Doing law better – Law and Innovation 2

October 30, 2016

In Demand: A Business Savvy Lawyer

Throughout my schooling and work experiences thus far I have always contemplated the importance of being a self-starter. Being motivated and having the ability to motivate others, working towards pre-set goals, and focusing on nurturing relationships are all components of this. The overarching theme, however, is having that ‘entrepreneurial spirit.’

But what does entrepreneurial spirit really mean? More importantly, how is that relevant for us as future lawyers?

I believe it is very important and highly relevant! The practice of law is such that you are your own brand. Therefore, you will be perceived in the manner that you portray yourself as an individual. This is true, regardless of the firm you work for. Whether you come from one of the national firms or a small to mid-sized firm, you the lawyer are the service provider. Therefore, building your own brand is very important. The key to this is being cognizant of this fact before you enter the practice.

I believe your personal brand and having a sense of entrepreneurial spirit are two sides of the same coin. I have read many books on personal development and the common thread between them is the importance of building daily practices for yourself to ensure long-term success. Building habits that support entrepreneurialism and integrating these behaviours into daily life should be the first steps to building our practice.

Your Personal Brand

Now what does that really mean? As Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon famously said: “Your brand is what people say about you when you are not in the room.”

As I mentioned earlier, it really comes down to your personal interactions with a client that make all the difference not necessarily which firm you work for. Whether or not a client wants to do business with you is based on the experience they have had with you and the service you have provided. So it is important to focus on your own core values and build disciplines to create your own unique personal brand.

I suggest taking some time for yourself and really thinking about what it is that you really want from your practice, where do you see yourself in a few years, and most importantly how do you want to be known? You don’t need to have any business knowledge or background to know that building and nurturing client relationships is key to any prospering business’ success. But what will set you apart?

In a non-law interview I had a few years ago, one of the interviewers asked me to describe my ‘personal brand’ in 3 words. This was an interesting question and really got me thinking – so perhaps this is a way for you to start thinking about this idea as well. These are some questions you can ask yourself to help you in determining what defines you:

When others see something as a problem, are you that person who sees the opportunity? Are you that person who is willing to step out of their comfort zone to really gain the most out of an experience? Are you focused on pushing paper or really digging deep to provide the best value to your clients?

To the point about providing the best value, one of my favourite authors, Robin Sharma says it well, “the market place rewards value delivery.” I believe this is a very key insight. Once we begin practicing law, if we concentrate on providing the most value to our clients, we can really set ourselves apart! Along with trying to provide the best value, Robin suggests focusing on your “craft” and gaining mentors along the way to help pave your path for a successful legal career.

Which leads me to my next point: surround yourself with people who understand your vision, who can help you reach your goals and help you become an expert in your area. A mentor can really assist in shaping your future. They can help you determine what your strengths are (personal brand) and keep you motivated to achieve the highest levels of success.

Entrepreneurial Spirit

This phrase may be overused, but it is relevant to the field of law. Whether you are working at a big law firm, which may not require you to seek out your own clientele (yet) or whether you are at a smaller firm, eventually you will be required to establish your own client base or contribute to the existing client relationships.

In my opinion this is a great opportunity and also very exciting. You will be able to focus on your set of clients and provide them tailored advice. The way to get a head start is by developing values that push you to really think like an entrepreneur.

There are a few reasons to develop an entrepreneur’s mindset. First, it will separate you from the rest of your cohort, who may not have yet thought about the future and the realities of the legal field. Second, you may eventually decide to drop out of the mid-to-large sized firm and create your own legal business. In which case, it is absolutely essential to have that inner confidence to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities in a ‘business-oriented’ manner.

Here are some ways to go about this: Read a book on a successful self-made entrepreneur, listen to unique leadership speakers (Robin Sharma is great), or just take the time to self-reflect. This is not an overnight realization, nor is it only for those that are already ‘business savvy’ – this is a life-long pursuit and you can begin working on it today!

As we approach our careers, these skills will help us build a strong foundation and will be useful in the challenging but hopefully rewarding legal practice.

October 26, 2016

JD, Ryerson?

