Law schools have begun to recognize the value of technology competence and management training.  They’re trying to produce a new type of lawyer; but, the more immediate question is how that new type of lawyer fits into existing law firm structures, while the change they hope to accelerate has not yet been effectuated.

While most law students and young lawyers view, or are asked to view, themselves as moldable clay, that’s not likely the best option in this case.  While things like fitting a role, and taking constructive criticism have their places, young lawyers presented with the opportunity to affect the practice of law in new and exciting ways should approach that challenge with the gusto of a start-up businessperson.  If you’re being asked to blaze a new trail, blaze the fucking trail.  The legal industry is all about precedents; and, the chance to work without the past as a counterweight should be embraced.

When a law firms ask a new attorney to assist in developing a revised technology platform, there is probably no better place for that young lawyer to immediately affect the management of that law firm, and its bottom line.  If said young lawyer has had the law school training, or the wherewithal to develop the skillset necessary to accomplish what she is being asked, it could be an entirely revised springboard for launching a legal career.

. . .

Liner Notes

‘Pumped Up Kicks’ by Weezer

This is an excellent cover of one of the catchiest songs of the last 20 years, subject matter notwithstanding.

What this means is that various industries value the multiple skillsets that lawyers employ.  In an ironic twist, though — that’s not necessarily the case within the legal industry itself.

Law firms value substantive work and . . .  Well, they value substantive work.  Law firms haven’t yet found an effective way to integrate the broader attorney-business tool chest into what they do.  The question then becomes: What does a lawyer do, outside of substantive legal work, that provides, real, actual value to a law firm?  Rainmakers are valuable, of course; but, they’re the means to the end.  They’re stepping on the other side of the teeter totter, the shaft to the crank that becomes the next wave of billable work.  But, how about lawyers who are excellent business managers?  What about lawyers who have a keen degree of emotional intelligence?  That bears on marketing, yes; but, there are many other, as-yet-undiscovered applications.

What about attorneys who understand and effectively utilize technology? Especially with the recent spate of ethics rules changes, isn’t that a valuable skill for an attorney to utilize in a law firm context?  Certainly.  But, how does a lawyer who can develop workflows and manage processes and help to implement software and build an effective data protection plan for the law firm get valued?  It’s difficult for law firm management to quantify and reward such behaviors; and, this is especially true in small law firms, which exist in the barren valley between DIY and outsourcing: These law firms don’t have the time to do it themselves; but, they don’t have the money to outsource.  In that case, the obvious answer seems to be the fostering of internal solutions.

The good news is that small law firms are beginning to figure this out, mostly in the way that they utilize young lawyers.  More and more often, I am being approached by young lawyers, who have been assigned technology-related projects by the law firms they work for.  It used to be that these projects represented busy work: no one else at the firm wanted to deal with the issue, it was passed off to the noob, who would report back, and then nothing would get done.  Lately, however, I‘m beginning to see these projects bear fruit.  Law firm management is beginning to take technology more seriously — and, by extension, they’re taking those involved in managing those projects more seriously.

So, while it’s still ill-defined, there is a definitive shift to new lawyers in small firms having value attached to their preexisting or developed technology expertise.  How that shakes out in terms of job structure and compensation is yet to be seen.  But, it’s an awfully good place to start.

. . .

Liner Notes

‘Foreplay/Long Time’ by Boston

Everything in the legal field takes a long time to develop; and, the foreplay is far less exciting  . . . than the guitar licks linked above.

I’m not taking sides here.  I understand where solo and small firm lawyers are coming from; I consult with those folks regularly, and I know that they have to be head-down on work, and on top of managing the practice, to make it all come together.  I also know that there are a lot of nifty things going on in terms of technology generally, and artificial intelligence specifically, in legal.  Heck, my guy Ed Walters even teaches a robotics course at Georgetown; the only other person to have done that was Elroy Jetson, in the year 2274.

No, I’m not taking sides.  I’m standing in the valley, looking up at either cliff-face, watching the shouting take place.  From my vantage point, there are two commingled reasons for why the artificial intelligence revolution does not resonate as such with solo and small firm lawyers.

The problem tracks back to communication and economics.

