Legal Enterprise 2.0?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 1:21PM I went along to my first meeting of the Liverpool Knowledge Cafe yesterday evening for a discussion about Enterprise 2.0.
It was really interesting to hear some views on this from outside the legal sector (and also to share my thoughts on what can be loosely termed "Legal 2.0").
I came away with a few interesting insights which I thought I would share.
Firstly, even firms who are thinking about how Enterprise 2.0 will affect legal practice may be taking quite a conservative view. Even some of the more left-field ideas which are being explored in other sectors could apply to lawyers.
For example, would in-house counsel take advantage of semantically aware cloud-based software which can analyse a project document and allocate the work to an adhoc "project team" of relevant freelance legal experts across the world? Could crowdsourcing due diligence or research be a possibility?
Secondly, should there be a distinction between Legal Enterprise 2.0 (the use of Web 2.0 in legal practice) and Law 2.0? There are resources like the Free Legal Web which I would include within Law 2.0, but could this extend to how laws are made? Will we see the House of Commons using a wiki to collaboratively amend and finalise legislation as it is debated?
It is interesting to discuss these kinds of issues with non-lawyers. It is easy to focus on the Legal Services Act, but maybe in ten years' time we will look back and see that the really big changes have been driven by something entirely different?
If anyone local is interested in the KC by the way you can find some more details and apply to join via the Groupsite.
Reader Comments (5)
I think that the Legal Services Act is a bit of a sideshow. I will break this down in to two areas that seem to draw the most attention but effectively are a consequence of the Act; investing in a law firm and offering legal services via brands...the now infamous Tesco Law. I'll park the latter for now as that is a can of worms.
I don't think investing in a law firm is the 'given' that many think it will be and I think a number of senior partners who think that they just need to hand over the keys are in for a bit of a shock.
I base this on the fact that most law firms, whilst they are businesses are not run like businesses...or at least not run in a way that potential investors run businesses. So to just assume external capital will do what say institutions did to jobbers and stockbrokers in '87 is naive and even arrogant.
Coming back to the whole '2.0' thing. Just because brands aren't using engaging online technology is not the same as they won't. Trust me, they will. They will do this for one reason only. Not to be flash, gimmicky, funky or cool. But to be cost efficient...because that is what technology does.
So my advice to a law firm would be to look at the tech (2.0) option because it enables you to punch above your weight, it is affordable and when you marry it with the one big asset a legal practice (or individual solicitor) has over any brand...the high knowledge human being that can engage better than any call centre operative...you suddenly differentiate in a way that no brand can in your chosen market.
Can I just remind everyone. It is not about serving the whole market. It is about serving that part of the market where you can make margin on a stable base. Too many law firms will suffer because they will try to be all things to all people.
As to the conservative issue. Yes law firms are, partly because they don't know how the tech can work, partly because I think we all know a seismic shift is about to happen and normal human fear emotions kick in. But also because, to be blunt, they have for years had it pretty good. The times have now changed.
My advice? Talk to people who understand what is going on (ideally not other lawyers 'cos they haven't got the solution, they just have the same problems). Learn about what you can do so you can make informed choices. Start low and build/upgrade. In this ever moving, ever shifting rapid world, thankfully conversation is still a prized resource.
Interesting thread here.
In an ideal world, every company would be thinking about the future and their place in it - and deciding what they want to be doing and perhaps even how they want to do it before searching out the technology. I'm concerned that, at the moment, there is a degree of the technology leading the firm. While this can lead to gains in efficiency (and so is possibly necessary and a great leap forward for many law firms) it will not provide sustainable strategic advantage.
Firms should be thinking about the future. Yes look to see what the technology can do now - but also think (as wildly as possible) about what you want to do, who you want to do it for and how you want to go about doing it.
Thought first, technology second please!
Thanks for the comments both. I was surprised how useful it was to get a totally non-lawyer perspective on all of this really. It is interesting to see your views on how external technology and investment will impact as well.
Problem is Peter technology and future are partly (although not wholly) connected.
But to take your recommendation some (not all) of the key questions should be,
- how do i reduce the cost to serve
- maintain my quality standard
- attract and retain more clients profitably
Hence the need for technology.
As to what you want to do, my cloaked advice...don't march onto battlefields with a sword and axe when the other side have A-10 tankbusters, (I always wanted to use the A-10 in a blog, so there you go).
Took a step back Peter and thought a bit more about what you said. I can see your point about 'thought.'
Absolutely. I deal with technology all day as my job and if for no other reason than to pacify my conscience I always make sure that my prospects/clients understand what they are getting with our technology.
If they do not show me an appetite then I will gently steer them away. You can take a horse to water... Plus a happy customer is a renewing customer. You have to accept that sometimes the timing is not right.
Easy for a salesman to just take the cheque but that is short termist because if the client doesn't 'get it' then things will ultimately become awkward.
So I would agree with your thought analysis. Think about what you want to do BUT make sure you talk things through with people who understand markets and options that you may not be that familiar with. Technology is a very specialised area, not a hobby.