our complicated, empathetic human brains for challenges that really need them.
Georgetown Law’s Center for the Study of the Legal Profession gives students an opportunity to design and develop access to justice apps in a course called “Technology, Innovation and Legal Practice.” Yesterday the ABA Journal ran an article on “Legal Rebel” Professor Tanina Rostain, co-director of the Center, who created and teaches the course. Students show off their apps in the Iron Tech Law competition, where they can win prizes in Excellence in Design, Excellence in Presentation and all-round best app.
Here’s an excerpt from a law review article (1) co-authored by Professor Rostain (internal citations omitted):
“In 2012, a team of students in our class on “Technology, Innovation and Law Practice” built a web-based application (app) called ‘Same-Sex Marriage adviser.’ The app, which covered fifty states and the District of Columbia, used an automated interview to help users determine whether they could get married or enter into a domestic partnership in their home state and, if so, how such a relationship might affect their other legal rights. The app described available state law benefits, such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights, possible disadvantages, such as the requirement to register, and limits on any federal benefits available as a consequence of the Defense of Marriage Act. After going through the interview, which usually took about three minutes, the user received a brief overall assessment statement. The user could also view a customized full report that described the information the user had provided and set forth more specific detailed guidance based on this information … In designing an automated adviser that could help same-sex couples determine whether they could and might want to formalize their relationship, the students sought to build an app that served an important unmet need.”
That particular app may need updating after this summer’s SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges – but you get the idea.
Of course, as you’ve heard me say probably more than enough times, the LawHack project in our course does not have to involve creating an app, or using technology (although it certainly can). But in other ways it has a lot in common with the Georgetown course and competition. For example: devising effective and creative ways to meet important unmet needs. Thinking through how end-users can interact with legal system to get the outcomes they need. Giving users meaningful access to law by organizing and tapping into the “tacit knowledge” that lawyers use to advise clients and translating it into a more accessible, user-friendly, and cost-effective form. (For more on what all this means, see the article. It’s great.) And, of course, the importance of both a good, effective design and excellent presentation (for extremely useful tips on that, don’t miss Adam LaFrance’s comment on the LawHack assignment description).
In case you need more inspiration, the ABA journal piece notes that Dustin Robinson, one of the students in the first Iron Tech Law competition in 2012, “immediately took a job in Chicago as a legal solutions architect with SeyfarthLean Consulting, a subsidiary of the Seyfarth Shaw law firm.” (You may remember that Mitch Kowalski discussed Seyfarth Shaw and its consulting arm in his presentation yesterday.) And in each of the past two years another student from the course has also gone to work there.
Law is changing, and some doors may be closing – but others are opening.
(1)Tanina Rostain, Roger Skalbeck & Kevin G. Mulcahy, “Thinking Like a Lawyer, Designing Like an Architect: Preparing Students for the 21st Century Practice” (2013), 88 Chi-Kent L Rev 743.
The legal industry, to evolve, will need to undergo some moving and shaking. In the articles below:
the authors imply that culture at law firms is dwindling which will result in the collapse of many firms. To overcome this, I believe that law firms can instil a strong culture by implementing strong firm values and establishing the firm’s identity.
Article 1 notes that the current focus of law firms is absorbed in meeting short term profits. This includes focussing on profits per partner, and leverage (the number of partners relative to the number of associates). The smaller the number of partners, and the greater the number of associates, the more leverage the partners have. Greater leverage means more profits per partner derived from the salaried work of associates. As noted by the authors of Article 1, emphasis on short-term economic success “has adversely affected the relationships between large law firms and clients, judges, public sector lawyers, and as legal service providers” and also the reputation of the large firm.
The authors of both articles are emphasizing that too much emphasis is placed on individual lawyers and not on the law firm as an organization. Accordingly, successful lawyers (monetarily) are provided with more influence over the law firm’s decision-making and growth. This mentality leaves lawyers choosing to fend for themselves to realize personal success instead of the firm’s success. Additionally, it creates a mentality of billable hours and revenue first, instead of focussing on corporate social responsibility inside and outside of the firm. Article 2 mentions that Larry Ribstein discovered 5 factors which are leading to the death of the Big Law business model. Ribstein’s 5 factors are as follows:
So, how could we shift this change? What should the industry do to prevent this impending doom of the death of Big Law? I would propose, that law firms should rebrand themselves to run like a business organization, rather than a partnership of individual lawyers.
Disclaimer: I do not mean to speak to liability in saying this, but more so the mentality of running the firm’s operations.
I believe that a simple, yet effective, change would involve a law firm implementing a vision and mission statement. A typical vision statement focuses on long-term objectives and aspirations of the organization, and usually consists of one or two sentences. A typical mission statement is usually longer (approximately 5-6 sentences) and sets out what the organization seeks to accomplish, and is more oriented toward the short and medium term.
Effective statements should address how the law firm wishes to interact with its clients, its employees (lawyers and non-lawyers), as well as the community and legal industry. Care must be taken to write meaningful statements and not lofty or “warm-and-fuzzy” type messages as a publicity scheme. Meaningful statements will define the organization’s purpose, reason for existence, core values, what it’s striving to become, future aspirations, and what makes the organization unique.
As a result these statements create a standard within an organization which serve as a moral and decision-making guidepost for the entire organization. It allows an organization to state its core values and follow through with them. In a law firm, implementing these statements would create more collaboration, as lawyers would be united under common objectives. This would better serve the purpose of the law firm instead of lawyers pursuing their own self-interest (such as profits per partner). Essentially, I believe these statements help create synergistic alignment in focussing on the well-being and future of the firm in a sustainable manner. After all, it seems to have worked for many successful organizations (both profit and non-profit) such as PepsiCo, Right to Play, and Nike to name a few.
