Let's Operationalize the Revolution a Bit, Shall We?
It's been fun as a lawyer to jump into social media. But I wonder if the optimism of legal professionals on how social media will remake the legal profession is warranted, or at least premature?
First, a disclaimer. I don't claim any particular expertise in social media or how technology will change the lawyering process. I'm just a lawyer who is less conservative than your typical lawyer when it comes to trying out new tools. I've been blogging (at a few different blogs) for half a decade [April 2004 is around when I first started blogging!] [I double checked and it was actually in January 2003, not that this matters!]. I also believe strongly in the non-office, paper-less setup, and I've filed more than my fair share of meaty briefs from my dining room table (see, e.g., here). I'm serious about my legal practice but I don't take myself so seriously that I think I cannot make time to explore new tools such as Facebook, Twitter (etc.). I have a fair amount of professional curiosity. The cost of use is relatively low, the risks minimal (if you are mature about it), and since I practice in the space, I figure it behooves me to have some practical experience in it. I know that I have a lot to learn about the technology of lawyering, and as with any new tool that comes along, half the fun is connecting with others who share their experiences. Twitter has been particularly enjoyable in this regard, and I've learned a lot by following legal professionals (e.g., Shalini G., Adrian Lurssen; Nicole Black; Kevin O'Keefe; Carolyn Elefant; Stephanie Kimbro; Susan Cartier Liebel) who experiment and share their experiences with the newtoy tool known as "social media". In short, I don't claim to have any expertise in this, but I've been participating enough to make an informed call on when someone is being overly exuberant. (In colloquial terms, let's just say I know enough when to call bs.) Through my participation in social media, I came across a book written by Richard Susskind that comments on big picture changes coming to the legal profession. Susskind wrote a book (which I have yet to read) which predicts that
the lawyering profession will be so fundamentally changed in the near
future that we will not recognize lawyers, or at least law firms as we
know them today. I don't know that I would have come across Richard Susskind or his book "The End of Lawyers" through another channel. If so, I certainly would not have paid as much attention to it.
Because of how I heard about Susskind and what people I followed were saying about him, I was particularly intrigued to learn that he was presenting a keynote at a recent legal/tech. conference in Chicago. I followed along as people twitted reactions or quotes from his keynote (using hashtags). Given recent layoffs at law firms and a serious uptick in adoption of social media tools by lawyers, I figured Susskind's keynote would have some zingers with present day examples which illustrated his point about the ongoing legal practice revolution. One of his basic points is that most people conceive of the revolution along the lines of a change in the delivery mechanism of legal services. For example, you email/efile documents and have Skype conference calls, rather than filing paper versions or making the client come into your conference room for a meeting. In Susskind's eyes, these changes are not really core changes and are the precursor to more fundamental changes. According to Susskind (as I understand his view) the core function of a lawyer will change in the coming years, so much so that we won't be able to recognize a lawyer when we see one. (Along these lines, another legal professional did a short video blurb on what it means to be a "Googley Lawyer." This widely linked video used Google and its behavior as a model for how lawyers should approach the process.)
So I was excited to see that Nicole Black posted a collection of tweets from Susskind's keynote. I thought this would be an opportunity to see a collection of the most poignant quotes and reactions from Susskind's talk, in realtime, using social media, as relayed by the cutting edge participants in the revolution. What more could someone ask for? I was disappointed. Although Ms. Black's page is a cool use of Twitter (as a way to collect instant reactions to a talk and post them in one place), and itself reflects some of the basic changes in the profession, the reactions themselves were a little short on substance. In the words of a colleague - who will forever have my respect for using this word - the reactions underscore the fact that the revolution sorely needs to be "operationalized." The tweets are basically a collection of buzzwords that will give any dot com marketing brochure a run for the money. I came across such gems as "be proactive - invent the future - make it happen," and "as we move from customization to commoditization quality goes up." I didn't come across a single example or piece of advice on how technology will fundamentally reshape the legal profession and what the people in the room could do in order to make sure they participated. (Again, we're not talking about skyping and instant messaging with clients - the people in the room have long embraced this type of change and Susskind himself posits that this is not the type of change he has in mind.)
Here was what was probably billed in the minds of some people as ground zero for the legal revolution and it seemed like the keynote speech was merely a collection of marketing soundbites. The best soundbite I saw actually struck me as kind of wacky: "Social networking is the next generation of email. If you're not on it, your competition will be." Someone actually mentioned the possibility of delivery of legal services through social networks.
