This time Professor Richard Susskind (for it is he), speaking at the Law Society’s law management annual conference (catchy title) has warned us that:
You have five years to reinvent the legal profession.
That’s 2021 then until the game’s up and we’ll need to pack up, put our drafting pens down and leave UberGoogZon to dispense legal advice at the blink of a virtual reality headset.
You’d think lawyers would be grateful for the warning really, after all it does leave time to prepare, retrain and qualify as an accountant or something. But judging by the comments section in the Law Society Gazette from the Gazette Commentariat, such gratitude is lacking, in fact Richard doesn’t receive much thanks at all.
This bloke is like some prehistoric creature, emerging from the primeval swamp every few years with a bellowing message of doom for the profession.
You can grow up, or you can become a legal futurologist. You cannot do both.
Management consultants only have 5 years to think of new ways to grab headlines in legal journals in order to drum up business.
Etcetera etcetera. Other commenters take exception to Susskind commenting on the profession on the basis he is not “on the Roll” and has “never practised” and is therefore not qualified to comment.
Oh dear. Oh dearie dearie me.
Let’s take a proper look at what he said shall we? I mean, I don’t want facts to get in the way of a good story, but I guess as lawyers we should do a little bit of analysis…
Beneath the headline is a story that this is a time of fresh opportunity for those in and entering the law.
The 2020s will be a decade of redeployment not unemployment [as] more and more legal services will be enabled by the support of new technology.
That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? And is broadly consistent with this excellent recent piece by Michael Skapinker in the Financial Times about how technology is “Breaking the Law” (*Susskind warning kaxon* he pops up in this piece too). Skapinker notes that “Many lawyers sneer at the idea that their work could ever be done by a website or app” (see above comments for proof of that).
Skapinker goes on to tell the well known story of eye watering law firm hourly rates, even more eye watering partner profits, cost restraints faced by the buyers of legal services and how that resulted in the creation of various so-called ‘new law’ players who are doing things differently to the trad players. Some are even, would you believe it, talking about using tech to deliver those services. Madness!
So is that it then? Big Law Bad, New Law Good, New Law Tech Better?
Well, if I were a stock market player, then I’d go short on the Gazette’s Commentariat and long on Susskind (with an option to put early). But what about the here and now? What do we do whilst we’re preparing for the tech revolution (because it ‘aint here yet in law, certainly no-one has shown me the silver bullet)?
Before answering that, let me share some research we carried out at LOD with some real life lawyers. These aren’t our views, it’s what a mix of our clients and lawyers told us. We asked 70 lawyers which qualities they rated most highly to be an in-house leader and published the results in a pretty infographic thingy.
Interestingly, the skill-set of ‘technologist’ featured pretty low on the list of skills that these in-housers felt they needed to prioritise. They are not necessarily about to imminently skill-up in the way that Susskind recommends. Okay, it’s a limited data set and our poll methodology might not stand up to Mori levels of scrutiny, but it paints an interesting picture (or infographic). Perhaps those Legal Technologists are still in law school.
But before the Gazette Commentariat celebrates victory for the status quo, our research did show that lawyers value skills such as project management reasonably highly and the the need to be innovators higher still.
Which begs the question, is it possible to innovate and project manage without high end technology that arguably doesn’t yet exist in the industry? The answer is yes. Only a fool would argue that the provision of legal advice, drafting of legal documents and negotiation of deals is a case study in efficiency optimisation (*waits for “Utter tosh” to appear in the comments section). Both clients, lawyers and legal service providers want to improve this.
But you don’t need an IBM Watson plug-in to achieve that. Many of us in the New Law space are regularly deploying a mixture of Project Managers, PM methodology, MI, Playbooks (does everything have to begin with P?) and Dashboards as what I think of as a ‘wrapper’ around our lawyers. Our reasoning is that:
Lawyer + Wrapper > Lawyer Alone
New Law is no longer just about labour arbitrage. Don’t get me wrong, it’s very much about that too as both corporates and law firms look to reduce their fixed cost base and ramp up when needed, we’re only just getting to a stage where this kind of resourcing is business-as-usual for many organisations. But we at LOD and others in the New Law mixer get up to far more than that day-to-day when we’re helping those of our clients who want things done not only differently but more efficiently.
And for those Susskind doubters, it’s worth a retrospective read of this Legal Futures piece from 2011. Perhaps that futurologist guy does know what he’s on about after all. Right, best crack on, there’s only four years three hundred and sixty four and a half days to go.