A person once asked me what it feels like to be successful.
I didn't know how to respond because I don't regard myself as a success. A scrambler, yes. A striver, certainly. A success? I'm not so sure about that.
The more I learn about various subjects, the more I'm humbled by the vast amount of material I haven't even studied, much less mastered. Others may see what has been done while I see all that remains undone.
There is another aspect to this feeling: the sense that to declare oneself a success is a bit smug. Smugness can be the prelude to decline. Many a dunce is a self-proclaimed genius.
This doesn't mean that the achievement of various goals cannot be appreciated. That is not only wise but necessary if the demoralization of the treadmill is to be squelched. Watching the clouds, having a good cup of coffee, and quietly reviewing how something was achieved can be as good as it gets.
There is another crucial point and I draw it from the Army's three elements of leadership:
Be - Know - Do.
Too often, society defines success in the realm of "Do" instead of "Be." In assessing our own progress, we need to avoid that trap and recognize that making progress both in Being and Doing is important. Our internal advances may well outweigh any external ones.
There is much wisdom in the old line that "He who conquers himself is greater than he who takes a city."
4 Comments:
At 7:25 AM, Eclecticity said...
OFTB.
At 10:19 AM, supercynic said...
"The more I learn about various subjects, the more I'm humbled by the vast amount of material I haven't even studied, much less mastered. Others may see what has been done while I see all that remains undone."Somehow you managed to get inside my head and put my exact thoughts down in the written word. I couldn't agree more.
At 5:07 PM, Michael Wade said...
Eclecticity,Thanks much!Supercynic,I think we are not alone in such feelings. Those thoughts, however, may ultimately be a strength.
At 1:11 PM, Alonso Sarmiento said...
Like everything in the life, successful being is relative, following several situations like the cultural surroundings, the historical stage in which lives or has lived, the age of the individual, its beliefs ethical morals and, its ambitions or projects, as well as the form in which the others assess these situations. Perhaps that one could be considered successful Who did not refuse to live. That is to say, that one that took advantage of every moment and each resource that gave the life mainly him and, lived.
miércoles, 23 de julio de 2008
How The Long Tail Applies to Law Firms
For the next issue of Law Technology News Monica Bay, Editor-in-Chief, asked me how law firms can apply the lessons of the new book The Long Tail, Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More by Chris Anderson. This topic will be the cover story of the next issue. With her blessing, here's a sneak preview of my comments:
As I see it, a new book proves that the day of the full-service, general practice law firm is over. Clients don’t want generalists, whom they see as jacks-of-all-trades, masters-of-none. They want an expert in their particular problem. This is very good news for litigation boutiques, IP firms and specialty practice firms.
Clients want the needle in the haystack, the lawyer who knows how to solve their precise problem, and thanks to the Web, clients can find them. For lawyers this means:
It’s time to examine your client base and identify the industries in which the firm has experience (not the strong practice groups). Clients, even the GC, see themselves as a member of an industry, not a customer of a practice group. Industry experience is one of the first things clients look for on a law firm Web site. Many law firms make the mistake of “marketing their organization,” that is, using their internal administrative structure to shape their marketing and structure their Web sites. This is a mistake. On the other hand, firms that market themselves as industry experts are “organizing around the market,” and presenting themselves in the way clients buy.
It’s time to identify the firm’s high-margin, most-profitable practices and start blogs about them. The prime example is the blog of Dennis Crouch, of Counsel at McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff in Chicago. The blog, "Patently-O," gets 50,000 visitors per week. The blog has brought in Fortune 500 companies and referrals from lawyers he’s never met. He makes a point about writing about client interests, not about the services the firm has to offer.
The Long Tail illustrates why we no longer watch the 11 PM news and why we don’t use the Yellow Pages anymore. People can get all this information online, immediately and up-to-the-minute. Law firms that make themselves findable by pinpoint Web searchers will thrive.
Comments
Interesting that anon chose to hide their identity, because they are dead wrong and have completely missed the point of the Long Tail (assuming they read it). Marketing yourself as a specialist in dispute resolution is, in effect, saying that you are a lawyer, but it says nothing about your expertise, experience, personal interests, big cases you've won or negotiated for clients, etc.
At the end of the day, most of us want to know that the people we work with are multi-talented, but when we go looking to solve a problem, we look for someone who has solved the exact problem before. Since marketing is about describing how you solve customer problems, a narrowly focused problem domain that is described in the customer's words is much more likely to get you qualified leads and enthusiastic customers than saying "I'm a generalist."
For example, let's say I was just attacked by my neighbor's pit bull. Do you think I'm going to go online and type in 'dispute resolution' as a query? If yes, I question whether you have the intelligence to handle any case I need litigated. Much more likely that someone will search for 'pit bull lawsuit' or 'vicious dog attack'. If one lawyer has talked about the evidence that a plaintiff needs to be successful in such a case in their blog, and shows up in the search as a result, which lawyer do you think gets the case - the blogger or the dispute resolver? I'll guarantee you that the generalist doesn't even get noticed, let alone get the call.
Unfortunately for anon, their thinking is like 99% of the rest of the world. It is focused on self - it is a features-oriented approach to selling, and in a world of differentiation, it simply doesn't work. Customer-centric marketing focuses on how the buyer thinks about the problem, which is almost never in terms of general skills and attributes. Of course, if all lawyers advertise themselves as generalists, then no one wins, but if only a few advertise as specialists, everyone else loses. It's simply the way the world works.
Posted by: Paul August 16, 2006 at 08:26 AM
I agree with Alonso. The same procedural issues dominate 90% of all litigation, whether it be family law, commercial, torts, environmental, etc. That a lawyer who "specializes" in something such as, say, adoptions, or dog bite cases, or "complex" contract disputes, is necessarily any more effective than a "generalist" litigator is a farce. The issues that appear in cases accross the board are disputes over the rules of procedure and evidence. A good lawyer, who deserves to get hired by a client, can learn any substantive area (except perhaps extremely complex areas such as tax) in 8 to 10 hours with legal encylopedias or online research.