Let's hold on for a minute here. (I'm envisioning the record player-scratch sound you hear when a scene hits a rewind button on video.) Social networking is great, and it allows people (including myself) to connect with others, be they potential clients, other lawyers, service providers, etc. I don't deny that it's opened up my world to connections that will likely result in additional business, referrals, people to bounce ideas off of. But the idea that social networking will effect a transformation of the legal profession in a manner envisioned by Susskind? I'm not sold. Worse yet, I was somewhat disappointed that this didn't generate additional discussion. Legal professionals are supposed to be critical. We're not supposed to buy into marketing-speak. But from following the #legaltech hashtag, I didn't get the impression that we were engaging in much critical thinking. We were not only drinking the Kool Aid, we were the ones making it! The fact that Susskind placed such an inordinate emphasis on social networking also made me think of whether Susskind had sat down and tried out these tools. Is he on Twitter? Facebook? [correction: I guess he is on Facebook, not that this means anything...] His ode to social networking seems like a serious reach, and worse yet, a statement from someone who lacks practical experience in what he's talking about. If this is the best example he could come up with I'm half tempted to dismiss him as a visionary that lacks sufficient practical moorings to make a serious difference. (I should probably read his book first, but that's another story.)
Maybe I'm missing something. Feel free to enlighten me in the comments. A quick note as to what I'm not talking about. I'm not talking about the following changes which I readily admit are taking place:
First, a disclaimer. I don't claim any particular expertise in social media or how technology will change the lawyering process. I'm just a lawyer who is less conservative than your typical lawyer when it comes to trying out new tools. I've been blogging (at a few different blogs) for half a decade [April 2004 is around when I first started blogging!] [I double checked and it was actually in January 2003, not that this matters!]. I also believe strongly in the non-office, paper-less setup, and I've filed more than my fair share of meaty briefs from my dining room table (see, e.g., here). I'm serious about my legal practice but I don't take myself so seriously that I think I cannot make time to explore new tools such as Facebook, Twitter (etc.). I have a fair amount of professional curiosity. The cost of use is relatively low, the risks minimal (if you are mature about it), and since I practice in the space, I figure it behooves me to have some practical experience in it. I know that I have a lot to learn about the technology of lawyering, and as with any new tool that comes along, half the fun is connecting with others who share their experiences. Twitter has been particularly enjoyable in this regard, and I've learned a lot by following legal professionals (e.g., Shalini G., Adrian Lurssen; Nicole Black; Kevin O'Keefe; Carolyn Elefant; Stephanie Kimbro; Susan Cartier Liebel) who experiment and share their experiences with the new
Because of how I heard about Susskind and what people I followed were saying about him, I was particularly intrigued to learn that he was presenting a keynote at a recent legal/tech. conference in Chicago. I followed along as people twitted reactions or quotes from his keynote (using hashtags). Given recent layoffs at law firms and a serious uptick in adoption of social media tools by lawyers, I figured Susskind's keynote would have some zingers with present day examples which illustrated his point about the ongoing legal practice revolution. One of his basic points is that most people conceive of the revolution along the lines of a change in the delivery mechanism of legal services. For example, you email/efile documents and have Skype conference calls, rather than filing paper versions or making the client come into your conference room for a meeting. In Susskind's eyes, these changes are not really core changes and are the precursor to more fundamental changes. According to Susskind (as I understand his view) the core function of a lawyer will change in the coming years, so much so that we won't be able to recognize a lawyer when we see one. (Along these lines, another legal professional did a short video blurb on what it means to be a "Googley Lawyer." This widely linked video used Google and its behavior as a model for how lawyers should approach the process.)
So I was excited to see that Nicole Black posted a collection of tweets from Susskind's keynote. I thought this would be an opportunity to see a collection of the most poignant quotes and reactions from Susskind's talk, in realtime, using social media, as relayed by the cutting edge participants in the revolution. What more could someone ask for? I was disappointed. Although Ms. Black's page is a cool use of Twitter (as a way to collect instant reactions to a talk and post them in one place), and itself reflects some of the basic changes in the profession, the reactions themselves were a little short on substance. In the words of a colleague - who will forever have my respect for using this word - the reactions underscore the fact that the revolution sorely needs to be "operationalized." The tweets are basically a collection of buzzwords that will give any dot com marketing brochure a run for the money. I came across such gems as "be proactive - invent the future - make it happen," and "as we move from customization to commoditization quality goes up." I didn't come across a single example or piece of advice on how technology will fundamentally reshape the legal profession and what the people in the room could do in order to make sure they participated. (Again, we're not talking about skyping and instant messaging with clients - the people in the room have long embraced this type of change and Susskind himself posits that this is not the type of change he has in mind.)
Here was what was probably billed in the minds of some people as ground zero for the legal revolution and it seemed like the keynote speech was merely a collection of marketing soundbites. The best soundbite I saw actually struck me as kind of wacky: "Social networking is the next generation of email. If you're not on it, your competition will be." Someone actually mentioned the possibility of delivery of legal services through social networks.