In the first instance, solo and small firm lawyers are tired of being portrayed as Luddites.  They’re also sick of, especially in this economy, being threatened with job loss.  How many hundreds (thousands?) of articles have been written with the tagline ‘The End of Lawyers’?  If the standard approach is always: ‘You suck hard; and soon, you won’t have a job because you suck so hard’ — well, wouldn’t you tune out the noise, too?  The fact of the matter is that the real, creative work that attorneys do is not going be replaced anytime soon, nor should it be.  (I mean, do you really want to live in a society overrun with intelligent androids?  If you said yes, you probably didn’t watch the season finale of Westworld.)  The other John Mayer likes to talk about lawyers practicing ‘at the top of their law licenses’.  The truly creative work that lawyers do, the emotional intelligence they must exhibit in dealing with clients, those things are not going to be replicated by machines any time soon.  Lawyers working in those spaces will continue to succeed; and, they will be delighted when services arise that can ease their research burden, for example.  Neither do lawyers fear technology.  They’re comfortable with the technology they have, sure; but, that’s in large part because the concept of new technology (as it now exists) is fairly overwhelming to them.  Hell, I do this for a living, and I can’t keep up.  The truth is that law firm technology has advanced from the Model T to the 2017 Ford Mustang in about 10 years; and, if a law firm can’t choose from more than 100 cloud-based law practice management tools, when not even one existed a decade ago . . . well, what the fuck did you expect?  Solo and small firm lawyers have been asked to seamlessly pull a Captain America; and, then everyone is surprised when they can’t.  The new regulations respecting data protection and technology competence are not onerous; but, lawyers tend to believe they are, because they are trying to catch up at ludicrous speed.  Legislative and ethics authorities need to get better about addressing technology rules to laypersons; but, technology stalwarts need to figure out a way to more effectively translate their service offerings to the needs of solo and small firm attorneys, as those attorneys feel them.

In a larger sense, though, this is a question of economics.  As AI develops, someone needs to pay for the time and space developers need to refine their products.  That’s why a computer used to be larger than a small dinosaur and a terabyte of data now costs, like, 30 cents.  It makes sense that these services would be developed with the support of venture capital firms and large law firms.  It’s safe to ignore solo and small firm lawyers, when gathering a large-enough collective of them to support an artificial intelligence program would not be worth the time spent to unify it.

The ultimate questions is whether and how AI becomes useful to solo and small firm lawyers, rather than if it can be used to squeeze them further out of the market.  In the most perfect world that can be imagined, AI developed for large firms would, in fits and starts, begin to trickle down to solo and small firms, who would be able to access similar programs, at a more reasonable cost.  But, if that hasn’t happened with big data (and won’t still, for a while), what makes you think it’s going to happen with artificial intelligence?

Don’t get me started on driverless cars . . .

. . .

Liner Notes

I blame the Moog synthesizer.

‘Daily Nightly’ by The Monkees

Of course, usability is a two-way street.  Software vendors have to build and update truly useful platforms for law firms; but, law firms must also engage those platforms effectively.  Lawyers must decide to put the effort in to make the most of their use of software.  In the end, software requires data and direction.  Users must submit relevant information, and perform, or set in motion, certain functionality.  The typical lawyer’s dream, of a zero-effort installation, where the new software works just like the old software — right away, avoiding any initial productivity dip — is a fantasy.

In sum, if you don’t want to pay for licenses you’re not using, or if you want to use more than 5% of a program’s functionality, it is incumbent upon lawyers and staff to understand the software they’re attached to, at a more than superficial level.

The following represents a three-point strategery check, to help you figure out whether you’re getting the most out of your software.

Sherpas in the Low Altitudes.  Gladys Knight had the Pips.  Harold Melvin had the Blue Notes.  Ringo has his All-Starr Band.  Who you got?  Lawyers have traditionally leaned on often-younger, presumably more tech-savvy staff to act as in-house troubleshooters respecting the use of software programs.  If there is a candidate in your law firm, it can be tremendously helpful to have a resident ‘technology expert’; and, if that expert exists mostly to support one program, and if it is a high-use program, like an accounting software or a case management system, then that’s probably all right.  Finding someone on your staff who can perform this role can lighten the load on your IT staff (if you have one), will likely reduce your out-of-pocket support costs and can reduce the time you waste developing unnecessary workarounds.

Yeti in the High Altitudes.  Law firms have often applied the above-referenced formula to graft technology expertise onto an existing staffing infrastructure.  Far too often, however, such a scheme becomes a crutch, allowing attorneys a ready excuse to avoid learning about, and coming to a deeper understanding of, the software they regularly use.  Total reliance on staff, however, is a bad decision at a number of levels.  For one, it decreases your personal efficiency; and, for another, it places you at the mercy of a particular staffperson.  If you have ‘one person who knows how to use the software’, what happens if they want to leave, or if they want a raise?  Also, given new ethics requirements respecting technology competence for lawyers, it could be argued that a totally hands-off approach contravenes, at least the spirit, of those rules, as well as existing rules concerning the supervision of staff.

Knowing When to Call for Help.  Just as there is no perfect software, there is no perfect software user.  Unless you’re the law office equivalent of Bo Jackson in ‘Tecmo Super Bowl’, you’ll need a hand every now and then.  So, you want to be careful to pick a software program that features a robust knowledgebase and support structure, potentially including a paid support component.  Plans will differ for various providers; so, you should ask, and the select the option that works best for you.  If you can’t figure it out, and the support desk can’t help, it may be time to consider a consultant.

. . .

Liner Notes

My understanding is that this would have been the perfect song, if it wasn’t just a tribute.

‘Tribute’ by Tenacious D