A lawyer should market herself as a "specialist" in dispute resolution and navigating the government-imposed "law" of procedure to get to the desired end result. Whether it is a divorce, environmental permitting dispute, contract dispute, is irrelevant to a good lawyer.
Smart clients can figure that out. In other words, a good lawyer can be a "specialist" in 12 different layperson "practice areas," because we lawyers describe our practice areas as overly-fact-based, to allow communication with laypersons, even though the facts or "type" of case are less important as far as getting to the end result.
Posted by: anon August 10, 2006 at 09:59 AM
I am completely in agreement with you in the sense that the clients look for a lawyer who solves his specific problem. I consider that always it had thus to be, from the time of the origin of the lawyer profession; nevertheless, it is not necessary to forget that the lawyer is a professional in Law and must also know the other areas that concern the case which they put to its care. I think that the indispensable thing in a lawyer is its capacity of analysis and criterion, as well as a method and disciplines in application of the Law. In order to arrive at it, the lawyer to have to read to the classic ones, to study the reasoning applied to previous cases and to exert its capacity of imagination to find the specific utility for its client.
Posted by: Alonso Sarmiento August 10, 2006 at 09:45 AM
As I see it, a new book proves that the day of the full-service, general practice law firm is over. Clients don’t want generalists, whom they see as jacks-of-all-trades, masters-of-none. They want an expert in their particular problem. This is very good news for litigation boutiques, IP firms and specialty practice firms.
Clients want the needle in the haystack, the lawyer who knows how to solve their precise problem, and thanks to the Web, clients can find them. For lawyers this means:
It’s time to examine your client base and identify the industries in which the firm has experience (not the strong practice groups). Clients, even the GC, see themselves as a member of an industry, not a customer of a practice group. Industry experience is one of the first things clients look for on a law firm Web site. Many law firms make the mistake of “marketing their organization,” that is, using their internal administrative structure to shape their marketing and structure their Web sites. This is a mistake. On the other hand, firms that market themselves as industry experts are “organizing around the market,” and presenting themselves in the way clients buy.
It’s time to identify the firm’s high-margin, most-profitable practices and start blogs about them. The prime example is the blog of Dennis Crouch, of Counsel at McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff in Chicago. The blog, "Patently-O," gets 50,000 visitors per week. The blog has brought in Fortune 500 companies and referrals from lawyers he’s never met. He makes a point about writing about client interests, not about the services the firm has to offer.
The Long Tail illustrates why we no longer watch the 11 PM news and why we don’t use the Yellow Pages anymore. People can get all this information online, immediately and up-to-the-minute. Law firms that make themselves findable by pinpoint Web searchers will thrive.
Comments
Interesting that anon chose to hide their identity, because they are dead wrong and have completely missed the point of the Long Tail (assuming they read it). Marketing yourself as a specialist in dispute resolution is, in effect, saying that you are a lawyer, but it says nothing about your expertise, experience, personal interests, big cases you've won or negotiated for clients, etc.
At the end of the day, most of us want to know that the people we work with are multi-talented, but when we go looking to solve a problem, we look for someone who has solved the exact problem before. Since marketing is about describing how you solve customer problems, a narrowly focused problem domain that is described in the customer's words is much more likely to get you qualified leads and enthusiastic customers than saying "I'm a generalist."
For example, let's say I was just attacked by my neighbor's pit bull. Do you think I'm going to go online and type in 'dispute resolution' as a query? If yes, I question whether you have the intelligence to handle any case I need litigated. Much more likely that someone will search for 'pit bull lawsuit' or 'vicious dog attack'. If one lawyer has talked about the evidence that a plaintiff needs to be successful in such a case in their blog, and shows up in the search as a result, which lawyer do you think gets the case - the blogger or the dispute resolver? I'll guarantee you that the generalist doesn't even get noticed, let alone get the call.
Unfortunately for anon, their thinking is like 99% of the rest of the world. It is focused on self - it is a features-oriented approach to selling, and in a world of differentiation, it simply doesn't work. Customer-centric marketing focuses on how the buyer thinks about the problem, which is almost never in terms of general skills and attributes. Of course, if all lawyers advertise themselves as generalists, then no one wins, but if only a few advertise as specialists, everyone else loses. It's simply the way the world works.
Posted by: Paul August 16, 2006 at 08:26 AM
I agree with Alonso. The same procedural issues dominate 90% of all litigation, whether it be family law, commercial, torts, environmental, etc. That a lawyer who "specializes" in something such as, say, adoptions, or dog bite cases, or "complex" contract disputes, is necessarily any more effective than a "generalist" litigator is a farce. The issues that appear in cases accross the board are disputes over the rules of procedure and evidence. A good lawyer, who deserves to get hired by a client, can learn any substantive area (except perhaps extremely complex areas such as tax) in 8 to 10 hours with legal encylopedias or online research.
A lawyer should market herself as a "specialist" in dispute resolution and navigating the government-imposed "law" of procedure to get to the desired end result. Whether it is a divorce, environmental permitting dispute, contract dispute, is irrelevant to a good lawyer.
Smart clients can figure that out. In other words, a good lawyer can be a "specialist" in 12 different layperson "practice areas," because we lawyers describe our practice areas as overly-fact-based, to allow communication with laypersons, even though the facts or "type" of case are less important as far as getting to the end result.
Posted by: anon August 10, 2006 at 09:59 AM
I am completely in agreement with you in the sense that the clients look for a lawyer who solves his specific problem. I consider that always it had thus to be, from the time of the origin of the lawyer profession; nevertheless, it is not necessary to forget that the lawyer is a professional in Law and must also know the other areas that concern the case which they put to its care. I think that the indispensable thing in a lawyer is its capacity of analysis and criterion, as well as a method and disciplines in application of the Law. In order to arrive at it, the lawyer to have to read to the classic ones, to study the reasoning applied to previous cases and to exert its capacity of imagination to find the specific utility for its client.
Posted by: Alonso Sarmiento August 10, 2006 at 09:45 AM
Susskind: Are Lawyers Becoming Obsolete?