Let's hold on for a minute here. (I'm envisioning the record player-scratch sound you hear when a scene hits a rewind button on video.) Social networking is great, and it allows people (including myself) to connect with others, be they potential clients, other lawyers, service providers, etc. I don't deny that it's opened up my world to connections that will likely result in additional business, referrals, people to bounce ideas off of. But the idea that social networking will effect a transformation of the legal profession in a manner envisioned by Susskind? I'm not sold. Worse yet, I was somewhat disappointed that this didn't generate additional discussion. Legal professionals are supposed to be critical. We're not supposed to buy into marketing-speak. But from following the #legaltech hashtag, I didn't get the impression that we were engaging in much critical thinking. We were not only drinking the Kool Aid, we were the ones making it! The fact that Susskind placed such an inordinate emphasis on social networking also made me think of whether Susskind had sat down and tried out these tools. Is he on Twitter? Facebook? [correction: I guess he is on Facebook, not that this means anything...] His ode to social networking seems like a serious reach, and worse yet, a statement from someone who lacks practical experience in what he's talking about. If this is the best example he could come up with I'm half tempted to dismiss him as a visionary that lacks sufficient practical moorings to make a serious difference. (I should probably read his book first, but that's another story.)
Maybe I'm missing something. Feel free to enlighten me in the comments. A quick note as to what I'm not talking about. I'm not talking about the following changes which I readily admit are taking place:
- lawyers disseminating information through webinars and other online channels (JD Supra; LexBlog; Justia), thereby broadening the information base available to consumers
- outsourcing document review and administrative functions
- lawyers mentoring one another and further enhancing legal education (e.g., SPU)
- lawyer ratings sites (e.g., Avvo) which allow consumers to evaluate potential lawyers and allow lawyers to engage with potential clients
- lawyers going paperless (pdf for lawyers)
- VLO (probably the closest thing to what Susskind is talking about and the most "interesting" change in my mind)
Susskind's speech was a quick summary of his book and, from what others said, the same speech he's given elsewhere. So, for that reason, it was not all that in depth.
I've only read the very beginning of his book, but I expect it will be illuminating in terms of examples of the main points that he sets forth therein.
That being said, the examples you set out in the end of your post are exactly what he's talking about, as I understand it, and as I see it, from my own perspective.
The practice of law and communicatons between lawyers and clients will be increasingly conducted online. Many functions will be outsourced (paralegals, assistants, associate research and writing)--as in occurring outside of the office-thus saving overhead.
Clients will use online services and forms for basic document drafting rather than lawyers.
Lawyers will engage on sites like JDSupra and Avvo--as will potential clients, thus creating a type of "social network" envisioned by Susskind.
There's no way to accurately predict where the legal field and technology will go in the future. I agree 100% with Gary Vaynerchuk when he says that the smart business person, rather than trying to predict, is very observant and notices trends and capitalizes on them before anyone else.
Smart lawyers will: 1) Understand social media, tehcnology & Web 2.0 2) pay attention to those phenoms and 3) capitalize on them.
They are the wave of the future. Ignoring them will result in nothing good for the legal profession.
Reply to this
First, thanks for mentioning Solo Practice University.
The reality is, the same way the inernet allowed for decentralizing of the corporate office 9-5 structure where people had to be centralized in order to produce work product through supervision and management, the legal firm (through web 2.0 applications) will have the ability to decentralize its operations even further. When lawyers come together now and lawyers and clients come together now it will be in a newly created structure which can and will include VLO's, outsourcing of various legal functions not just to other professionals but to the clients themselves.
Social media is a broad term. It is any technical medium that permits people to interact so it is not limited to Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter which is an open platform. It can be a platfform allowing collaboration between clients, say, in a class action or online private mediation.
These are just my initial thoughts on your post. But these are absolute ways you can expect to see technology redefine how legal services are rendered.
Reply to this
I don't think that you are missing much Mr. Balasubramani. But,if I was an IT person and wanted to make money selling to lawyers, I might spread the hype like Mr. Susskind and the dozens of other 'selling professionals' one can find on social media. It is an attractive time to try and make money off hard-working lawyers by offering up some ways one might be able to go to work in pajamas. If I authored some estate planning or guardianship documents/products and was trying to convince the masses that they needed them; I might get a TV show and pitch them via social media. However, I think most lawyers and in particular litigators are going to have to earn their money the old-fashioned way (for the most part) by actually meeting with clients, witnesses, performing discovery and going to court for quite some time (hopefully). I guess for me social media is a way to gather/process information and potentially attract and gain clients. Some of the free lawyer advertising sites like Cornell, Avvo, etc. have turned out to be useful for me. I wrote kind of a reactionary blurb on your general topic here: http://www.seattlelitigationjournal.com/
Reply to this
Personally, I believe that Susskind is far, far more radical than his book lets on or than anyone could ever imagine. (and for the record, I did read the book).