The current growth rate of big firms becoming bigger, as noted in Article 2, is through large mergers. However, this is another temporary fix, as law firms seek to become “too big to fail” so that revenue is large enough to buffer against negative consequences, such as the effects of lateral hires leaving the firm. As such, the focus of a merger is not client-focussed, but more focussed on the law firm managers providing a cushion against the possibility of the firm collapsing. This is not to say that some mergers are organic, and will create synergy, and be successful. But a non-organic merger has an increased likelihood of going under as it fails to consider the greater implications of the negative effects it creates inside and outside the firm.
As more firms continue to merge, it is interesting to note the boutique firms and regional firms which have managed to achieve consistent success without merging. I found that while not all of these firms set out vision and mission statements, most of them typically identify what their goals are and how to address them. This has appeared to provide success for these firms. They identify the particular legal area, or geographical area, that they wish to focus on, and then build their values on how they wish to serve all stakeholders. They find a model that works for the entire firm, and continue to build upon that. Clients go back to these firms because of their specialty, and lawyers at these firms are happy, as they have found a niche that they fit in with.
Sharing the vision and mission statement would also better serve the firm in hiring. By reading the statements, potential hires are able to understand the organization, and what the culture of that firm is. This will attract those who are most interested in the type of work, and the culture, a particular firm will have.
Stating a vision and mission statement provides direction, creates accountability, and provides information which makes an organization relatable to the public. It puts lawyers in that firm in a similar mindset of what they should work toward for the firm. While a firm providing for its values and goals through a mission and vision statement may not be the end answer to prevent the death of big law, it is a start in the right direction. The overall effect is to create firms which look toward sustainability and long-term planning, instead of focussing on just short-term profits. A vision and mission statement serves the firm like a compass, guiding the direction the firm wishes to strive toward.
Health and wellness in the legal profession is a growing concern. Megan Seto, an associate at McInnes Cooper in Halifax took to twitter on Bells Let’s Talk Day and exposed some scary truths about lawyers and mental illness:
“lawyers suffer from #depression at a rate that is 3.6x higher than those that share the same economic traits”; “while 4% of the general population suffers from anxiety – 30% of male lawyers and 20% of female lawyers report illness”; “for law students and junior lawyers, fear of stigma proves to be a powerful inhibitor in detection and recovery #BellLetsTalk #depression”; “competition in law school can create #stress, fear, #anxiety and a profound loss of self-esteem. #BellLetsTalk #depression.”; and “why care about depression & law? The illness limits a lawyer’s ability to distribute most valuable asset — talent & knowledge.”
This got me thinking about life as an articling student. I have been fairly successful managing my time as a law student, but articling is a whole other game. First to arrive, last to leave. Nothing looks better than a senior partner seeing you, a lowly articling student, scouring mountains of paper at 10pm – right? That’s the epitome of a solid work ethic, yes? For a long time that was my understanding of how an articling student gained respect at a firm. However, we are the generation of work-life balance. Often criticized for being lazier than our predecessors, we actually may have a competitive edge. We have resources to be more balanced, happy and healthy practitioners long term than any lawyers before us. The stress and anxiety of the legal profession are actually being talked about and better yet firms are starting to make sure that these issues are addressed.
So what does this mean for us? It is unlikely we will be victims of the 80-hour workweeks many of our seniors experienced in their first years. We might put in more hours outside of the office, thanks to the availability and accessibility of modern at home work. We might be at a firm that offers health workshops, or brings in speakers to discuss anything from ergonomics to the benefits of drinking more water. Other firms may provide compensation in the form of fitness passes, or provide more vacation days. In addition it is likely more and more resources will become available to us like the CBA Legal Profession Assistance Centre, offering mental health support programs, training and a 24-hour help line to lawyers.
While the stigma around mental health is still prevalent, this is something that should continued to be talked about. And should you find yourself in a position where your health and career success seem incompatible, remember as a lawyer your most valuable asset is your mental abilities.
In today’s global economy consumers have access to items and services in a way that was never seen prior. This ‘all-access’ pass to consumerism has often been associated with those of us in the ‘Y-Generation’ and our heightened consumer entitlement. However, based on the wide-spread adoption by all ages of people, it seems likely that the changes were tied closely to technological feasibility and in response to years of limited consumer choice.
On May 4, 2015, Expedia founder Richard Barton spoke at the American Bar Association’s National Summit on Innovation in Legal Services on this very issue. Expedia was a response to what Barton saw as information asymmetry in the task of booking a holiday. Prior to the creation of his site customers were reliant on a travel agent making decisions about what they felt best suited their client. Barton recognized the value in giving consumers the power to make their own decisions and removing the barriers that limited their ability to do so.
The fact that clients and consumers have a preference for feeling empowered when dealing with decisions impacting them is not in and of itself particularly ground-breaking. However, the recognition of our traditional consumer structures and the way they have limited such empowerment may be. I always envisioned that a lawyer’s actions would, for the most part, empower the client simply by assisting in the navigation of the legal system and providing info that allowed informed decision-making. However, with the changes we have seen in consumer practice, it may no longer be enough to simply write an opinion letter or have a client meeting to discuss legal options. The same clients that may have been satisfied with such work in the past may no longer feel this is sufficient.
Without a doubt law firms will be looking at options for how to best meet the wants and needs of their clients in an effort to hold or gain market share. While we cannot say with certainty what the evolution of the legal practice will entail, Richard Barton provided 3 “Consumer Laws of a Future Economy” that should guide decisions respecting change going forward. In a time with constant connectivity to an internet we all share, Barton believes consumers will demand the following: 1) if it can be known it will be known; 2) if it can be free it will be free; and 3) if it can be rated it will be rated. I for one will be considering these laws during our LawHacks project and future pitch to the legal dragons.