Law Practice
Posted Oct 23, 2007, 01:40 pm CDT By Martha Neil
A well-known lawyer and information technology expert is publishing a sequel to his decade-old book, The Future of Law, and the future he now foresees for many traditional attorneys isn't a bright one.
"Richard Susskind argues that that lawyers and the legal profession in their present shape face extinction—or at least are 'on the brink of fundamental transformation,' " reports the London Times.
Information technology and outsourcing of specific portions of what used to be a lawyer's job are eroding and will eventually eliminate the practice of law as we now know it, Susskind predicts. Thus clients, he contends, are increasingly unwilling to pay expensive lawyers for advice, research and drafting that “smart systems and processes” can do better.
But even though Susskind's new book, in draft form, is being published online by the London Times in six weekly excerpts (here is the first), it's not too late for those who disagree to have their say.
He is inviting online comments on his work so far, and intends to incorporate them in the final version of the book. It will be published next year by Oxford University Press, the newspaper reports.
“The challenge I lay down is for lawyers to ask themselves, with hands on hearts, what elements of their workload could be undertaken differently—more quickly, cheaply, efficiently or to a higher quality—using different methods of working,” says Susskind. In other words, as the Times puts it, "what are the core indispensable legal skills lawyers have and what can be replaced by less costly workers supported by technology or by lay people armed with online self-help tools?"
One Response to “The End of Lawyers?”
Alonso Sarmiento LLamosas Says: November 15th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Certainly some practices of the legal profession may be disappearing while technology is replacing mechanisms and procedures, but the spirit and rationale of the legal profession is more alive than ever and is constantly renewed and also dinamic and grows to apace. The complexity that has reached the modern society requires rely increasingly in specialists in the law and go to them with increasing frequency. Meanwhile, lawyers we can be grateful for the technology that provides us with a growing capacity an increasing ability to act, a wealth of information and networking with almost all parts of the world in real time. I doubt therefore that our profession is coming to an end. On the contrary, I think that we are reaching a point where our involvement is indispensable. Since ancient times, in all cultures, there has been a counselor, an advocate, a prosecutor and a judge. After thousands of years, these characters still exist in many forms and will continue continue to exist forever. (Sarmiento & Du-Pont Law Office in Perú)
Comments
Report Abuse
Posted by Ronald Burdge - 8 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 34 minutes ago
Lawyers could certainly learn a thing or two from more efficient business operations, as long as we bear in mind that we are first a profession and that makes our business model fundamentally different from Macy’s and McDonalds. But that probably won’t happen until big corporations (who are the ones paying the bulk of legal fees to the profession) realize that they shouldn’t pay so much for legal services (just looking at the huge percentage that have cut outside legal services and you see that may be starting to happen). As that happens more and more, lawyers will realize that they can’t keep increasing their billings forever (the profession hasn’t awoken to that one yet). Lawyers need to take a serious look at their business model and find a way of giving better quality service at lower cost or the consumers of that service will do it for them.
Posted by Tom DeCaro - 8 months, 4 weeks, 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
Perhaps we could standardize every transaction. This would go along way towards reducing or eliminating lawyers. While we are at it, we could standardize every human interaction. That would eliminate lawyers completely. For example a husband and wife, if they are involved in interaction 3.2 would be entitled to select transaction 5.3, 7.4 or 10 .7 to resolve their marital difficulties. Short of this, lawyers in some form or another are here to stay. The distinguished colleague who insists on writing everything out longhand and handing it over to someone else for typing and endless revision could completely change his thought process and his method of operation which has served him so well over the years because the noise machine insists on more efficiency. Bottom line, if lawyers are obsolete that means humanity is following a very close second into the obsolescence limbo.
Posted by anonymous - 8 months, 4 weeks, 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
Profession is being destroyed by the unmanageable spider web of unclear, voluminous and frequently contradictory rules of the courts and the court system. Since the courts are a monopoly, there is no incentive to make them customer-friendly. Immense inefficiency in the system makes every litigant and every client a victim and prisoner. I know many people who just surrender their rights to defend a claim or prosecute a claim due to the destruction of their freedom, their time and their wealth. Generally, only large corporations can afford to enforce their rights. A single case could sink an individual or small business. Solution - courts, law firms and legal service providers must allow free competition to do its job instead of hiding behind monopoly power. Start by eliminating restrictions on advertising. Completely destructive and unnecessary. Founded on sound principles but it merely acts to protect valuable information that potential clients can use to make buying decisions. When your competition is advertising prices based on value to the client, many may rethink their billable hour method of valuing their services. Invasive, burdensome, outrageously expensive discovery turns most cases into a nightmare for clients. Someone should analyze the cost-benefit here and determine whether billions of dollars translates to valued results for clients as a whole.
Posted by carter - 8 months, 4 weeks, 3 hours ago
Anonymous,
Good to hear from someone else who advocates liberty. To your comment I would add that the monopoly state bar associations and licensing requirements should be terminated.
Posted by Richard Barron - 8 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 44 minutes ago
In my opinion lawyers can quite often better utilize their analytical and advocacy skills for their clients in the context of mediation, a seemingly difficult paradigm shift for many attorneys. This reluctance is explained, in part, by the fact that while mediation normally reduces dispute resolution costs for the client, it normally reduces billable hours for legal counsel. It seems important, thus, to reflect upon the long term benefit to both the public and the profession of clients who see us as professionals who are able to resolve their disputes in a prompt, humane and economical manner. This, alas, is not the prevailing current view.
Posted by Mike Mills - 8 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 41 minutes ago
What is the practice of law?? Things lawyers used to do decades ago have been taken over by specialized (and probably more efficient entities, such as title insurance compoanies, tax preparers, insurance adjusters, paralegals, etc) So what is the practice of law? I submit that the trend of non-lawyers taking over the tasks that lawyers traditioally did secades ago will probably continue,. Does that make lawyers obsolete?? I submit that some of the things that lawyers do will become obsolete, and the “practive of law” will become more sharply defined.