As students of history know, progress comes through quantitative and qualitative change. There's that gap between quantitative and qualitative change where we need that push - whether it's revolution, as Marx believes or that leap of faith/paradigm shift as Thomas Kuhn posits. But it's the quantitative changes that always precede that final jump.
Right now, we are within the period of quantitative changes - and I don't think Susskind would disagree. What we are seeing are different-by-degree ways that law firms are providing essentially the same services. Sure, firms are using alternative billing to charge different prices and different forms - like solo collaboratives (sort of like a decentralized law firm) or VLOs (some of which provide lawyer-guided form services) but ultimately, these are all different ways of delivering the SAME service. It's when the service itself changes that we're talking 'bout a revolution.
But as I noted earlier, quantitative steps are the precursor of qualitative change, particularly in the legal profession where the engrained nature of precedent deters radicalism (can you think of another field where success depends so heavily on the ability to hew closely to the past?) Remember, Susskind's book was written the context of the UK's Legal Services Act, which loosens up lawyers' monopoly and allows non-lawyers to provide legal services and own shares of law firms. Now, that's radical.
So how does the quantitative relate to the qualitative? Well, once lawyers start providing "products" rather than services or begin to streamline delivery of services with technology, legal services are no longer specialized. They become something that anyone can provide. With today's VLOs, lawyers provide guided assistance to litigants who seek to fill out forms. But since litigants don't see the lawyers, perhaps the next step is for paralegals to provide the "back end" with a lawyer reviewing it. Fairly soon, the system is so streamlined, then why have a lawyer providing the oversight at all - just like H&R; Block trains non-CPAs to fill out forms at tax time. That's the paradigm shift - having non-lawyers providing what we traditionally review as legal services within the purview of the monopoly legal provider.
Same true for regulatory or compliance work that firms do. Let's say they turn compliance into a subscription service or product. Makes it easier for a non-lawyer to take over.
That's the true radicalism behind Susskind as I read him - and that's what most marketers, and to be honest, most other lawyers miss (because lawyers are not students of history - really - history has Marx & Hegel, science has Kuhn and we have...Richard Susskind?!)
Reply to this
I'm sort of speechless after reading this post, but I will try. :-)
How silly is it to criticize a book you haven't read and a speech you didn't hear based on a collection of a couple of dozen Tweets someone posted about it?
You note "[t]he fact that Susskind placed such an inordinate emphasis on social networking." But, of course that is not a fact at all because it is not true. One would think a lawyer, trained to objectively evaluate information, might give a little thought to the fact that those who are so excited about Twitter that they "Live Tweet" a speech might tend to seize on and pass along comments about Twitter a bit disproportionally to their audience who were all reading via Twitter. What he really said, IMHO if you are interested, was that one of the factors that may change the legal profession is that advances in technology that allow people to work together collaboratively more easily. Social media is a piece of that, currently a highly visible one, but by no means the largest or most significant. A better example (mine, not his) would several small lawyer practice groups or firms using online collaborative technology to form a large team to match a large law firm's resources for a single matter for a client. Or, for an example he did use, a group of similarly situated clients forming their own online group to discuss how they have handled some specific legal matters, without their outside counsel being invited to participate.
He gave a great outline of how some legal work has progressed from individually-crafted solutions to those that rely in part on document assembly and internal precedent-based software. He then talked about where that path may lead in the future. But, you'll have a chance to judge the speech directly when it gets posted to the ABA TECHSHOW website for viewing in a few weeks. He certainly used some buzz-phrases to summarize some of his points-after he made them-but that was not the content of his talk, at least in my view.
As with so many Internet postings, you certainly did more to cause people to form an opinion about you that your intended subject.
Reply to this
Good comments all - thanks.
Mr. Calloway - two points. First, I didn't expect to receive a detailed summary through the twitter feed. What I did expect is something other than soundbites - which we both seem to agree are largely useless.
Second, your point - or this discussion - reinforces the limitations or downsides. According to you, Susskind's point just got tweaked through being relayed in a speech and in my comments here. Just think what this says about giving legal advice through social networks? Doesn't engender much confidence.
As to the bigger picture I agree that things like outsourcing is here to stay. In the last few cases I worked on I gave my clients a choice. They could pay me or an associate to get deep into the document review, or they could participate and cut down the costs and bring their knowledge to the table. This is tricky, but often works out well. (Document review is an admin-heavy task and often the client is better suited to do it than the lawyer.) I don't deny this. I'm very open to outsourcing tasks (subject to ethical rules) to people in India. I'm just less sold on the social media angle as radically improving legal services.
We'll see what's in store.
Reply to this