Ryerson University in Toronto is developing a proposal to create a new JD program “that focuses on innovation in legal education for the benefit of graduates, their communities, and the broader society.” That quotation comes from Ryerson’s Letter of Intent, available here. It makes fascinating reading. Compared to the traditional law curriculum, it is a profound re-think of what training lawyers is all about, with emphasis on producing “graduates who possess the initiative to respond to unmet legal needs, who exhibit a commitment to social engagement and community leadership, who are able to envision new applications of their education.” Obviously I like these ideas; in a smaller way, the same ones are reflected in L21C. (On the other hand, I’ve seen the LOI described as “buzzword bingo” – I don’t really agree but I still think it’s funny.)

We’ve had an interesting debate on our internal course site (Mattermost) about this. With the permission of those who contributed, I’ve moved it here so that it can be read more widely.

I hope others, in L21C and beyond, will add their thoughts.

Me: this is the letter of intent outlining Ryerson’s proposal to open a law school. I’d be very interested to know what you think of this. I expect that many of you will share the views of skeptics who have pointed out the shortage of articling positions in Ontario (and generally), and questioned whether Toronto needs another law school. Personally, I’m very persuaded by the argument that there is a need in society for a different kind of law school, one that uses innovative approaches to build skills and provide hands-on experience, focused on the needs of the users of legal services. I think it will be challenging to turn that aspiration into real results, but Ryerson has already shown real leadership in legal training, and they might just pull it off. Chris Bentley is one of our guest speakers, so you will have a chance to talk to him about it.

Lorna: The job market being what it is, they’d only be doing their students a disservice to start running a program and graduating people out into the employment void. If it is the case that they will provide the kind of training that’ll comes from articling, and where a good part of the curriculum is aimed toward alternative careers in law, then it could be quite promising.

Me: think they have thought very carefully about the argument that Ontario doesn’t need another law school and that they will be adding more people to a saturated job market. Those are serious concerns. In my opinion the proposal has serious, convincing answers to them. One of the answers – and I find this very compelling – is that there is clearly a huge need for more lawyers, if you look at it not from the point of view of law firm hiring stats but at social need. Ontario’s population has doubled in the last 30 years, but only one new law school has been added in that time. Most people who experience legal problems don’t get help from a lawyer because they can’t afford it. If something is too expensive for those who need it to access it, that suggests an undersupply, not an oversupply. Of course it does nothing to fix this problem if you create another law school like all the others that trains lawyers in a way that fails to bridge the gap. But I think Ryerson has genuinely considered how to do that and has come up with a well designed, well considered plan. A couple of other points mentioned in the report: there are high numbers of Canadian students training in law schools overseas (US, UK, Australia) who come back into the market here, and would train in this country if there were places for them, so to that extent opening a new school doesn’t increase the supply of law graduates. And, last point, as Omar Ha-Redeye says in this Slaw post, Ryerson aims to prepare law graduates who will create the jobs for graduates of other law schools.

Anita: I think it is a great idea but only if the program satisfies the articling requirement and if the tuition is not too high. I feel that one of the greatest barriers to new graduates who may want to practice differently from the traditional models is that there are very few articling positions with firms who don’t run with the traditional model and so if we do find an articling position, it will most likely be one with a traditional model. Articling with a firm steeped in the traditional mode of practice arguably instills that model in the articling student. Furthermore, a heavy debt load after graduation would prevent a recent graduate from taking riskier paths for fear of unpredictable financial returns. At least that is how I feel when looking for ways to practice law differently in my own career.

LawHacks: The Main Assignment

The main project that participants in L21C will work on for the next three months is called “LawHacks.” It’s a group project that will culminate in a pitch, “Dragon’s Den” style, to a panel of judges. The challenge is to come up with innovative ways to provide legal services and do law better.

Here are the detailed instructions:

The Problem

The idea behind LawHacks is crowdsourcing solutions to a problem. The problem, in very simple terms, is finding better ways to be lawyers.

To elaborate:

From a certain perspective, there is an oversupply of legal services: it’s becoming harder for some firms to compete and stay profitable, there’s softening of demand (and expectations of better deals on price, speed and efficiency) from traditional purchasers of legal services, and the job market is getting tougher.

At the same time, there is an undersupply of legal services: there is a huge amount of need for help with legal problems that is not being met. Business clients still need legal services, but they are facing their own pressures to ensure that each dollar spent on lawyers is justified. Ordinary people generally have severely limited access to legal services, or no access at all.