Posted by Richard Morley Barron - 8 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
n my opinion lawyers can quite often better utilize their analytical and advocacy skills for their clients in the context of mediation, a seemingly difficult paradigm shift for many attorneys. This reluctance is explained, in part, by the fact that while mediation normally reduces dispute resolution costs for the client, it normally reduces billable hours for legal counsel. It seems important, thus, to reflect upon the long term benefit to both the public and the profession of clients who see us as professionals who are able to resolve their disputes in a prompt, humane and economical manner. This, alas, is not the prevailing current view.
Posted by Overworked Lawyer - 8 months, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
The legal system is designed to provide every protection to someone who could be put to death or someone trying to recover billions in damages. Then, when some client wants to fight tooth and nail “for the principle of it” there are way too many and too expensive tools with which to fight.
The solution is harsh but fair. Almost every dispute with less than 100k in assets should have a mandatory exchange of court ordered discovery, a 1 hour mediation, a 1 hour summary trial before a judge, and a discretionary only appeal. Lawyers would still fight, but the fight could only go 3 rounds.
However, the screaming and moaning over taking away the right to jury trial, the unfairness of it all, etc. will prevent it. For the party in a fight, its the most important thing in the world to them and they just won’t let it go easy. Look at the judge with the million dollar pants. Judge Judy should have taken care of that case in 5 minutes. As it is, everyone outside of the system wants tit cheaper and more efficient. The parties in the system (or at least one of them) just wants to win.
Posted by Page - 8 months, 4 weeks, 38 minutes ago
The suggestion that lawyers are becoming obsolete is ridiculous. For thousands of years, lawyers have been the keepers of the law, and advocates of people who need someone to speak for them, whether in court, negotiations, contracts, or otherwise. While the laws change, technology changes, and the tools we have to work with change, but the basic premise of the practice of law remains the same… People in difficult situations will always want the sage advice of a counselor that they trust, and value the ability of that counselor to help them put their case in the best light possible.
Posted by Jim - 8 months, 4 weeks, 31 minutes ago
Having seen a number of “do-it-yourself” legal documents that lay people have used without any understanding of the content or meaning being conveyed by the document, I am quite certain that the demand for lawyers will remain strong, either to do the job right from the beginning or to sort out the mess created by “do-it-yourselfers.”
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 8 months, 4 weeks, 4 minutes ago
If Mr. Susskind wants to prove the courage of his convictions, he should pledge that the next time he’s indicted or sued, he will hire a layman with a computer and Internet access to defend him.
Posted by new york 2L - 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 58 minutes ago
I guess the same can be said of most professions - do we really need general internists as doctors - can’t we just go to the myriad medical websites and put in symptoms to get a diagnosis. Yet the doctors are still around.
Posted by Tax Esq - 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 22 minutes ago
Kudos, Tom Decaro, for your insightful post. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Posted by Pete - 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 15 minutes ago
As a dirt lawyer, I don’t see how I’m going to be replaced. A title company will never opine on the effect of encumbrances upon the title. As commercial lenders become more sophisticated, as commercial loan documents become longer, who is going to understand them other than an experienced dirt lawyer.
Posted by Martin Perlberger - 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 50 minutes ago
It is good lawyers who will never become obsolete as long as the society is free and open. The others have been obsolete for centuries.
Posted by Irwin ironstone - 8 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 19 hours, 21 minutes ago
Law has already changed. However, it will continue to change and hopefully, allow middle class individuals to afford legal services. One step in that direction is online law schools. these, eventually, will be allowed and reduce the debt associated with going to law school full time. Many other technical innovations will also reduce costs. video conferencing will help to eliminate travel time and the associated costs when arguing motions. The issue of UPL cannot be applied to internet practice when there is limited jurisdiction. the result will be that lawyers in ohter countries will be used to draft papers at far less than American lawyers currently charge. We speak of a civil Gideon, and justice in this country - but in reality both are lacking.
Posted by sounder rajan - 8 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 34 minutes ago
Liigation lawyers can never become extinct.As long as advocacy skills and court craf are there it gives the winning edge. In a free Society the Profession has to stay despite -Out Sorucing” which can only be back office maneouveres.
Posted Oct 23, 2007, 01:40 pm CDT By Martha Neil
A well-known lawyer and information technology expert is publishing a sequel to his decade-old book, The Future of Law, and the future he now foresees for many traditional attorneys isn't a bright one.
"Richard Susskind argues that that lawyers and the legal profession in their present shape face extinction—or at least are 'on the brink of fundamental transformation,' " reports the London Times.
Information technology and outsourcing of specific portions of what used to be a lawyer's job are eroding and will eventually eliminate the practice of law as we now know it, Susskind predicts. Thus clients, he contends, are increasingly unwilling to pay expensive lawyers for advice, research and drafting that “smart systems and processes” can do better.
But even though Susskind's new book, in draft form, is being published online by the London Times in six weekly excerpts (here is the first), it's not too late for those who disagree to have their say.
He is inviting online comments on his work so far, and intends to incorporate them in the final version of the book. It will be published next year by Oxford University Press, the newspaper reports.
“The challenge I lay down is for lawyers to ask themselves, with hands on hearts, what elements of their workload could be undertaken differently—more quickly, cheaply, efficiently or to a higher quality—using different methods of working,” says Susskind. In other words, as the Times puts it, "what are the core indispensable legal skills lawyers have and what can be replaced by less costly workers supported by technology or by lay people armed with online self-help tools?"
One Response to “The End of Lawyers?”
