Most of the current thinking about the future of law firms (and other legal activities) turns on the use of technology. Richard Susskind has been in the vanguard, and the accuracy of his predictions has drawn law firms and technology suppliers alike to the same conclusions — improvements in the practice of law and client service in the future will depend heavily on technology.
I agree. Any firm that isn’t making technology investments is drastically reducing its chances of survival.
But that only means that enhancing legal practice with technology has become the norm — table stakes. Clients and potential recruits will increasingly shun those firms without effective technology. (And by ‘technology’ I mean not just IT systems, but also the improved practices and processes that come from a more structured approach to legal practice. Technology is as much a mindset as it is a collection of algorithms and data.)
If technology investment is unavoidable, everyone will end up in the same place once the fuss has died down. Apart from minor adjustments in position between firms (differences in the rate of adoption, for example), the rising tide of technology will lift everyone to practically the same degree. The tools, systems and attitudes of technology have to be imported into traditional law firms, therefore they are available to everyone without preference. (The status of technology within the firm is a relevant issue here, but I want to leave that for another time.) If one firm sees something that another firm has, in many cases it is not difficult to acquire it.
That situation is great for suppliers (especially those, like HighQ, that have a product which becomes the default tool for a particular purpose) and for clients (who can start to rely on firms to improve their service through the use of technology), but it may be a problem for firms. If everything you can have is also available to everyone else, how can you stand out from the crowd?
A few firms will have the first-mover advantage, but this is probably minimal (given the stickiness of clients) and brief (given that few developments are truly bespoke).
In order to find something that truly differentiates them, firms need to ignore the commonplace of technology. By assuming that there is no technology solution, they become freer to consider possibilities that might be truly novel and useful to clients.
It is commonly suggested that there is no real difference between firms. It may appear that way from the outside, but every firm is unique. It has a unique collection of individuals within it. It has a unique collection of clients (each of whom is also unique). It has a unique history, and a unique place in the present. But very few firms make good use of their uniqueness (which is why they appear so similar to observers).
Every firm has the capability to stand out by making good use of the knowledge that is uniquely contained within it.
Everyone in the firm has a partial and unique insight into:
- The firm itself;
- The people within the firm;
- Their relationships with each other, and outwith the firm;
- The firm’s market;
- Clients and their behaviour;
- Clients’ markets;
- Working practices (in all sorts of businesses);
- The law;
- Technology and other pervasive changes in the world;
- And so on…
Gathering these insights from across the firm can only help the leadership team see new possibilities for action that is uniquely fitted to the firm.
This has to be done carefully. Some popular methods (such as brainstorming, amongst others) may be less effective than they appear to be because of factors such as:
- Entrained thinking
- The curse of knowledge
- Premature convergence (thinking stops because a solution appears to have arisen)
- Retrospective coherence (the assumption that cause and effect are predictable because they may be seen looking back)
- Inattentional bias (expertise and a narrow focus might blind people to obvious anomalies)
By using techniques to foster openness, dissent and diversity, coupled with simple constraints and support for emergent ideas, firms can start to make sense of their unique position in the world and then act accordingly.
If your firm is interested in finding its own way, or at least in knowing more about what might be possible, you know the drill: get in touch.
1 thought on “What if technology isn’t the answer?”
[…] couple of weeks ago, I challenged firms to think about what might be possible without resorting to technology. That post was based on an […]