So the problem is how to bridge that gap, between shrinking profitable work for lawyers and unmet demand for our skills and help.

The gap is connected to other challenges facing the profession, including: attrition of talented and highly trained people, especially women and minorities; narrowing access to the legal profession linked to the cost of legal education and a shrinking supply of articling positions; and the difficulty that some lawyers experience in achieving a satisfying and well-rounded life.

There are lots of smart, talented people who want to help solve clients’ legal problems and have the knowledge, intelligence and creativity to do it, and there lots of potential clients who need them, yet in many ways our current system for connecting one side of that equation to the other is not functioning well.

This is what is known as a “wicked problem.” It is multidimensional. It does not have a single “right” solution (although there are surely solutions that are better and more effective than others). Wicked problems are tough to solve – or even impossible to solve completely – because they involve a complex mix of contradictory and changing requirements, and a solution that deals with one dimension may reveal or create other problems.

The Proposal

Your task is to come up with a strategy, idea, tool, product or something else that helps address the problem.

Essentially, you are developing an innovative technology, in the broadest sense of the word:

Technology is the collection of techniques, methods or processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives (Wikipedia)

This does not have to mean technological solutions in the narrow sense (for example, designing an app or using modern communications technology) – but of course, you are welcome to incorporate “tech” elements like these into your project.

You choose your own direction.

Your team can choose which of the many dimensions of the problem you want to focus on.

Here are a few suggestions for directions you might want to pursue. They are suggestions only, intended to spark your imaginations, not to constrain you.

New approaches to regulation of the profession and/or business models (see readings for October 14)
New approaches to charging for legal services (see readings for October 21)
Technological solutions to enhance access to justice for disadvantaged groups (see readings for October 28)
Reformed approaches to legal education and the law school curriculum (see readings for November 11)
A plan for improving diversity in the profession and the retention of women and minorities (see readings for November 18)
A better way of disseminating legal information to those who need it
A new approach to funding legal education to improve access to the profession and give graduates more freedom in their choice of career options
A plan for getting better and more complete information about unmet needs for legal services

How you turn your idea into a proposal to present to the judges is really up to you. There are two main things to keep in mind:

You have to explain to the judges why it matters – why is it important to do the thing that you are trying to do?
And you have to convince the judges that it will work – is this a practicable solution that will produce useful results?

The Pitch

Teams will pitch their LawHacks to a panel of “dragons” in the last two class sessions, November 25 and December 2.

Each team has a total of 40 minutes allotted for its pitch.

The overall goal, similar to “Dragon’s Den,” is to persuade the dragons that your project is worth “investing” in. Unlike in Dragon’s Den, however, your project does not have to be a business proposal intended to generate profits (although it can be – and if it is, you should be prepared to show the dragons how it will make a profit). You should persuade the dragons that this project will give a good return on investment – whether that is measured in the traditional way (profit) or as a social investment that creates benefits for the community.

The total time consists of:

The “elevator pitch”: 5 minutes. This is a very quick explanation of the essence of your idea.
A more detailed presentation: 15 minutes. This is where you walk the dragons through the specifics of your proposal. Think of it as something like a TED talk.
Interview with the dragons: 20 minutes. The dragons will question you about how your proposal will work, what problems there might be and how you plan to address them.

How you set up your presentation and what tools you use is completely up to you. You can use live talk by the whole group or any number of members of the group; Powerpoint; Keynote; Prezi; video; a web site; a demo of any prototype you have created; or any combination of these or anything else.

You need to have a realistic plan for putting your idea into operation; just a vague idea is not going to cut it with the dragons.
You should gather relevant information and research to support your proposal, show why it’s needed and that it is feasible.
You should give due consideration to how your idea might exacerbate problems, or reveal new ones, while solving the problem you are focusing on (this is characteristic of wicked problems). Be prepared to convince the dragons that you have a plan to mitigate the difficulties, or that your idea is a net positive even if it might have some unavoidable costs.

***IMPORTANT: Materials to Submit in Advance***

You must prepare at a minimum, a two-page summary of your proposal for the dragons and the rest of the class, and submit it one week in advance of your presentation.

You are also allowed (but not required) to prepare any other materials you like and submit them to the dragons to help them understand your idea – but use your judgment and avoid overloading them.