Alonso Sarmiento LLamosas Says: November 15th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Certainly some practices of the legal profession may be disappearing while technology is replacing mechanisms and procedures, but the spirit and rationale of the legal profession is more alive than ever and is constantly renewed and also dinamic and grows to apace. The complexity that has reached the modern society requires rely increasingly in specialists in the law and go to them with increasing frequency. Meanwhile, lawyers we can be grateful for the technology that provides us with a growing capacity an increasing ability to act, a wealth of information and networking with almost all parts of the world in real time. I doubt therefore that our profession is coming to an end. On the contrary, I think that we are reaching a point where our involvement is indispensable. Since ancient times, in all cultures, there has been a counselor, an advocate, a prosecutor and a judge. After thousands of years, these characters still exist in many forms and will continue continue to exist forever. (Sarmiento & Du-Pont Law Office in Perú)
Comments
Report Abuse
Posted by Ronald Burdge - 8 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 34 minutes ago
Lawyers could certainly learn a thing or two from more efficient business operations, as long as we bear in mind that we are first a profession and that makes our business model fundamentally different from Macy’s and McDonalds. But that probably won’t happen until big corporations (who are the ones paying the bulk of legal fees to the profession) realize that they shouldn’t pay so much for legal services (just looking at the huge percentage that have cut outside legal services and you see that may be starting to happen). As that happens more and more, lawyers will realize that they can’t keep increasing their billings forever (the profession hasn’t awoken to that one yet). Lawyers need to take a serious look at their business model and find a way of giving better quality service at lower cost or the consumers of that service will do it for them.
Posted by Tom DeCaro - 8 months, 4 weeks, 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
Perhaps we could standardize every transaction. This would go along way towards reducing or eliminating lawyers. While we are at it, we could standardize every human interaction. That would eliminate lawyers completely. For example a husband and wife, if they are involved in interaction 3.2 would be entitled to select transaction 5.3, 7.4 or 10 .7 to resolve their marital difficulties. Short of this, lawyers in some form or another are here to stay. The distinguished colleague who insists on writing everything out longhand and handing it over to someone else for typing and endless revision could completely change his thought process and his method of operation which has served him so well over the years because the noise machine insists on more efficiency. Bottom line, if lawyers are obsolete that means humanity is following a very close second into the obsolescence limbo.
Posted by anonymous - 8 months, 4 weeks, 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
Profession is being destroyed by the unmanageable spider web of unclear, voluminous and frequently contradictory rules of the courts and the court system. Since the courts are a monopoly, there is no incentive to make them customer-friendly. Immense inefficiency in the system makes every litigant and every client a victim and prisoner. I know many people who just surrender their rights to defend a claim or prosecute a claim due to the destruction of their freedom, their time and their wealth. Generally, only large corporations can afford to enforce their rights. A single case could sink an individual or small business. Solution - courts, law firms and legal service providers must allow free competition to do its job instead of hiding behind monopoly power. Start by eliminating restrictions on advertising. Completely destructive and unnecessary. Founded on sound principles but it merely acts to protect valuable information that potential clients can use to make buying decisions. When your competition is advertising prices based on value to the client, many may rethink their billable hour method of valuing their services. Invasive, burdensome, outrageously expensive discovery turns most cases into a nightmare for clients. Someone should analyze the cost-benefit here and determine whether billions of dollars translates to valued results for clients as a whole.
Posted by carter - 8 months, 4 weeks, 3 hours ago
Anonymous,
Good to hear from someone else who advocates liberty. To your comment I would add that the monopoly state bar associations and licensing requirements should be terminated.
Posted by Richard Barron - 8 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 44 minutes ago
In my opinion lawyers can quite often better utilize their analytical and advocacy skills for their clients in the context of mediation, a seemingly difficult paradigm shift for many attorneys. This reluctance is explained, in part, by the fact that while mediation normally reduces dispute resolution costs for the client, it normally reduces billable hours for legal counsel. It seems important, thus, to reflect upon the long term benefit to both the public and the profession of clients who see us as professionals who are able to resolve their disputes in a prompt, humane and economical manner. This, alas, is not the prevailing current view.
Posted by Mike Mills - 8 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 41 minutes ago
What is the practice of law?? Things lawyers used to do decades ago have been taken over by specialized (and probably more efficient entities, such as title insurance compoanies, tax preparers, insurance adjusters, paralegals, etc) So what is the practice of law? I submit that the trend of non-lawyers taking over the tasks that lawyers traditioally did secades ago will probably continue,. Does that make lawyers obsolete?? I submit that some of the things that lawyers do will become obsolete, and the “practive of law” will become more sharply defined.
Posted by Richard Morley Barron - 8 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
n my opinion lawyers can quite often better utilize their analytical and advocacy skills for their clients in the context of mediation, a seemingly difficult paradigm shift for many attorneys. This reluctance is explained, in part, by the fact that while mediation normally reduces dispute resolution costs for the client, it normally reduces billable hours for legal counsel. It seems important, thus, to reflect upon the long term benefit to both the public and the profession of clients who see us as professionals who are able to resolve their disputes in a prompt, humane and economical manner. This, alas, is not the prevailing current view.
Posted by Overworked Lawyer - 8 months, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
The legal system is designed to provide every protection to someone who could be put to death or someone trying to recover billions in damages. Then, when some client wants to fight tooth and nail “for the principle of it” there are way too many and too expensive tools with which to fight.
The solution is harsh but fair. Almost every dispute with less than 100k in assets should have a mandatory exchange of court ordered discovery, a 1 hour mediation, a 1 hour summary trial before a judge, and a discretionary only appeal. Lawyers would still fight, but the fight could only go 3 rounds.
However, the screaming and moaning over taking away the right to jury trial, the unfairness of it all, etc. will prevent it. For the party in a fight, its the most important thing in the world to them and they just won’t let it go easy. Look at the judge with the million dollar pants. Judge Judy should have taken care of that case in 5 minutes. As it is, everyone outside of the system wants tit cheaper and more efficient. The parties in the system (or at least one of them) just wants to win.
Posted by Page - 8 months, 4 weeks, 38 minutes ago
The suggestion that lawyers are becoming obsolete is ridiculous. For thousands of years, lawyers have been the keepers of the law, and advocates of people who need someone to speak for them, whether in court, negotiations, contracts, or otherwise. While the laws change, technology changes, and the tools we have to work with change, but the basic premise of the practice of law remains the same… People in difficult situations will always want the sage advice of a counselor that they trust, and value the ability of that counselor to help them put their case in the best light possible.
