The New World of Legal Work vs Global Behemoths

There’s an interesting tension between Sir Nigel Knowles prediction of legal behemoths straddling the globe with investment bankers outriders (or is it the other way round) whilst the remainder squabble over the scraps, downsize or fail (I may have sexed it up a bit, which it does not need; it’s a very interesting piece) and Jordan Furlong’s New World of Legal Work (a supercharged, short Susskind-esque parlez with the world of legal work in 2020 where firms are expected to be smaller).  It too is an excellent read.

Let me pick up some of Jordan’s key points:

Agile workers  …will have to organise and promote themselves in new ways, forming talent and project agencies to advance their interests (much as certified unions protected their salaried predecessors) and constantly renewing and sharpening their own skills and know-how in order to remain competitive in a crowded talent market.

…Firms will be increasingly de-centralised, distributed and diffuse entities that assign tasks not to the highest available biller in the office, but to the most appropriate and best aligned performer, regardless of location. The creation and review of documents, the application of principles to solve a problem, the completion of an approval process, the execution of commercial procedures — all of these can be performed outside law offices, outside the legal profession, or even outside the human realm. With the relentless advance of Big Data, these trends will accelerate.

…In future, firms will abandon this primitive ‘input’ [hours billed] measure in favour of more sophisticated and external-facing ‘output’ measures that revolve around value provided to the client. This will trigger an enormous change in law firm culture, especially with regard to work habits: lawyers will be encouraged to pursue quality of outcome rather than quantity of time, which will further accelerate the trend towards flexible workers providing specialised value from the most effective locations.

I think it is the last point that is most important.  Or rather, what will persuade clients that they will get most value?  Can the behemoth’s innovate?  Can the light on their feet innovators capture sufficient reputation and knowledge to outgun the Big Guns?  I’ve really no idea, save to observe that the investment and networking needs of “lawyer-knowledge curators, lawyer-analysts, lawyer-technologists, lawyer-educators, serving either fellow lawyers, clients, or the general public” (which is a key category of new job types in Furlong’s world of new work) may better be served in big firms or very well resourced and well functioning networks.  A lot will depend on who has access to the data/knowledge on which such  curator/analyst/creative types will have to feed.  Firms will have the data and they will suck in those that they want.  Quite a few big firm’s can fail and a few grow and we have BigBigLaw and a similar or smaller pool of outsiders in commercial work.

So, I’m leaning towards fewer, bigger firms.  Less pyramid-like perhaps.  At least, I am leaning that way for the next ten minutes.  But not necessarily law firms.

3 thoughts on “The New World of Legal Work vs Global Behemoths

  1. “lawyers will be encouraged to pursue quality of outcome rather than quantity of time, which will further accelerate the trend towards flexible workers providing specialised value from the most effective locations.”

    The paramount importance of hours billed over the quality of the outcome obtained was one of the major reasons I didn’t flourish in private practice! A client will be happiest if told (by a diligent and competent lawyer) that something doesn’t need to be done or can be done quickly and simply, but if your own business model relies on you doing a lot of work, that happy client doesn’t translate into fees unless your firm is willing to wait until the client is ready to trust you to do something which is unavoidably time-consuming.

    That used to be an investment firms could make because clients were loyal, but when clients have a lot of firms to choose from for the big work and will routinely tender for it, that investment is much harder to recoup. If a firm can do both and be genuinely unworried about the small work being small, indeed to encourage it to be kept as small and as near to free as possible it will be able to flourish in the future. I’m not holding my breath for a large partnership to move to having no billable hour targets for fee earners and measuring only team/firm revenues.

    (PS you’ve got a LOT of apostrophes today…)

    1. I agree with you and the sentiment of what you are saying. Clients are interested in quality of outcome in the widest sense – by which I mean the commercial outcome and not just the part the “tool” that law plays in achieving the desired result. Remember, also, that clients measure success in financial terms – everything has a price or value whether that’s admitted or not. Since if it doesn’t how does a board assess risk/reward or ROI.

      I believe that the models and structures adopted by most law firms are broken. They don’t suit lawyers and worse still they don’t suit clients. The problem in my view is that tinkering with a broken model to make it more suitable is like fiddling while Rome burns. A fundamental re-think is needed and of course that means turning supertankers – always a tough job.

      You may have too many apostrophes but I am suffering from too many metaphors!

  2. Pingback: Me again - Law21

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s