Posted by Jim - 8 months, 4 weeks, 31 minutes ago
Having seen a number of “do-it-yourself” legal documents that lay people have used without any understanding of the content or meaning being conveyed by the document, I am quite certain that the demand for lawyers will remain strong, either to do the job right from the beginning or to sort out the mess created by “do-it-yourselfers.”
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 8 months, 4 weeks, 4 minutes ago
If Mr. Susskind wants to prove the courage of his convictions, he should pledge that the next time he’s indicted or sued, he will hire a layman with a computer and Internet access to defend him.
Posted by new york 2L - 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 58 minutes ago
I guess the same can be said of most professions - do we really need general internists as doctors - can’t we just go to the myriad medical websites and put in symptoms to get a diagnosis. Yet the doctors are still around.
Posted by Tax Esq - 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 22 minutes ago
Kudos, Tom Decaro, for your insightful post. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Posted by Pete - 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 15 minutes ago
As a dirt lawyer, I don’t see how I’m going to be replaced. A title company will never opine on the effect of encumbrances upon the title. As commercial lenders become more sophisticated, as commercial loan documents become longer, who is going to understand them other than an experienced dirt lawyer.
Posted by Martin Perlberger - 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 50 minutes ago
It is good lawyers who will never become obsolete as long as the society is free and open. The others have been obsolete for centuries.
Posted by Irwin ironstone - 8 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 19 hours, 21 minutes ago
Law has already changed. However, it will continue to change and hopefully, allow middle class individuals to afford legal services. One step in that direction is online law schools. these, eventually, will be allowed and reduce the debt associated with going to law school full time. Many other technical innovations will also reduce costs. video conferencing will help to eliminate travel time and the associated costs when arguing motions. The issue of UPL cannot be applied to internet practice when there is limited jurisdiction. the result will be that lawyers in ohter countries will be used to draft papers at far less than American lawyers currently charge. We speak of a civil Gideon, and justice in this country - but in reality both are lacking.
Posted by sounder rajan - 8 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 34 minutes ago
Liigation lawyers can never become extinct.As long as advocacy skills and court craf are there it gives the winning edge. In a free Society the Profession has to stay despite -Out Sorucing” which can only be back office maneouveres.
Core competence: 6 new skills now required of lawyers
Up till now, the necessary and sufficient skill set for lawyers has looked something like this (in alphabetical order):
Analytical ability
Attention to detail
Logical reasoning
Persuasiveness
Sound judgment
Writing ability (okay, that one’s apparently optional for some)
This list doesn’t include such characteristics as knowledge of the law, courtroom presence, or integrity — these aren’t “skills,” per se, so much as information one acquires or basic elements of one’s character. Even innovation, which I prize so highly, is first and foremost an attitude and willingness to think and act differently.
Rather, I’m concerned here with actual skill: a ready proficiency or applied ability acquired and developed through training and experience. Your degree of character, diligence and intelligence are innate characteristics; skills are what you acquire through their application. If you possessed these six skills in sufficient abundance, you were fully qualified to practise law.
Well, not anymore. From this point onwards, while these skills remain necessary, they’re no longer sufficient: they constitute only half of the set necessary to practise law competently, effectively and competitively. Here’s the new six-pack, the other half of tomorrow’s — no, today’s — minimum skills kit for lawyers (again in alphabetical order).
1. Collaboration skills. This isn’t just about “working well in a team,” essential as that is. This is about the ability to function in a multi-party work environment such that the process and outcome transcend the collective contribution — the whole surpasses the sum of the parts. Thanks to technological and social advances, this is how work is going to be done from now on. Lawyers who collaborate well possess the ability to identify and bring out the best others have to offer, to submerge their own positions and egos where necessary, in order to reach the optimal client outcome. Collaborative lawyers trust the wisdom of the group; lone wolves and isolationists don’t do any good anymore.
2. Emotional intelligence. If you just rolled your eyes at this entry, you probably subscribe to the belief, drilled into us in law school and in practice, that lawyers have to detach themselves emotionally from their cases and clients in order to offer the best advice. That’s idiotic. Clients need our empathy, perspective and personal connection to feel whole and satisfied; colleagues need our engagement, respect and understanding to be their best and help us succeed; everyone needs us to listen better than we do. Distant, detached lawyers are relics of the 20th century — the market no longer wants a lawyer who’s only half a person.
3. Financial literacy. This is a widespread issue, recently identified by The Economist as a factor in the subprime meltdown and other economic woes. But there’s no excuse for lawyers to remain so steadfastly clueless about money: running a business, balancing a ledger, understanding tax principles, working with statistics, calculating profit margins, even explaining the rationale behind their fees. Too many lawyers with Arts degrees just shrug and say, “I was never good with numbers” or “They never taught me that in law school.” Not good enough: every client and every case involves money in some way, and every lawyer in private practice is running a business of one size or another. Financial literacy is essential.
4. Project management. It’s a growing refrain among clients, a chorus of frustration that most lawyers have zero skills in project management. Some lawyers wouldn’t even be able to define it: planning, organizing, and managing resources to successfully complete specific objectives while maintaining scope, quality, time and budget restrictions. Lawyers seem pathologically unwilling to estimate time or budget costs (invoking the almighty “it depends” clause) and incapable of creating and managing a plan of action, presumably for fear of failing or being caught shorthanded. But today, everybody project-manages: it’s SOP in corporate life, and lawyers are the only ones in the business chain who seem to have missed the memo.
5. Technological affinity. Gerry Riskin recently called out the legal profession in a timely post on this subject: “too many lawyers pride themselves on their IT incompetencies, believing that it makes them somehow charming and brilliant.” Lawyers have grown accustomed to going unchallenged on their technological backwardness, and even tech-savvy new lawyers eventually succumb to firms’ glacial pace of tech adaptation. Here is a fact: technological affinity is a core competence of lawyering. If you can’t effectively and efficiently use e-mail, the Internet, and mobile telephony, you might as well just stay home. And if you don’t care to learn about RSS, instant messaging, Adobe Acrobat and the like, clients and colleagues will pass you by.
6. Time management. Virtually every lawyer I meet says the same things: “I’m just so busy. I have so much to do. I don’t have any time for myself.” And yes, law is demanding, hard work. But a substantial part of lawyers’ difficulties in this regard lie with their inability to prioritize their tasks and manage their time. Lawyers are terrible at saying “no,” they’re awful at delegating work into more efficient channels, and amazingly, many are still compensated not by the tasks they accomplish but by how long they take to do them. Lawyers who won’t or can’t learn to manage their time will continue to blame their Blackberrys for their difficulties, if they don’t burn out or get fired first.
So there you have it: six core skills that lawyers simply must possess if they want to make a living in the 21st century. Law schools need to teach them; governing bodies need to test for them; law firms need to make their lawyers expert in them. They’re not optional, there are no excused absences, and the test is starting right about now.
10 Comments »
[...] with Penelope Trunk’s views on BlackBerries, found through another excellent post on Law 21, Core competence: 6 new skills now required of lawyers, but her post Stop blaming your Blackberry for your lack of self-discipline is still worth reading, [...]
Pingback by Priority fruit « Lawslot July 4, 2008
Lawyers need all the skills of any good business person.Don’t lawyers know that they are running a business? If not they should learn real quick.
And don’t forget “customer service”.
Steve Coleman
Comment by Steve Coleman July 4, 2008
Dear Sir.Being a lawyer is an honor, responsibility and a livelihood. In that order. Not Reverse Sort. These has been for centuries. The technology, glamour, the paraphernalia do not do best lawyers, only lawyers better marketed; but not always the result is a satisfied customer.The job of an attorney is to achieve the best RESULT for his client within the justice and law. In that order. the other can be made call lawyers but uniquely they are operators of the law.That does not clear that the lawyer always must be a man of his time and to make use of the technology as a work element (as in its time the mail or the telegraph were used); but not like a requirement to exert the right and justice.
Comment by Alonso Sarmiento July 5, 2008
[...] Furlong, “Core competence: 6 new skills now require of lawyers.” This has nothing to do with information and privacy, but I think it’s quite smart. [...]
Pingback by Information Roundup - 6 July 2008 « All About Information July 6, 2008
[...] required courses in typical law school curriculum, but I totally agree with Jordan Furlong’s post on Law 21 detailing the 6 skills lawyers should have [...]
Pingback by Do the Teach This in Law School? « Halo July 6, 2008
As a practicing lawyer who moved into the business and IT world, I would have to applaud Jordan for calling attention to the fact that it is time for the legal profession to catch up with the rest of industry.
For me being a lawyer isn’t simply an honour. It’s a client service industry. In order to compete, you have to adapt.
To set the legal profession apart as being immune to the changes that are happening in all other sectors including health care, business and IT, is folly.
To wrap yourself in arcane principles that were created to mystify and intimidate is also folly and it will leave you in the dust bin of history.
Comment by S. Rosalind Baker July 7, 2008
[...] — callkm @ 9:14 pm Law 21’s Jordan Furlong has a great post this morning, “Core competence: 6 new skills now required of lawyers“. In it, Mr. Furlong points out that the traditional analytical and communications skills are [...]
Pingback by Re-skilling the modern lawyer : a challenge for librarians « KM Librarians July 7, 2008
Well put again. There’s not a whole lot I can say, other than I agree wholeheartedly. I think this is particularly important for solos and smaller firms, where it’s more difficult to justify arcane practices by reliance on “pedigree.” I’m aiming to provide (or facilitate) guidance on these issues with NextLex.
Comment by J Goodwin July 8, 2008
I would add marketing skills (as for any business) and knowledge management awareness. Beyond a certain point in your career, general management skills are required (in particular people development, coaching, etc.)
Gastón BilderInternational Legal Counsel, Community Relationships
Visit http://www.derechoyrse.blogspot.comJoin http://groups.google.com/group/dcorporativo
Comment by Gaston Bilder July 9, 2008
[...] great post for lawyers to read is up over at Law21 (first saw the post on Legal OnRamp). The post, “Core competence: 6 new skills now required of lawyers” highlights a new six-pack of skills today’s lawyers need to have to be successful and [...]
Pingback by Thinking Outside of the Box While Literally Thinking About the Box July 10, 2008
Analytical ability
Attention to detail
Logical reasoning
Persuasiveness
Sound judgment
Writing ability (okay, that one’s apparently optional for some)
This list doesn’t include such characteristics as knowledge of the law, courtroom presence, or integrity — these aren’t “skills,” per se, so much as information one acquires or basic elements of one’s character. Even innovation, which I prize so highly, is first and foremost an attitude and willingness to think and act differently.
Rather, I’m concerned here with actual skill: a ready proficiency or applied ability acquired and developed through training and experience. Your degree of character, diligence and intelligence are innate characteristics; skills are what you acquire through their application. If you possessed these six skills in sufficient abundance, you were fully qualified to practise law.
Well, not anymore. From this point onwards, while these skills remain necessary, they’re no longer sufficient: they constitute only half of the set necessary to practise law competently, effectively and competitively. Here’s the new six-pack, the other half of tomorrow’s — no, today’s — minimum skills kit for lawyers (again in alphabetical order).
1. Collaboration skills. This isn’t just about “working well in a team,” essential as that is. This is about the ability to function in a multi-party work environment such that the process and outcome transcend the collective contribution — the whole surpasses the sum of the parts. Thanks to technological and social advances, this is how work is going to be done from now on. Lawyers who collaborate well possess the ability to identify and bring out the best others have to offer, to submerge their own positions and egos where necessary, in order to reach the optimal client outcome. Collaborative lawyers trust the wisdom of the group; lone wolves and isolationists don’t do any good anymore.
2. Emotional intelligence. If you just rolled your eyes at this entry, you probably subscribe to the belief, drilled into us in law school and in practice, that lawyers have to detach themselves emotionally from their cases and clients in order to offer the best advice. That’s idiotic. Clients need our empathy, perspective and personal connection to feel whole and satisfied; colleagues need our engagement, respect and understanding to be their best and help us succeed; everyone needs us to listen better than we do. Distant, detached lawyers are relics of the 20th century — the market no longer wants a lawyer who’s only half a person.
3. Financial literacy. This is a widespread issue, recently identified by The Economist as a factor in the subprime meltdown and other economic woes. But there’s no excuse for lawyers to remain so steadfastly clueless about money: running a business, balancing a ledger, understanding tax principles, working with statistics, calculating profit margins, even explaining the rationale behind their fees. Too many lawyers with Arts degrees just shrug and say, “I was never good with numbers” or “They never taught me that in law school.” Not good enough: every client and every case involves money in some way, and every lawyer in private practice is running a business of one size or another. Financial literacy is essential.
4. Project management. It’s a growing refrain among clients, a chorus of frustration that most lawyers have zero skills in project management. Some lawyers wouldn’t even be able to define it: planning, organizing, and managing resources to successfully complete specific objectives while maintaining scope, quality, time and budget restrictions. Lawyers seem pathologically unwilling to estimate time or budget costs (invoking the almighty “it depends” clause) and incapable of creating and managing a plan of action, presumably for fear of failing or being caught shorthanded. But today, everybody project-manages: it’s SOP in corporate life, and lawyers are the only ones in the business chain who seem to have missed the memo.
5. Technological affinity. Gerry Riskin recently called out the legal profession in a timely post on this subject: “too many lawyers pride themselves on their IT incompetencies, believing that it makes them somehow charming and brilliant.” Lawyers have grown accustomed to going unchallenged on their technological backwardness, and even tech-savvy new lawyers eventually succumb to firms’ glacial pace of tech adaptation. Here is a fact: technological affinity is a core competence of lawyering. If you can’t effectively and efficiently use e-mail, the Internet, and mobile telephony, you might as well just stay home. And if you don’t care to learn about RSS, instant messaging, Adobe Acrobat and the like, clients and colleagues will pass you by.
6. Time management. Virtually every lawyer I meet says the same things: “I’m just so busy. I have so much to do. I don’t have any time for myself.” And yes, law is demanding, hard work. But a substantial part of lawyers’ difficulties in this regard lie with their inability to prioritize their tasks and manage their time. Lawyers are terrible at saying “no,” they’re awful at delegating work into more efficient channels, and amazingly, many are still compensated not by the tasks they accomplish but by how long they take to do them. Lawyers who won’t or can’t learn to manage their time will continue to blame their Blackberrys for their difficulties, if they don’t burn out or get fired first.
So there you have it: six core skills that lawyers simply must possess if they want to make a living in the 21st century. Law schools need to teach them; governing bodies need to test for them; law firms need to make their lawyers expert in them. They’re not optional, there are no excused absences, and the test is starting right about now.
10 Comments »
[...] with Penelope Trunk’s views on BlackBerries, found through another excellent post on Law 21, Core competence: 6 new skills now required of lawyers, but her post Stop blaming your Blackberry for your lack of self-discipline is still worth reading, [...]
Pingback by Priority fruit « Lawslot July 4, 2008
Lawyers need all the skills of any good business person.Don’t lawyers know that they are running a business? If not they should learn real quick.
And don’t forget “customer service”.
Steve Coleman
Comment by Steve Coleman July 4, 2008
Dear Sir.Being a lawyer is an honor, responsibility and a livelihood. In that order. Not Reverse Sort. These has been for centuries. The technology, glamour, the paraphernalia do not do best lawyers, only lawyers better marketed; but not always the result is a satisfied customer.The job of an attorney is to achieve the best RESULT for his client within the justice and law. In that order. the other can be made call lawyers but uniquely they are operators of the law.That does not clear that the lawyer always must be a man of his time and to make use of the technology as a work element (as in its time the mail or the telegraph were used); but not like a requirement to exert the right and justice.
Comment by Alonso Sarmiento July 5, 2008
[...] Furlong, “Core competence: 6 new skills now require of lawyers.” This has nothing to do with information and privacy, but I think it’s quite smart. [...]
Pingback by Information Roundup - 6 July 2008 « All About Information July 6, 2008
[...] required courses in typical law school curriculum, but I totally agree with Jordan Furlong’s post on Law 21 detailing the 6 skills lawyers should have [...]
Pingback by Do the Teach This in Law School? « Halo July 6, 2008
As a practicing lawyer who moved into the business and IT world, I would have to applaud Jordan for calling attention to the fact that it is time for the legal profession to catch up with the rest of industry.
For me being a lawyer isn’t simply an honour. It’s a client service industry. In order to compete, you have to adapt.
To set the legal profession apart as being immune to the changes that are happening in all other sectors including health care, business and IT, is folly.
To wrap yourself in arcane principles that were created to mystify and intimidate is also folly and it will leave you in the dust bin of history.
Comment by S. Rosalind Baker July 7, 2008
[...] — callkm @ 9:14 pm Law 21’s Jordan Furlong has a great post this morning, “Core competence: 6 new skills now required of lawyers“. In it, Mr. Furlong points out that the traditional analytical and communications skills are [...]
Pingback by Re-skilling the modern lawyer : a challenge for librarians « KM Librarians July 7, 2008
Well put again. There’s not a whole lot I can say, other than I agree wholeheartedly. I think this is particularly important for solos and smaller firms, where it’s more difficult to justify arcane practices by reliance on “pedigree.” I’m aiming to provide (or facilitate) guidance on these issues with NextLex.
Comment by J Goodwin July 8, 2008
I would add marketing skills (as for any business) and knowledge management awareness. Beyond a certain point in your career, general management skills are required (in particular people development, coaching, etc.)
Gastón BilderInternational Legal Counsel, Community Relationships
Visit http://www.derechoyrse.blogspot.comJoin http://groups.google.com/group/dcorporativo
Comment by Gaston Bilder July 9, 2008
[...] great post for lawyers to read is up over at Law21 (first saw the post on Legal OnRamp). The post, “Core competence: 6 new skills now required of lawyers” highlights a new six-pack of skills today’s lawyers need to have to be successful and [...]
Pingback by Thinking Outside of the Box While Literally Thinking About the Box July 10, 2008
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
Entradas
